ACLU Supports Gun Control

[funkyflathead]

So much for being defenders of the consitution.

......"The Cornell chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is working to bring about awareness of civil rights and violations against them. When President Farid Ben Amor '05 was asked about the groups' position on the second amendment and nrablacklist.com, he stated, "Since the ACLU's primary aim is to defend the Constitution, it officially remains somewhat neutral on gun control. While the ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as providing no protection to bear arms, it also believes that there is no constitutional impediment to it. However, it does support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and would probably side with the website's goals in its opposition of legalizing such harmful weapons and closing doors on legal recourse."



http://cornelldailysun.com/articles/9881/

[lcordero]

1. tell them this:

look up Bowers v. De Vito in google

You will find that an individual has no right to be protected by the state.

[MrBenchley]

2. They ARE defenders of the real Constitution...

And that ought to be yet another tipoff to everybody that AshKKKroft and the racist asswipes at the NRA are lying with their revisionist nonsense about the Second amendmennt conferring some individual right.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CO Liberal]

4. If That Were Universally Followed.......

....we would never hear from Limbaugh, Hannity, LaPierre or Nugent ever again.

:-)

[Superfly]

5. Which would be a good thing

if you ask me.

[MrBenchley]

6. Not to mention Heston, AshKKKroft, DeLay, Lott, Duke

or any other "gun rights" supporters....

[hansberrym]

13. Such as Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, John Adams, etc.?

Dick Gephardt?


It seems either they are lying or you are lying.


Between them and you, I'll take them.

[hansberrym]

14. Oh, hey don't take it personally

I was referring to "you" anti's, not anyone in particular.

[jody]

9. I agree but include Feinstein in the group. eom

[MrBenchley]

10. She's not a babbling idiot like LaPierre

Nor is she a right wing bigot like just about everyone peddling this "gun rights" crap on the national stage is.

[CO Liberal]

11. If You Look Up "Babbling Idiot" In The Dictionary......

...you'll see Wayne LaPierre's picture.

:-)

[RoeBear]

20. So how come every election...

...the 'babbling idiot' and his organization is kicking our ass?

[CO Liberal]

21. Because Too Many People Listen to the Babbling Idiot ...

....and his asshole friends on the radio - Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

[MrBenchley]

22. Gee, roe, it's called blood money

And as for "kicking ass" the NRA has got its ass handed to it repeatedly throughout the past few years.

"Five of the seven largest independent expenditures made by the NRA in the 2000 Senate elections were for candidates who lost. Those losers were among the NRA's best buddies: John Ashcroft, Rod Grams, Spencer Abraham, Slade Gorton, and Bill McCollum. Indeed, John Ashcroft is now busy as U.S. Attorney General, shielding suspected terrorists from scrutiny of their firearms purchases, precisely because he was defeated by a deceased Mel Carnahan, who had gone head-to-head with Ashcroft over an NRA-backed ballot initiative on guns in 1999 in Missouri. The initiative -- and Ashcroft -- lost even in Missouri, a state that defines "heartland," even though the NRA massively outspent its opponents.

The U.S. Senate wasn't the only place where the NRA had a tough time in 2000. In U.S. House races, seven of the nine largest independent expenditures by the NRA were for candidates who lost. Six of the seven gubernatorial candidates endorsed by the NRA lost in 2000, too.

Only Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris' remedial vote-counting skills, the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach, and the machinations of the Scalia Supreme Five prevented vastly outspent gun-control groups from winning a virtual electoral sweep, top-to-bottom, over the NRA in 2000.

Voters in Colorado and Oregon had a direct say on gun-control issues in 2000. They faced ballot questions that were designed to close the so-called "gun show loophole," which allows sellers and buyers of weapons to avoid the federal background check if the transactions occur at a gun show. The voters spoke decisively -- they rejected the NRA's position and approved both measures by large margins. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0508-05.htm

[demsrule4life]

12. That is true

but at least LaPierre isnt a hypocrite.

[MrBenchley]

7. Jeepers, fly

"THE NRA PRESIDENT: What's this button for?

THE USA PRESIDENT: That's the safety, Mr. Heston. Now as I was saying, we maintain that all Americans must have unfettered access to weapons of micro and medium destruction - whether they be man or boy, college graduate or special ed dropout, lucid hatemonger or bloodthirsty Alzheimer's mongoloid.

THE NRA PRESIDENT: Who the hell are you?

THE USA PRESIDENT: I'm President Bush, Mr. Heston. The one you got elected. Now as I was saying, this White House is absolutely confident that by doing everything we can to positively saturate our country with as many firearms as possible, that it's logical to assume that everyone will be safer. I mean, you give a machine gun to a toddler girl, and hell if any identically armed team of negro Islamiac snipers is gonna be able to harm her, right?

THE NRA PRESIDENT: What are you doing in my house?

THE USA PRESIDENT: This isn't your house, Mr. Heston. This is the White House.

