will the ACLU now start supporting gun rights?

[bossy22]

I went on their website last night and i didnt notice any information about a change of stance on the 2A. In fact i saw just 2 paragraphs about the Heller ruling

I hope they keep their integrity as defenders of civil liberties and start defending the 2nd amendment like they defend the 1st

[hopewell1985]

1. um

Are you for real

[bossy22]

7. yes

i am for real- the ACLU's policy said that they base their beliefes of the last court ruling which was Miller which hinted at a collective rights- now that we have determined it to be an individual right they should have the integrity to support it just like the other 9 amendments.

[SlipperySlope]

38. How could they anything less? They can't just ignore this civil right!

I can't imagine how the ACLU could do anything other than support the Second Amendment. I would like to see them show some leadership in drafting lawsuits to roll back some of the existing unconstitutional laws.

[Clovis Sangrail]

2. I think they'll fight violations of civil rights... /nt

[jody]

21. RKBA is a civil right. I'm glad I was able to clear up your misunderstanding. n/t

[Clovis Sangrail]

42. no misunderstanding

but thanks for the snark
:hi:

[bowens43]

3. sorry, the court got it wrong.

They either haven't read the 2nd or they just chose to ignore it.

[appal_jack]

4. FAIL

Go back and read your Constitution again. No matter what prefaces "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed," it's meaning is still pretty clear: an individual right.

I consider the hair-splitting and word-twisting on the Second Amendment by the gun-grabbers to be just as bad as the hair-splitting and word-twisting on the First, Fourth, Fifth... Ninth, Tenth.. Fourteenth, and... Amendments by the B* admin.

I believe that the best path toward reinvigorating our Republic is to treat the Constitution as what it is: the supreme law of the land. If you have a problem with any part of it, start organizing and agitating for an amendment that suits you better. But quit with the end-runs, the sloppy interpretations, the twistings, and the outright treasonous behavior (by B* & company: I am not accusing any DU'ers of treason here...)

-app

Edit to add that I am a long-time supporter of the ACLU.

[SteveM]

6. Precisely well-said (nt)

[BOSSHOG]

13. Hair splitting and word twisting

that has been the problem for 200+ years. Are you suggesting that only people who disagree with you engage in such practices? "No matter what prefaces??" Thats right, just chuck words out of a constitutional amendment. No word twisting there.

I am 110% for individual gun owner rights for hunting, collecting, personal protection etc, but that pesky preface still exists. Instead of having tony scalia and his band of pirates do more hair splitting I propose (and have for some time) a constitutional convention to put an end, once and for all, to the word twisting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Read it yourself.

And this time put in the proper punctuation.

It does not say "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,".

It says, "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."

Remove the two interior clauses and you have the statement "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed." It is really very simple grammar, unless you want to make it say something it doesn't.

[Irreverend IX]

19. Can we stop with the feigned ignorance?

First, the first and third commas were not present in the original text of the amendment. But their presence does not change its meaning anyway.

"A well regulated militia" is not a clause. No verb. Neither is "shall not be infringed." No object. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a clause. It means "because a well-regulated militia is necessary the the security of a free state." It is a rationale for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Many 18th century laws are prefaced with rationales, a practice that has since been abandoned for clarity's sake, but the presence of a rationale in a dependent clause in front of the independent clause does not compromise "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The 2A has two clauses, not four, and you can't remove the words in the middle of it and keep the same meaning; English grammar doesn't work that way.

Also, you may not be clear as to the meaning of a "well-regulated militia." According to the US Code, the militia is all males aged 17-45. A Constitutional challenge should expand this definition to include women as well. The militia refers to the whole people, not a professional standing army, which did not exist in the US when the BoR was written and which the founders opposed. And "well-regulated" means competent and well-trained in the parlance of the 18th century. Federalist papers make reference to the well-regulated militia, and it's clear that they do not mean a militia subject to strict government oversight.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. It is not feigned ignorance, and you are wrong.

There are two supporting clauses within the statement "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed"; each clause separated from the primary statement by commas (which ARE there in the original - take a look sometime).
The first, as you said, is a rationale for the existence of a well regulated militia - being necessary to the security of a free State. The second is in accordance with the definition of a militia, as it was understood at that time - the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is a collective right of the citizenry, not a personal right of individuals, because the definition of the militia, as you pointed out, was males (usually further restricted to 'males of good character') aged 17 to 45. Therefore, this was meant to be a citizen's army. In the 18th century there were many militias, and they handled weapons differently depending on circumstances - in the NE, most militias kept their weapons in armories. On the frontier, militias kept their weapons at hand in case of raiding by indians or the french. In the south, militias not only kept their weapons close but also mounted regular patrols to put down slave rebellions (one of the reasons why the south did as well as it did in the civil war - it was a militarized society from its inception).

It is amusing that you state that, by the US Code, the militia is all males aged 17-45; then, two sentences later, you say it refers to the whole people - you can't have it both ways.

