• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

If Heller Decision Acknowledges A Right - Will ACLU Become A Willing Supporter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re the Boston Globe article, Laurence Tribe is old news. Although a professed liberal, he's been publicly agreeing for years that the Second Amendment reflects an individual right (and bemoaning that circumstance and intellectual honesty forced that conclusion on him).
 
Hey, they joined with the Texas State Rifle Association to fight County DAs who were ticketing gun owners illegally. But national? Nah......
 
Hey, they joined with the Texas State Rifle Association to fight County DAs who were ticketing gun owners illegally.
Click to expand...

That was NOT the same ACLU for sure. That was a wholly separate entity in the Texas ACLU. All they have in common is the name unfortunately.

Like you say, nationally? No way. You're spot on there I think.
 
Oh good. Another "The ACLU is a communist tool of the antichrist" thread.

I suppose it will do no good to remind folks that when The Washington state library system blocked gun sites on their computers, it was the ACLU that stepped in. Or that when Kentucky tried to bar non-citizens from CCW, it was the ACLU that filed suit against them. Or that when Oliver North was being railroaded, it was the ACLU that defended him.

And the communism thing really ought to just be put up on Snopes so we can be done with it: "In St. Louis, Baldwin had been greatly influenced by the radical social movement of the anarchist Emma Goldman. He joined the Industrial Workers of the World. In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. He later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned 'the inhuman communist police state tyranny'. In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members". Link.

I'll tell what I really think, though: gunners complain that the ACLU would like to write the second amendment out of the BoR, but themselves sound like they'd like to write out everything EXCEPT the second.
 
The ACLU has not nor ever will care about gun rights. They will support gun owners on 1st or 4th amendment issues when it fits their overall agenda. However, their view of human rights comes from Amnesty, International (member of IANSA) rather than the Constitution.

I even e-mailed and asked if they would support 2nd amendment cases and the response that I got blathered on about 'reasonable regulation.' You know, reasonable things like a complete ban on handguns.
 
I suppose it will do no good to remind folks that when The Washington state library system blocked gun sites on their computers, it was the ACLU that stepped in. Or that when Kentucky tried to bar non-citizens from CCW, it was the ACLU that filed suit against them. Or that when Oliver North was being railroaded, it was the ACLU that defended him.
Click to expand...

You're wasting your typing telling that story.......here it is straight from their website:

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
Click to expand...

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
 
They seem to like defending those that really, really push the limits of what the document was designed for.
Click to expand...
I guess this is where opinions start to diverge but I think part of the appeal of the constitution is that is protects some really unpopular things. I want my 1st amendment rights group to stand up for the most offensive speech possible along with the regular stuff. I want my 2nd amendment rights group to support hunting guns and those scary baby killing black rifles and machine guns. This forum is filled with people who complain the NRA aren't staunch enough with their support for the 2nd but the ACLU is too staunch. I guess some days you can't win.


Personally I'd like to see them support it but I think they'd be faced with a very tough decision. A lot of the ACLU's donations come from people who will disagree with such a decision and feel its wrong. Can you throw your ability to protect the other 9 amendments under the bus even if its the right thing to do? I'd be happy to see support for 2nd amendment stuff slowly increase but I also don't want to hinder their ability to continue all the other good stuff they do. I don't think that will happen for quite some time though. Its not ideal but I like the other stuff they do so they'll get my money still.
 
They might. I would seriously propose that if Heller rules in our favor, that every one of us who is an NRA member, (or not,) join the ACLU and demand that they start taking 2A cases. It might just change their policy. Change starts from within in things like this.
 
it was the ACLU that stepped in. Or that when Kentucky tried to bar non-citizens from CCW, it was the ACLU that filed suit against them. Or that when Oliver North was being railroaded, it was the ACLU that defended him.
Click to expand...

The problem is their ideological limitations keep them from ever supporting the Second. So in each case mentioned, they came in on First or Fifth grounds--NEVER on Second.

Like I said before, they won't do it because they can't do it without risking their funding. It's an ideological blind spot and seriously undercuts their claim of Constitutional purity. They pride themselves on taking even very unpopular cases in the name of defending core rights, but while they'll defend chesters and nazis they won't defend the RKBA. I can't support an organization that places my rights BELOW those of the nazis or even worse.
 
They might have to. Let's consider the options...

If the SCOTUS decides in favor of an individual rights interpretation -

1 - ACLU changes their mind, agrees to support 2nd A rights - this puts them at odds with much of their support base and their own history as an organization.

2 - ACLU steadfastly maintains 2nd is collective, SCOTUS got it wrong. This puts them at odds with SCOTUS and the bulk of legal scholarship in this country, including many honest liberal legal scholars. But it keeps them from looking wishy-washy and they can hope to get a reversal at a future date if the balance of the court changes.

3 - ACLU admits 2nd is an individual right... but they feel that 2nd A cases are not their "specialty" and simply decline to take any 2A cases.

Any or all of these will likely require them to get very creative in explaining their position. I'll be interested to see which path they take. Option 3 probably involves the least amount of turmoil for them, so that is probably most likely, followed by option 2... Option 1 is still a possibility, however unlikely it may seem from their past history.

