The American Hypocrisy Union

[RPCVYemen]

The ACLU is not my friend!

Bad news, my friend - I agree with with just about every policy you list. Of course your descriptions of the policies on the wacky side, so it's not real clear what the underlying policy really is, and I don't know how to look them up by policy number. For example, I think policy #264 had nothing to do with "promotion of homosexuality" - I suspect it's a policy that the government should not discriminate against same sex couples when it comes to civil marriages. I don't really care to have the government tell any two adults that they can't get married. My marriage don't need defending by any right wing wackos - my wife and I are doing just fine, thanks.

The ACLU is my friend.

Oddly enough, so is Justice Ginsburg. Not professionally or philosophically, and definitely peripherally. But invoking her name doesn't cause me to faint dead away at the keyboard.

I'm pro-2A, I largely agree with the Heller decision, and I do not find the ACLU to be hypocritical, just disagreeable.

And I'll agree with you on that...at least with respect to the ACLU's position on the 2nd Amendment. No group is perfect and while I think the ACLU does some great work when it comes to the 1st amendment, I disagree with their position on the 2nd. Perhaps they'll eventually come around; it took years for Larry Tribe to finally come to the conclusion that the 2nd was an individual right, but he did, and I think the ACLU may eventually also. But the fact that I disagree with them on one issue does not negate the fact that I agree with them on others.

I am in agreement with both of you.

To assert the ACLU is in agreement with Heller, especially when even they assert their position so clearly, is...absurd.

I stand corrected - I was wrong. What I should have said is:

The Heller decision does not contradict a gun control agenda at all - it rejected a philosophical position that would have permitted a complete ban (the "collective right" theory), but left almost every other gun control law in place.

The Heller decision scored an important philosophical point, but I was disappointed that Heller apparently permits:

1. prohibitions on gun ownership by felons and the mentally ill;
2. prohibitions on gun possession in “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings, presumably including courthouses;
3. laws regulating the commercial sale of guns;
4. laws prohibiting the possession of unusually dangerous weapons, like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns;
5. prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, which the Court describes as having been common and constitutional under Nineteenth Century case law; and
6. laws providing for the safe storage of weapons to prevent accidents

While Heller rejects the "collective right" argument, it didn't appear to me to do anything to prohibit current gun control regulations that are not bans. The list above agrees pretty well with the ACLU's position that gun control is in fact permitted.

Particularly by permitting states to prohibit concealed carry (#5 above), Heller seems (so far) like an endorsement of gun control! #3 - regulating commercial sales looks like it could permit states to implement "x handguns per month/year" legislation.

Heller doesn't appear to prohibit much in the way of gun control. Subsequent decisions may have more impact.

Mike

 

[torpid]

The list above agrees pretty well with the ACLU's position that gun control is in fact permitted.

If the ACLU is an organization dedicated to the protection of our civil rights, and chooses to disagree with the SCOTUS, might I propose these "non ban" gun control measures be the focus of dissent instead of disagreeing with the Court's affirmation of our existing individual rights?

 

[shdwfx]

The Heller decision does not contradict a gun control agenda at all - it rejected a philosophical position that would have permitted a complete ban (the "collective right" theory), but left almost every other gun control law in place.

Rejecting the philosophical foundation for an outright ban was a critical first step in rolling back gun control laws, and Scalia left a lot of opportunity for successive litigation. For all the shortcomings of a very narrow ruling, it could have easily gone the other way.

To the extent that the ACLU opposes this and supports a "collective rights" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, they are no better than the Brady bunch. Their position supports an out-right ban, and that is unacceptable.

While Heller rejects the "collective right" argument, it didn't appear to me to do anything to prohibit current gun control regulations that are not bans.

Agreed. It was a very narrow ruling. But, the other way of looking at it is the court ruled only on the laws contested by the plaintiff. Heller did not contest licensure, fitness conditions, etc.
To the extent that a judiciary over-reaching its bounds is bad for our system of checks and balances, I support their restraint.
Worse than bad legislation is a judicial aristocracy usurping the responsibilities of the legislature.

 

[k_dawg]

the ACLU's actions are no different than the southern white racists who refuse to acknowledge that blacks have rights.

 

[RPCVYemen]

To the extent that a judiciary over-reaching its bounds is bad for our system of checks and balances, I support their restraint.

Eugene Volokh would agree with you. I was a little disappointed. If the freedom to keep and bear arms is like freedom of speech, then it seems to me as though it should have as few restricts as producing and handing out a pamphlet. It seemed like a bit of a Pyrrhic victory. I guess we'll find out more in the future as litigation determines what are and are not "reasonable" restrictions.

But we are way off topic here.

I don't find anything hypocritical about the ACLU's positions - I think it's simply wrong. I am a member of both the NRA and the ACLU - I think that's the only way I know of to support all of the Bill of Rights.

To quote Volokh again,

As readers of this blog might realize, I don't think they're evil or even hypocritical for disagreeing with my interpretation of the Second Amendment, or even for declining to defend the clearly individual state constitutional rights. They're entitled to pick and choose what rights they think are most important to defend, ... /QUOTE]

Mike

 

[mnrivrat]

I don't find anything hypocritical about the ACLU's positions - I think it's simply wrong.

I guess that's a matter of perspective ,in the sense that if you believe an organization whose propose is to in general fight for your rights, then I believe their stance on the 2nd to be hypocritical. I believe all rights are worth fighting for, not just the ones that tweek your twinkle.

I too agree with the ACLU's stand on many issues , and indeed I also agree with you that they are wrong on this one. The right to be wrong in this case is not allowed in my opinion ,when I consider them friend or foe for the purpose of RTKBA . That makes them a lot harder to support as an organization for me.