The aclu is coming!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The ACLU stand on the Second Amendment aligns with Heller v. Wash. DC (SCOTUS 07-290). That's the current reading of Article II, and the ACLU is up to speed on it.

Ask them something germane -- like about Gitmo and habeus corpus. Before you get all fired up and indignant, read up on Gitmo and habeus corpus so you don't embarass the gun owners in the nation who understand American Civil Liberties and the current state of stare decisis.
 
Keep in mind that the National ACLU has not acted against individual RKBA. They have acted on behalf of the 4th in cases that inadvertently supported 2A. State ACLU offices have acted directly on behalf of RKBA supporting the 2A as an individual right protected by the BOR just like the 1A. The two examples I'm aware of are the Texas and the Nevada state ACLUs who have taken our approach to 2A. It is the neutrality of the National ACLU on the individual interpretation of the 2A that needs to change.

I would focus on that issue. If the Michigan ACLU hasn't supported the 2A in the past, ask them if they intend to change the state organization position in the light of Heller just as other state ACLUs have supported the 2A prior to Heller.

Do your homework and be sure you understand what the Michigan ACLU's position is and not just assume that the National organization's positions are parroted at the state level.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/11/only-nevada-aclu-opposes-gun-control/

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/u...8400&en=1844ac9bdf566719&ei=5087 &oref=slogin

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/ACLU_Pr...igion,_drugs,_guns_and_impeaching_George_Bush

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/07/might-the-aclu.html

Here's a good read on Nevada before their 2A activism on behalf of the individual RKBA. It contains several great points you can use. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1997/Oct-30-Thu-1997/opinion/6312337.html
 
Last edited:
hso,

Excellent info and level-headed take.

My main points to the OP would be to avoid any kind of "gotcha" tactics, labeling, or baiting. Know your facts, and their facts, in and out.
 
I seem to recall that the ACLU was NOT interested in protecting the constitutional rights of the American Nazi Party when they applied for a permit to march in Skokie Il, a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago. Only one (Jewish) lawyer from the ACLU took on their case stating that "Rights are Rights and emotions have no precedence to the inaliable Rights that the Constitution grants ALL citizens." What this Jewish lawyer proved is that very few of the ACLU fight for Rights unless they agree with them on an emotional level (which makes them IMO stereotypical Liberals) and secondly, that we as humans are, for the most part stereotypical in our herd mentality, precisely why the Constitution was written, to provide safety and equality for all. This Jewish lawyer (very brave man IMO) fought against the reppression of the Constitution and NOT for the American Nazi Party, he was ultimately ostracized by the Jewish community AND the ACLU. He also won the case although the Nazi's already decided to move their march from Skokie to Humboldt Park in Chicago, a place where the Nazi's figured they would have more support and less problems. The ACLU (IMO) picks it's fights and is NOT a champion of the Constitution as a complete article.
 
hso writes:
Keep in mind that the National ACLU has not acted against individual RKBA.

The National ACLU claims to be neutral on gun control stating:
What is the ACLU's position on gun control?
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe 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. For more information, please read our statement on gun control.

The link to their "statement on gun control" leads to a blank page currently, but the web archive gives their policy statement dating to 2002 with the statement:
Gun Control (3/4/2002)
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.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

While individual state organizations in Nevada, Texas, and Arizona differ in their support of RKBA, certainly the national ACLU continues to be guided by their policy #47 adopted in 1979 :
Gun Control Policy #47

The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and
adopted demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective
one, existing only in the collective population of each state for
the purpose of maintaining an effective state militia.
The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing
interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's
right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency
of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and
military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is
not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no
constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.
Nor does the ACLU believe that there is a significant civil
liberties value apart from the Second Amendment in an individual
right to own or use firearms. Interests of privacy and self-
expression may be involved in any individual's choice of
activities or possessions, but these interests are attenuated
where the activity, or the object sought to be possessed, is
inherently dangerous to others. With respect to firearms, the
ACLU believes that this quality of dangerousness justifies legal
regulation which substantially restricts the individual's
interest in freedom of choice. 1/
However, particular federal or state laws on licensing,
registration, prohibition or other regulation of the manufacture,
shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil
liberties questions. For example, the enforcement process of
systems of licensing, registration, or prohibition may threaten
extensive invasions of privacy as owners are required to disclose
details of ownership and information about their personal
history, views, and associations. Furthermore, police
enforcement or such schemes may encourage entrapment, illegal
searches and other means which violate civil liberties.
The ACLU takes the position that any such legislation must
be drafted bearing these problems in mind and seeking to minimize
them. [Board Minutes, June 14-15, 1979.]

If you ask Senators Chuck Schumer or John Kerry or Barack Obama whether they support the Second Amendment, the answer will be that they do. However, when they make that statement, they don't mean the same thing that I would in such an answer.

The devil is in the details.

The ACLU national organization says it is neutral on gun control, but their details include their statement that the "Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership". But all the restrictions proposed by gun control proponents are "reasonable" -- just look at their language.