The only way to make sense of it is to admit that the militia does not encompass the entire population - therefore 'the people', as referred to in the amendment must be referring to the collective citizenry, not to individuals. It is the right to have a citizen's army, thus obviating the need for a standing army and to stand as a check to unbridled federal power. The framers had the common sense to know that an individual cannot stand against an army, but a well regulated militia, representing the states, could stand against oppressive government.

[quaker bill]

37. "The people"

as in "We the People"?

Of course, the very best way for liberals to get possession of weapons banned, is to be seen stockpiling them.

[SlipperySlope]

40. Those commas are not definitive.

Punctuation in the 18th century was not used as strictly as it is today. The commas in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were inserted by the scribes who wrote them, as they personally saw fit. The commas were not a topic of discussion by the founders, who debated the amendments verbally.

"Original" copies of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights differ from one another in both spelling and punctuation (not just in the Second Amendment). The copies of the Bill of Rights transcribed and sent to the states for ratification also differ in punctuation and spelling.

God help us if we are going to start interpreting the Constitution based on the internal punctuation. It wasn't written with that intent. It would be as if some future generation decided to start interpreting our laws based on the size of the spaces in-between the words. Ridiculous.

[SteveM]

5. So, for you the war goes on because the court got it wrong? (nt)

[bossy22]

9. the court got it right

it seemed to me that the court acknowledged that the purpose of the 2A was to protect militias but that it wasnt restricted to that point either. This meaning that although its purpose in mind was militia based, it did not mean that personal activities werent also protected

A cars primary purpose is to get you from point A to point B. That does not mean a car can't be reasonably used for leisure activities such as racing, off roading, collecting. This same logic is what was in their decision

[gorfle]

28. Can you be serious?

Obviously you have not read their decision. It is 67 pages of Constitutional discussion and reference concerning the second amendment, by people far more versed in Constitutional law than you. I suggest you read it before suggesting that they did not read it or ignored it.

Here is a link to the decision:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[SlipperySlope]

39. For more than a century after ratification the 2nd was seen as an individual right.

For more than a century after ratification the 2nd was consistently seen as an individual right by every court that examined it. It wasn't until the 1930s that people started to try to define this right away.

The Supreme Court has correctly ruled that the Second always has and always will protect an individual right. Those who attempted to steal that right by playing with words have lost.

[sharesunited]

8. The 2A sets forth the only right which can deprive you

of all your other rights. By KILLING YOUR ASS.

[enfield collector]

10. so does that mean in places like England where there is no 2A

that there are no killings?

[wtmusic]

16. The murder rate in the US is 2-3x that of England

depending on whose statistics you believe.

[slackmaster]

18. ...and has always been so even before either country had any kind of gun control

:hi:

[krispos42]

33. Handy-dandy graph

[bossy22]

11. So........

............

[Xela]

12. ACLU...

Time to admit an update on your policy...

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

Xela

[lefty2000]

14. An Armed Citizenry

It has been argued that an armed citizenry is the best guarantee of our liberties against an oppressive government. In my experience, however, the most vehement defenders of gun rights are the least interested in the defense of freedom of speech, habeas corpus, freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the right to peacefully assemble and petition for redress of grievances.

The ACLU does good work in defending the rights that others will not defend, and it fights to extend those rights to those whom the defenders of gun rights will not defend.

[jeepnstein]

17. Arm the Hippies!!!!

I agree. The rift between the 2nd Amendment crowd and the Civil Liberties crowd is a deep one. I won't start on a rant about that other than to say that certain political parties on both sides of the left/right spectrum have exploited it for years.

It's time for folks to be intellectually honest about the Constitution and the system. Either we support the whole darned thing or we're willing to deal away our rights. Both sides are willing to deal away rights that they don't feel are "important" to them. It shouldn't work that way.

J.

[Callisto32]

22. *Whistle, Clap*

"It's time for folks to be intellectually honest about the Constitution and the system. Either we support the whole darned thing or we're willing to deal away our rights. Both sides are willing to deal away rights that they don't feel are "important" to them. It shouldn't work that way."



:toast: :toast: :applause: :applause:

[old mark]

34. I used to be a hippie, I still grow my own organic produce

(real veggies, not pot, you scum). I would still have my hair down to my ass if I still had any hair.
I have an old Stratocaster in my living room, My wife is an old hippie, too, not as old as I am, though, and much better looking.
I have a lot of guns, and will be buying another on Monday.
Peace and love, but don't break into my home at 3AM - the doberman is only there to wake me up.

mark

[SteveM]

23. I think you are repeating a line here...

"In my experience..." is a very limited world-view. When you speak of who is "least interested," then please try to define what constitutes evidence of "interest." Seen many demonstrations on behalf of the rights you mention, lately -- by anyone? There were a couple of demonstrations in my city against the War in Iraq, a couple favoring the end to the War on Drugs, one against Cap. punishment, a few others. I went to them, but my limited experience tells me there is very little evidence of activism (judging from the streets) and even fewer participants. Certainly, you must have heard by now the grumblings of old-line street activists (including myself) that very little is going down.

Singling out 2A defenders for a credentials check is to single out one group from an apathetic population.

I agree that the ACLU does good work. Now it's time they expanded it.

BTW, I'm willing to bet 2A folks here are active in other areas.