THE NRA PRESIDENT: So you think you can just waltz in to my living room, take my gun, then anally probe me with the barrel?!

THE USA PRESIDENT: No sir! I was just saying how it's your right to be bristling with firepower - whatever your mental condition.

THE NRA PRESIDENT: You jack-booted federal thug! You're no better than your sissy skirt-wearing daddy! You know when he quit the NRA back in 1994, nothing made me happier than taking his membership card - and wiping my ass with it! Why don't you come over here and let Uncle Moses show you how a real American proves he loves his country!

(Shots Fired)

THE USA PRESIDENT: Security! "

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/102702.asp

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Real Constitution?

There's only one as far as I know.

I don't understand their logic. They seek to define every amendment as broadly as possible except for the 2nd. It makes no sense.

[jody]

8. I agree but ACLU has indirectly supported RKBA as follows

SCOTUS acknowledges RKBA is an element of civil rights.

A former convicted criminal under federal law has his/her RKBA restored when his/her "civil rights have been restored under federal law, the law of the jurisdiction where the earlier proceedings were held." (see SCOTUS decision 511 U.S. 368 below)

When the ACLU and related organizations lobby congress or states for restoration of "civil rights" to convicted prisoners who have completed their sentence, they are also implicitly lobbying for restoration of RKBA as one of the "civil rights". (e.g. see "Black State Lawmakers and FL ACLU Challenge State`s Failure to Help Ex-Felons Regain Voting Rights")

BEECHAM v. UNITED STATES, 511 U.S. 368 (1994)
QUOTE
Petitioners can take advantage of 921(a)(20) only if their civil rights have been restored under federal law, the law of the jurisdiction where the earlier proceedings were held. The choice of law clause is logically read to apply to the exemption clause. The inquiry throughout the statutory scheme is whether the person has a qualifying conviction on his record. The choice of law clause defines the rule for determining what constitutes a conviction. Asking, under the exemption clause, whether a person's civil rights have been restored is just one step in determining whether Page II something should "be considered a conviction," a determination that, by the terms of the choice of law clause, is governed by the law of the convicting jurisdiction. That the other three items listed in the exemption clause are either always or almost always done by the jurisdiction of conviction also counsels in favor of interpreting civil rights restoration as possessing the same attribute. This statutory structure rebuts the arguments used by other Circuits to support their conclusion that the two clauses should be read separately. Moreover, even if there is no federal law procedure for restoring civil rights to federal felons, nothing in 921(a)(20) supports the assumption that Congress intended all felons to have access to all the procedures specified in the exemption clause, especially because there are many States that do not restore civil rights, either. {emphasis added}
UNQUOTE

[FormerMarine6055]

15. That is NOT correct.

The only way to have your RKBA restored is through the BATFE.

And Clinton cut the funding for the BATFE in regards to restoration of RKBA.

See Bean v. US for more info.

Bean had his rights restored by the state of Texas, but was denied the RKBA and filed a lawsuit v. US.

He lost on appeal because the BATFE doesn't process ANY petition to restore the RKBA for convected felons.

And what was he a felon for?

Having some shotgun shells in his truck when entering Mexico.

[jody]

16. I beg your pardon, BATF can't restore RKBA if a state takes

away a citizen's civil rights. You are correct if a person loses civil rights under federal law.

Please read

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=13160#13332

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=18796

[FormerMarine6055]

17. A misunderstanding...

I the state or Feds restore your civil rights, your RKBA has STILL not been restored. That can only be done by the BATFE.

And as I stated above, Clinton ended the funding for the BATFE to restore RKBA.

And as an aside, The Laughtenberg Amendment has been abused by states to revoke the RKBA of citizens.

Maryland confiscated the firearms of the Maryland 'Person on the Year' 2 years ago, because he got into a barfight in the late '60's, which carried a sentence of up to a year (365 days). He plead guilty and was sentenced to time served. He owned guns for decades, and then Maryland decided to use the Laughtenburg Amendment to confiscate his guns, regardless of the fact that the laughtnberg Amendment was supposed to to diqualify people who had been convicted of a misdemeanor act of domestic violence.

Seems to me that the case above is a perfect example of the abuse of registeration, and illegal enforcement of laws.

[Romulus]

19. not exactly

the Maryland guy pled guilt to "Assault," which is a "misdemeanor" in MD, "punishable" by up to two years in jail. The bar fight in question was right after he got back from 'Nam and some asshole started something with him about "baby killing" or something. No jail time, IIRC.

The "punishable up to two years" part is what got him in trouble with the feds.

The guy had a MD CCW permit because he ran a private security guard business. That's how they found him - through the CCW permit. He wasn't charged with anything, just had his CCW revoked and RKBA status "clarified." If he wasn't "registered" he would have still been breaking the law, just not yet caught.

[FormerMarine6055]

23. Doesn't change the fact

That what was done to him was illegal.

ex post facto laws are illegal.

When he was convicted, it wasn't a disbarrment from owning firearms.