Good topic, I need to stock up on popcorn for this one...
 
I'll tell what I really think, though: gunners complain that the ACLU would like to write the second amendment out of the BoR, but themselves sound like they'd like to write out everything EXCEPT the second.
Click to expand...

That's the real issue - the NRA has no trouble at all giving massive donations to people who want to cripple every amendment except the 2nd.
  • "Letters of National Security" - who the heck cares, as long as you repeal the AWB? Get your NRA dollars right here.
  • Wiretaps without search warrants - why does that even matter? Get your NRA funds right here, brother - give us pre-ban magazines, and we'll give you the other 9 amendments.
  • Screw all that "no law respecting an establishment of religion" crap - this is a Christian country, son. You on our side about 50 BMG? How much money do you need?

Once NRA funded thugs have trashed the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments , will the 2nd even matter? When Cheney's successors decide to used "Letters of National Security" to monitor weapons and ammo sales to private citizens, how safe will your weapons be? When Cheney's successors use warrant-less wiretaps to monitor local gun clubs, how safe will your weapons be?

The Founding Fathers crafted a set of rights that work together to protect out freedoms - the NRA doesn't see, to understand that any more than the ACLU does. The only way I can see to support the entire BoR is to be a member of both the ACLU and the NRA. That's why I am.

At least one card carrying member of the ACLU will be very happy if the Supreme Court rules that the RKBA is an individual rights. :)

Mike
 
If they don't recognize it, the true face of a demon named "Hypocrisy" will be revealed.

I remain completely skeptical with regards to the ACLU, but I think we will certainly find out soon enough.

Till then it's all speculation...
 
As does an athletic supporter?

I expect that they will make a deceptive type statement that they "support the Constitution" but, -but do not agree fully on this point, or that point.
Many of them display the ubiquitous bumper sticker "Support Our Troops."
Support -how? Like Jane Fonda did? Spin is another word for deception.

The stace of Liberalism is Eliteism; they will not relinquish their king of the hill -I take the high ground and all others in my view, because they are beneath my lofty proclamation, are to be viewed below where I reside.
It is their justification and world view.

They do not dare, nor have the courage, to come to the truth of the matter, and thereby relinquish such standing for themselves. They cannot and will not look into the mirror of life, because they know who is to be found staring back at them.
 
I don't always agree with the individual cases the ACLU does or doesn't take, but I do agree with their mission.

The ACLU isn't the only group that doesn't view the second as an individual right. We wouldn't have Heller v. D.C. if everyone agreed it was an individual right. Now, if the Supremes rule that it IS an individual right, I would expect the ACLU to step up.

If it's the money they follow, why aren't we ALL donating? They are a huge legal power.
 
To tell you the truth, i don't know how they would stand. My gut tells me no, but logically I think yes. That is, if logic had a hand to play here.
Personally i don't like the ACLU, but i wont let that bias my judgment here. So i will play it safe and say they could.
 
They might. I would seriously propose that if Heller rules in our favor, that every one of us who is an NRA member, (or not,) join the ACLU and demand that they start taking 2A cases. It might just change their policy. Change starts from within in things like this.
Click to expand...

I realize that the view from my window is just that, but I'm running into more and more ACLU attorneys that believe in the 2nd as an individual right like the first. That change may already be occurring.
 
If it's the money they follow, why aren't we ALL donating? They are a huge legal power.
Click to expand...

If the majority of members of the ACLU supported the 2nd, the ACLU would support the 2nd.

It makes me laugh when people whine about the ACLU being elitist. What the heck does that mean - do you think they won't take your money? Do you think they are going to ask you whether you like white wine or Budweiser when you try to join? Has someone told you the application was in Latin? How the heck is it elitist?

Here's an empirical challenge for anyone who claims the the ACLU is B]elitist[/B]:

  1. Go to http://www.aclu.org
  2. Fill out the application.
  3. If the ACLU refuses to take your $20 because you're not a member of the elite, then post here.

If every member of the NRA joined the ACLU, then the ACLU would be pro-RKBA. What could be simpler?

Mike
 
LOL the ACLU supporting the 2nd amendment .... :rolleyes: Yeah, the day after Micheal Moore starts making home movies about the importance of daily carry. :p
 
My 2 cents....


.38Special's interesting comments lose all relevance in the face of TexasRifleman's quote of the OFFICAL ACLU position:


We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
Click to expand...




Where I come from, when a guy says "Hey, I believe X, I figure that he believes "X."

I don't do any mental gymnastics to make myself believe that he believes anything BUT "X."


So why is this even a question?


As for the Heller decision, we will wait and see-- but I wouldn't hold my breath.



-- John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Will ACLU Support Gun Rights After McDonald?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
S
  • Locked
ACLU blasted on own blog
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
bogie
B
Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
ACLU Second Amendment
Replies
4
Views
546
TexasRifleman
T
T
  • Locked
ACLU's updated stance on 2nd amendment rights
2 3 4 5
Replies
113
Views
8K
John828
J
J
  • Locked
Heller / Individual Rights / ACLU Policy #47
Replies
20
Views
1K
Ratzinger_p38
R
Back
Top