[Xela]

20. Paragraphs?

Can you please direct us to the 2 paragraphs you mention?

All I found was this "summary" at the moment:
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/scotus/2007_term_summary.pdf

SECOND AMENDMENT
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008 WL 2520816 (June 26, 2008)(5-4), the Court held, for the first time, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms and is not limited, as the Court had previously suggested (when it last considered the question almost seventy years ago) to service in a state militia. Applying constitutional scrutiny, the majority then struck down D.C.’s handgun ban. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia did not specify the level of constitutional scrutiny that must now be applied to gun control legislation. Instead, he ruled that D.C.’s total ban could not be upheld under “any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” Id. at __. At the same time, Justice Scalia stressed that the right to bear arms is not absolute, and does not extend to “dangerous and unusual weapons” that were not in common use when the Second Amendment was adopted. He made clear, however, that burdens on the newly-announced Second Amendment right must be justified by more than a mere rational basis. Justices Stevens and Breyer both wrote lengthy dissents, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg.

Thanks,

X

[jody]

25. ACLU summary changes position on Miller and RKBA

ACLU POLICY
"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." — Policy #47

ACLU claimed in it policy above that Miller was a “long-standing interpretation” of a collective-right but now back pedals to a “previously suggested” right, see below.

ACLU on Heller and the SECOND AMENDMENT
“the Court held, for the first time, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms and is not limited, as the Court had previously suggested . . . to service in a state militia.”

The opinion said “United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.”

ACLU errs by distorting the opinion saying “does not extend to ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ that were not in common use when the Second Amendment was adopted.

That’s a stupid attempt to claim that only firearms with flintlock actions are protected by the 2nd.

[gorfle]

29. And they specifically argue against that

ACLU errs by distorting the opinion saying “does not extend to ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ that were not in common use when the Second Amendment was adopted.

That’s a stupid attempt to claim that only firearms with flintlock actions are protected by the 2nd.

I will have to go find the passage but this issue of only antique firearms being applicable was specifically shot down.

Here is is from page 11 of the decision:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding."

So the ACLU is completely wrong in this regard.

[jody]

31. Thanks! n/t

[Growler]

26. What the hell for?!?

That would be stupid. The 2nd amendment has an entire organization devoted to it: the NRA. Perhaps you've heard of it??

As soon as the NRA starts defending the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights, I'll expect the ACLU to spend money on the 2nd.

Jesus what a stupid idea...

[Xela]

27. Not stupid at all, they even say it themselves in their mission...

About the ACLU:
http://aclu.org/about/index.html

"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all (Bill of Rights) of these protections and guarantees"

Supporting the Second Amendment falls under their wing if their mission is to remain true.

Xela

[gorfle]

30. Why stupid?

It would be stupid if the ACLU's stated mission was only for specific civil rights, as is the case with the NRA. But this is not the case. The ACLU claims to stand for all individual rights.

[Growler]

32. They do

They just don't need to spend money and focus on the 2nd, since that one is well taken care of. It's stupid to spend scant resources to defend something that someone else is defending more ably. I didn't mean to imply that it was stupid to defend the 2A, but that it would be stupid for the ACLU to do so.

[gorfle]

35. My suspicion

My suspicion is the ACLU does not support the 2nd more out of a sense of disdain for it rather than a sense that it is already well defended.

[jody]

36. OK but as a minimum ACLU should acknowledge RKBA is a right protected by our Constitution and

co-equal in importance with every other right protected by our Constitution that the ACLU defends.

It's important to remember that ACLU once recognized the 2nd as an important right and defended RKBA in one or more cases.

ACLU's policy changed when a strident, minority of gun-grabbers got control of ACLU and changed the organization's policy to ostensibly neutral but blatantly anti-RKBA by saying "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."

[whistler162]

41. So when when asked have they ever stopped?

[Clovis Sangrail]

43. people are so full of shit on this issue

the statute obviously requires interpretation.
If it was as simple as some people like to think then I should be free to stockpile stingers.... and I'm not.

On the other hand I think the intent is very clear that we should be able to own weapons.
Theoretically to fight against a repressive regime (yeah right).

However, we've already interpreted the 2nd to determine what (no stingers etc.) arms and in other instances we've interpreted it to determine where (no airports etc.) we can have them.

[Joe Holmes]

44. No, they won't.

The ACLU will do nothing to support the 2nd Amendment. Lets look at the words of their founder, Roger Baldwin-


"I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions."




- Roger Baldwin, Founder of the ACLU


So, if the stated goal of the ACLU is communism, the last thing those people want is an armed population. Ask Joe Stalin how much easier his domination over Eastern Europe was once the citizens had been disarmed.

The ACLU wants to "pick and choose" what parts of the Bill of Rights that they consider "worthwhile." Hypocrites, they are, spending their time and energy trying to shut down the Boy Scouts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. What is your source for this "quote"? nt

[Joe Holmes]

47. Thats a famous quote of his, surprised you don't know it.

Roger Baldwin, "From the Harvard Classbook", 1935. Google it.

[bossy22]

45. they havent changed their position yet

part of me believes they never will