The ACLU on guns

Status
Not open for further replies.

.cheese.

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
3,808
I noticed it was listed on the NRA-ILA site that the ACLU has supported anti-gun groups either financially or otherwise.

As a member of the ACLU, and a former intern who the head of the local branch very much likes and wants to come back to work when I get a chance - I would like it if you guys can give me a breakdown of what exactly it is they are doing that is anti-gun so I know what to address.

I will certainly be contacting them about it. I didn't work for, and join, a group that is supposed to be working against our rights. I joined and worked for the ACLU to protect our rights, and while I know they don't protect the second - working against it is a whole separate issue that I need to know about.
 
Every thing I have read and heard over many years regarding the ACLU and the 2A has been negative in regards to their support for it. I do not know if
they have an officially posted position regarding it but their actions as near as can be determined do not support the Second. Being founded by persons of communist/socialist mentality would tend to make me believe they have no
use for self reliance, being able to take care of oneself flys in the face of socialist doctrine that the state should be all powerful telling the subjects what to do and how to live. The differences between socialism and communism are minimal at best.
 
From the ACLU themselves on 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.

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.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU on Gun Control
 
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/04/07/aclu-in-texas-helps-protect-traveling-gun-owners/
The American Civil Liberties Union has joined the National Rifle Association to help protect the rights of Texans to travel with their guns, a move that has almost everybody scratching their heads.

I’m not even sure I know what to make of it, but it’s quite true. Someone in the ACLU chapter down in Texas has apparently realized that the right to self-defense is as important as the right to speech.

That the ACLU in Texas is doing anything related to gun rights is highly unusual; the national organization’s official position, sharply at variance with the Constitution, what few Supreme Court decisions there have been, and the simple lessons of history, is that Americans don’t have a right to own firearms. (Their bizarre Second Amendment position is akin to arguing that the First Amendment only protects government employees’ right to official speech.)

Jacob Sullum from Reason reports:

The ACLU of Texas has joined with the Texas State Rifle Association and the NRA to fight local prosecutors who are defying a law aimed at protecting law-abiding Texans from being arrested for having guns in their cars. State law has long exempted people who have guns in their vehicles while “traveling” from being prosecuted for unlawful carrying of a weapon (UCW), an offense punishable by up to a year in jail. But the definition of “traveling” was fuzzy, leaving gun owners vulnerable to arrest, prosecution, and conviction, depending on how police officers, prosecutors, and judges decided to read and apply the law. In 2005, at the urging of the gun groups and the state ACLU, the legislature passed a law that creates a presumption of “traveling” for any motorist in a private vehicle who is not legally disqualified from owning a gun, does not belong to “a criminal street gang,” is not engaged in criminal activity (beyond minor traffic infractions), and is not carrying the gun in plain view. But in a report issued last February, the ACLU of Texas, the Texas State Rifle Association, and the Texas Criminal Justice Association showed that many district and county attorney**** and Run are instructing police to carry on as before, arresting motorists for UCW at their discretion and letting prosecutors and judges sort things out. —

That’s right, in Texas, the legislature has specifically said not to bother ordinary people who are traveling with their guns, people like Katy geologist Keith Patton, who lost a $300 pistol he’d just bought, $1,500 in attorney’s fees, $268 in vehicle impound fees, and a night in jail, because local prosecutors and cops are still harassing law-abiding citizens by arresting them and bringing them up on trumped-up charges.

The controversy, such as can be said to exist, is largely manufactured by the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, which advised local prosecutors to ignore the plain meaning of the law and the intent of the legislature and that police could still arrest law-abiding citizens because, they said, a court had to decide if they were “traveling.”

“Therefore,” it declared, “officers are still acting within their lawful discretion if they arrest a person who might qualify for the traveling defense or the new traveling presumption.”

Or, as Charles A. Rosenthal Jr., the district attorney of Harris County, which includes Houston, argued, “The presumption of innocence does not make the person innocent.”

