Gunfounder
New member
Just received the following letter from the Detroit Office of the ACLU in response to my request for assistance regarding a constitutional matter. The letter is dated July 1, 1999, I received it on July 10, 1999. The letter had obviously been opened and resealed with scotch tape. First I have a couple of questions since I live less than 100 miles from Detroit why did it take 10 days to arrive, secondly, who is reading the mail while in possession of the USPS. That having been said here is the letter, it is a canned letter with the date and my name hand written.
July 1, 1999
Dear. J. McKenney,
Thank you for contacting the American Civil Liberties Union regarding the Second Amendment. 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 aspect 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 in order to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world that purpose 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
Thank you again for contacting the ACLU to express you concerns.
Sincerely,
Sarah Burns
&
Emily Fleury
_____________________________________________
Sounds to me like the national board in their closed debates have determined that the constitution is only to be upheld when it suits their purpose. To apply the Second Amendments rights as a collective right reserved for the state militias seems a bit strange coming from such scholarly individuals. Apparently, the ACLU doesn't understand that the state militia is the people, those capable of serving on juries, taking up arms to defend the state and themselves. Nor; Do they seem to understand that what they regard as a militia (national guard) is subject to federal activation at the discretion of the President and congress.
This then places the state militia under the control of the "Central Government" that their interpretation of a collective right is supposed to defend against.
I guess what they mean by "In today's world that purpose is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles." To me this indicates the ACLU must be in favor of private ownership of them things that make you glow in the dark for they are certainly collective and non-discrimnatory.
You can be resassured that I am not and have never been a fan of the ACLU, but any port in a storm seemed to have application in this particular instance.
------------------
John L. McKenney
July 1, 1999
Dear. J. McKenney,
Thank you for contacting the American Civil Liberties Union regarding the Second Amendment. 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 aspect 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 in order to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world that purpose 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
Thank you again for contacting the ACLU to express you concerns.
Sincerely,
Sarah Burns
&
Emily Fleury
_____________________________________________
Sounds to me like the national board in their closed debates have determined that the constitution is only to be upheld when it suits their purpose. To apply the Second Amendments rights as a collective right reserved for the state militias seems a bit strange coming from such scholarly individuals. Apparently, the ACLU doesn't understand that the state militia is the people, those capable of serving on juries, taking up arms to defend the state and themselves. Nor; Do they seem to understand that what they regard as a militia (national guard) is subject to federal activation at the discretion of the President and congress.
This then places the state militia under the control of the "Central Government" that their interpretation of a collective right is supposed to defend against.
I guess what they mean by "In today's world that purpose is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles." To me this indicates the ACLU must be in favor of private ownership of them things that make you glow in the dark for they are certainly collective and non-discrimnatory.
You can be resassured that I am not and have never been a fan of the ACLU, but any port in a storm seemed to have application in this particular instance.
------------------
John L. McKenney