"shall not be infringed" becomes "its a matter for the legislature and courts to determine whether the infringement is reasonable."

So, the national ACLU's notion of neutrality is clear. It means they won't stand in the way of any infringement of the Second Amendment which doesn't affect the other amendments.

Some neutrality!

I have to wonder about people who would describe the ACLU as neutral. Would they also tell us that Schumer, Kerry and Obama support the Second Amendment?
 
If you ask Senators Chuck Schumer or John Kerry or Barack Obama whether they support the Second Amendment, the answer will be that they do. However, when they make that statement, they don't mean the same thing that I would in such an answer.


There's a world of difference between saying you're neutral and actively working to destroy RKBA all the while you're saying it and saying you're neutral and doing nothing for or against RKBA. The ACLU hasn't put a lawyer in a courtroom working against us while Schumer and Kerry have a well known record working against us.

I honestly don't know where this hatred for the ACLU comes from in the gun community since refusing to help us is all they're guilty of.
 
hso says:
I honestly don't know where this hatred for the ACLU comes from in the gun community since refusing to help us is all they're guilty of.

They are guilty of far more than just "refusing to help us." After the Heller ruling, the national ACLU posted the statement:
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.

Let me put it in terms you might understand: Suppose a person witnesses an ongoing attack of a young woman by a knife wielding assailant who returns again and again over a 20 minute period to stab the woman. Suppose the woman screams for help many times over this period. Suppose this person says, I'm neutral and will not call the police to intervene nor intervene myself.

Do you find that neutral person worthy of admiration? or worthy of contempt?

The ACLU has hidden behind the Miller decision and ignored a number of other cases and history that find or show the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to arms. They have proclaimed neutrality while ignoring the mugging the American constitution has taken at the hands of gangs of scummy politician who lie at every turn.

And, as they say, "that's not all folks". The idea that the ACLU is actually neutral is crap -- if you don't know so, it is only because you are willfully ignorant.
 
Do you find that neutral person worthy of admiration? or worthy of contempt?
The ACLU is not a person; it is an organization.

The point is that, regardless of their stated position, they are not actively working in opposition to us. We don't need their help. Why kick this sleeping dog? Let it be.
 
Arrrrghhh! I oughta delete everything after Post 28, on.

Read the opening post. This thread is NOT about anybody's opinion of the ACLU or what they did about Nazis or whatever.

The deal is for questions such as YOU might ask in a POLITE, public gathering.

Always remember you're an ambassador for the Second Amendment. Act like it.

:(, Art
 
Art, you are exactly right -- the original poster had the intent to "spank" the ACLU on gun control.

If I stepped over the bounds of discussing means by which the ACLU might be spanked by expressing an opinion about the ACLU, I plea responding to a comment by the moderator hso. If the response is out of bounds, so is the question and I suggest you guys take it up internally before you come out in a public thrashing of members.

As for Henry Bowman's point that the ACLU is an organization, not a person, I'm amazed he thinks others are so clueless as to not see the distinction.

Obviously, I had presented an analogy to explain to hso something he didn't understand. It is only an analogy.

If you believe, as do I, that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individuals, that this right is essential to liberty and that gun control going beyond denial to certain criminals is unconstitutional, what are you to think of an organization that supports politicians who continually try to diminish this right.

Oh, but the ACLU isn't actively working against us, you might say, they are just supporting politicians who are working against us (because of these politicians are good for other issues). Sorry, this sort of distinction about "actively working against us" is lost on me.

Now, with the Supreme Court saying the DC ban on handguns isn't reasonable by any standard and that it is unconstitutional, the ACLU takes the position that the Court is wrong.

The national ACLU seems to be awake and barking on gun control to me.
 
Read the opening post. This thread is NOT about anybody's opinion of the ACLU or what they did about Nazis or whatever.

The OP was looking for ammunition to use against the ACLU in their stance against the 2A. IMO, the 2A is no more nor more less important than many of the other ammendments, and the reason I wrote what I did was to prove that the ACLU will shred the document wherever and whenever it appeals to them. In the case of the Chicago Nazis, it was the first amendment, in the case of Heller, it is the second that they are in dissent of. So I respectfully disagree with you Art. Nazi's and the First Amendment have as much to do with the OP's question as Heller and the Second Amendment.
The ACLU's current stance is that the 2nd amendment is a collective right even though 'the right of the people..shall not be infringed' clearly applies to individuals just as the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments mention 'people ' in a way applicible to individuals...not just society as a whole.
First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Right of the people included American Nazi's yet they decided to ignore their rights. (No, I don't like Nazi's either). My point? The ACLU ignores or interprets as they see fit and therefore are dangerous and should be challenged as the OP is planning, and freedom loving members here are just trying to be helpful in supplying OP with options.
 
I'll keep this short, don't wear your Highroad ID on your lapel.

Please keep us informed, I will be looking for the outcome later.
 
Guys... I've said this before, and I'll probably say it again...

Join the ACLU.

The "liberals" didn't take over this, and other, organizations by standing outside and protesting, or being adversarial in meetings. They became part of the organizations, and took them over from within.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top