Will Harrell, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said that even before the current dispute, his group and the N.R.A. had been collaborating on racial profiling issues, particularly on what he called a “Bubba profile” that made certain white men the focus of gun checks by the police. — New York Times

Harrell said his collaboration with the Texas State Rifle Association came easy. And, “the police don’t know what to think of it,” he told the Times.

What exactly is the ACLU doing with the gun people? I’m not sure, but if they’re finally starting to protect the civil rights of gun owners, I can hardly complain.
 
From what I can gather, the Texas ACLU is a different breed than the other chapters in that it actually cares about defending ALL of our rights.
 
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] 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." - Policy #47 [emphasis mine]

...and they call that a "neutral" position. :scrutiny:

Also, the ACLU of Southern California posted (as recently as 2003):
The ACLU of Southern California believes effective gun control especially of handguns and assault weapons is essential to curbing the escalating violence in our society. - as archived at web.archive.org

That's enough for me.

If you'll pardon the pithy folk aphorism; "Therefore, if they ain't for us they must be agin us..." - [And bonus points if you know who got that one into newsprint ;) ]
 
Notice how the ACLU has adopted the generic "assault weapon" moniker. And we've all seen how "assault weapon" can be morphed to cover anything from an AK-47 to a 10/22 to a pump action shotgun with the dreaded barrel shroud.

They push for "common sense" gun control, then change the meaning of the word, thus expanding the boundaries of their ban far beyond what the original legislation proposed.

As Carolyn McCarthy proved, most of the banners don't even know what they're banning.

The ACLU is the enemy, pure and simple.
 
If all pro-gun people refused employment with organizations such as the ACLU there will be no pro-gun people working within those groups.

You can be much more effective and useful within the organization, where you might be able to influence it to at least some extent, than outside as a member of the resentfuls.

In those situations more can be done by example than by diatribe. What I mean is that if you are a sensible, responsible, levelheaded, likeable, and "normal" person who does his work well--and who does not try to convert or confront anyone--you demonstrate that not all gun owners are fanatics or lunatics.

We can use that kind of representation. Take the job. Don't get bogged down in the muck. Do some good.
 
I'm a member of the ACLU and the NRA. I care deeply about the 1st and the 2nd, and each group is very good at defending their speciality.
 
From the ACLU:

"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.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

So everything else I have read said they have really fought neither way on the issue, the reason they may have funded other groups that have is due to that group supporting 1st A rights or the like.

Their reasoning:

"The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

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."

I agree with the above, join both the ACLU and the NRA, the ACLU for 1a rights, the NRA for 2a rights.
 
As a card carrying member of BOTH the ACLU AND the NRA, I look at it this way...

The ACLU works hard to protect MOST of our rights.
The NRA works hard to protect the right the ACLU doesnt protect.

That way, I'm covered. :)

The problem with the Constitution is, either it works for EVERYONE, or it doesn't work at all. :) These two groups disagree on different points, but the big picture is the same for both - "Defend Freedom or Lose It".
 
NM234 - do you actually believe that the 2nd ammendment was meant to protect states' rights to maintain militias?

This is such a transparent fabrication, a tortured reading, and intellectually dishonest. I don't think any person with any kind of honesty can read the 2nd and believe that it does not apply to "the people."

The fact that the ACLU has, as its official policy, decided to write an item off of the bill of rights on the basis of such a flimsy excuse, discredits the entire organization.

What other civil right will they similarly "explain away" as soon as it becomes inconvenient for the advancement of their social agenda?

For all the other civil rights, they promote as wide a reading as possible. Flag burning? It's a form of "speech." Abortion? It's protected by a right to privacy that is obvious if you read between the lines. But the second ammendment, which is there in obvious plain language, somehow "doesn't count."

Sorry; this is not a principled organization pursuing civil rights idealistically. This is a left wing political advocacy organization wrapping itself in the cloak of civil rights.
 
the problem with the aclu is their hypocrisy. they will fight with unabated zeal and uncompromising passion to protect all the amendments in the bill of rights...cept for the 2nd amendment.

they take all the amendments and say, "this is the law, no ifs ands or buts"....cept for the 2nd amendment. they rationalize why the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to citizens.

the aclu are hypocrites. having said that, they do protect most of our civil liberties. until another organization comes along that respects the constitution in it's entirety the alcu is the only 800lbs gorilla when it comes to keeping the government in check with regard to our civil liberties.
 
The preamble of the US Constitution begins... WE THE PEOPLE
The First Amendment... or the Right of THE PEOPLE..
The Second Amendment... the Right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...
The Fourth Amendment... The Right of THE PEOPLE to be secure...
The Ninth Amendment... retained by THE PEOPLE.
The Tenth Amendment... or to THE PEOPLE.

And several places throughout the body of the Constitution references "the People" When the Founders wrote the Constitution they were very clear as to when they were refering to the Central Government, the States (often refered to as "the Many States") and the people.
 
As I stated before, I am against gun control. I just posted that to help clarify the ACLU's stance. And I do agree with them on most things; although I would never do it, I don't think flag burning should be illegal so long as you own the flag and its done in a manner that does not risk catching anything on fire (I sorta see it as both a property thing and a speech thing, you buy the flag and you are allowed to speak against the government); I am somewhat pro-choice (only for the first couple months, before the fetus develops any ability to think (before even risking hitting that point) ; I don't feel its more alive than a sperm or egg at that point; also I can see it being a privacy issue given doctor/patient rights). Also the ACLU has defended conservatives before, they offered to help defend Rush Limbaugh's medical records. Also a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU defended a Neo-Nazi's right to free speach. They stood against Hillary Clinton when she helped co-sponsor an attempt to make flag burning illegal.

That said I do think they have attracted more of a following from liberals than conservatives, but I know conservatives who are members as well. I do feel that their stance against 2a rights is the one thing I truly disagree with them on.
 
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

Although I am against gun control, that is the wording. So I can see why there would be some confusion. It does say militia, now for example, the michigan militia owns weapons we as individuals can't, because they are a militia.

I personally think people should be allowed to own basically anything other than WMDs. I think that, for example, a mounted machine gun, should be allowed to be owned by an individual. We allow corporations to own such items (actually one way around some gun laws, if you are a doctor, lawyer, businessman, who owns some sort of business/practice, if you declare yourself a corporation you can own much more weaponry than a individual can (I have heard this from multiple places, but correct me if I'm wrong). I think this is wrong, if a corporation can own it, we (individuals) should be able to as well)
 
Let's see...the ACLU pretty much refuses to get involved in 2A cases. This rather renders their postition on it moot. As a life member of the NRA for a very long time, I can tell you the NRA doesn't get involved outside of 2A issues. This renders their position on such issues moot as well.
The ACLU has fought many fights from which we all, as Americans, have benefitted.

Don't let this get in the way of you enjoying your daily period of recreational outrage, though.
 
ACLU said:
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
:confused:

I certainly don't concede that, and I don't know a single shooter or gun owner who does. So what gun owners comprise this undocumented "most" of which they speak?

The 2nd Amendment says I have a right to keep and bear "arms." It does not say what kind of arms, nor does it mention or authorize any sort of "reasonable regulation." Back in the period when the Constitution was written the U.S. didn't have (and didn't want) a standing army. So where did militia's get their heavy armaments (cannons)? Simple -- the local squire (who was probably also appointed the commanding officer) owned them. Since cannons were the heaviest "arms" they had back then and private citizens were allowed to own them, IMHO that directly equates to me being allowed to own a tank or a fighter aircraft.
 
The ACLU was founded by communists to push their agenda under a disguise of being "patriots" defending the constitution. No suprise they don't support the second ammendment.
 
The ACLU is selective in which of the Bill of Rights they believe in.

They are phoneys.

And, as stated, they were started by Communists to undermine the Republic.
 
Last time I checked, the ACLU has a .pdf file of the Bill Of Rights posted on their website. The managed to come up with a way to simultaniously copy the language of the 2nd amendment verbatim, while marginalizing it (literally). This .pdf present the amendments in a left-right-left-etc justification pattern. Consequently, the second amendment is tucked away to the right side of the page.

Before anyone accusing me of being a member of the tin foil hat brigade, ask yourself, why would they bother with this idiosyncratic formatting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top