ACLU Invitation

Thirty_Handicap

New member
I received in the mail today an invitation to join the ACLU. I'm assuming I was invited because I'm an attorney and not because they think I'm otherwise sympathetic to their plight. Anyway, the message below is the explanation I included as to why I would not join their organization.

I will never consider joining the ACLU until you acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects an individual right as worthy of protection as the others you espouse to protect. Until your organization recognizes – as have the vast majority of constitutional scholars, both liberal and conservative – that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, rather than collective right, I will see the ACLU’s true motivation as the advancement of a liberal political agenda rather than the protection of all individual rights and liberties.
 
Gorthaur, there is indeed a faction of the ACLU that believes the Second Amendment means what it says. Some evidence can be found here in North Carolina. William Van Alstyne, a Duke University law professor and the author of a well-known law review article that said essentially that the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment was right, was formerly on the board of the NC ACLU. Sadly, the bulk of the NC contingent follows the general ACLU party line on RKBA.

I understand there's a state affiliate of the ACLU that has broken with the national organization over the RKBA issue, but I can't recall which one it is. Maybe someone else here knows.

I was a member of the ACLU for years, but resigned after it became clear that its only real interest was abortion rights and free speech (and not in all cases).

This country desperately needs an organization that is dedicated to the preservation of all our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the ACLU is not that organization.

[This message has been edited by David Roberson (edited March 27, 2000).]
 
David:
It is nice to hear even an usubstantiated report that a part(?) of a state chapter of ACLU has broken with the National ACLU on the 2nd amendment. And I agree that a national organization dedicated the protection of the Bill of Rights is very much needed. I would be outstanding if this organization where in fact one governed by democratic principles in its own internal organization.
The group currently in charge is blatently pro Democratic Party, but is so far out that they are an embarassment of most members of that party.
If you do join them, you will be treated to monthly (at least) invictive about the dangers of the Republican Right. But in the old days, their party controled Congress and you never heard a word about the people who where actually passing the outrage. Today, you will hear the same thing, but never a word about Clinton's sorry administration.
I got wise to this and finally gave up on them.
Oh, I might just add, I'm a Democrat and have been all my life. Even I cannot stomach them for long.

[This message has been edited by Herodotus (edited March 27, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Herodotus (edited March 27, 2000).]
 
I knew a couple fellas who were ACLU. Generally good people who believe that they are fighting the good fight.
They believed that 2nd was about individual rights just like the rest of BOR.
What irked me to no end was when they started fighting my church... I make no appolgies for being Mormon. In fact I am quite proud of it. When the LDS Church payed the city of Salt Lake 8 Million for 1 block of street that was between 2 LDS properties this angered a lot of people who cried FOUL and that it was Utah/Mormon conspiracy that the sale went through...
Please - It was the LDS Church that BUILT Salt Lake AND that block of road to begin with and were giving the City 8 million on top of it! The ACLU jumped all over it... painting it all in very bad colors.
What besides traffic is the biggest moan about down town SLC? Parking. What are we doing to that block of road way? Building a huge parking structure that will reduce parking congestion by a good margin.
If ZCMI was building that parking structure - would anyone care? Would the ACLU care?
No.
Why does the ACLU care?
Because it promotes the ACLU. They are creating and propigating issues for the sake of keeping themselves in the spotlight.
The ACLU is, as a result rather useless and lacks the morality that they like to wear as a badge.
[end rant mode]

------------------
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." -Nixon
 
David: Serious question: How IS the leadership of the ACLU chosen? It can't have escaped your notice that the NRA has about ten times the membership, meaning that if 10% of US joined the ACLU, we'd be able to run the joint if they're really a membership organization. If the Second amendment position is actually in contention within the ACLU, we could sway them with fewer members than that.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Brett, at the national level of the ACLU, there apparently is no contention. The ACLU web site explains their regrettable position on the Second Amendment, which to me is totally unacceptable (and logically inconsistent with other ACLU views on Individual rights).

I don't know how much disagreement there is at the state level. I wish I could recall which state affiliate was deviating from the national view in regard to RKBA, and maybe I can find out. As I said, I was a member of the ACLU for years, but since the organization doesn't just ignore the Second Amendment but actually works against it, I couldn't in good conscience stay a member. Now, if there were a concerted effort by libertarians to try to swamp the ACLU and turn it into an organization defending all the Constitution, I'd probably be willing to take part.
 
ACLU Position on the 2nd: http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
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.

IN BRIEF
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 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

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"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

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is
no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or
semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the
right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government
tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles
and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms.
Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.
Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited
right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation
of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam
is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict
arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has
addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be
interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In
the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having
a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to
the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert.
to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit
decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of
handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir.
1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most
important modern gun control case.
[/quote]

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
David: Interesting side note; Back in the mid-80's, I was a member of the metro-Detroit Libertarian supper club. On one occasion we had as a guest speaker the head of the Michigan ACLU, who has now moved up to the national level, Ira Glasser.

Naturally, the question of the ACLU's position on the Second amendment came up. Ira was quite frank about it; He said that the Second amendment clearly guarantees an individual right, but that if the ACLU ever defended that right, it's donor base would desert it, and a bankrupt ACLU couldn't defend anything. At least, that was his rationalization for the ACLU's position at that time. Wouldn't suprise me to learn that he's since resolved the cognitive dissonance, and rationalized the ACLU's position as actually right, and not just expedient.

But, David, I really am curious about the ACLU's internal structure, particularly at the national level. I've checked out the ACLU's website, and gotten nowhere on this subject.



------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Brett, I am not going to be much help on the ACLU's internal structure, although I do know that folks like Nadine Gordimer and Ira Glasser are not elected by the membership. (Perhaps hired by the board?)

Interesting story about Glasser. I still get letters from him asking me to rejoin the ACLU, and usually encouraging me to help fight the evil Republicans and their anti-constitutional ways. Interestingly, I got one such letter a few years ago at the very time that Slick Willie was defending the practice of warrantless searches and weapons sweeps of public housing.

If the ACLU and NOW were something other than front organizations for the DNC, they might actually accomplish something for the cause of civil rights. But they certainly seem quite comfortable in their current roles as fawning Clinton toadies.
 
I read in the L.A. Times awhile back that the ACLU's official policy on the "Gun Issue" is to remain "neutral." They would obviously rather spend their time with the homeless, dopers, race problems, etc.

An intersting story about how two-faced they are: Back in about 1983, they held a public meeting in a local high school in Newport Beach, CA.

A Newport Beach police officer attended on his own time. One of the local lawyers/ACLU members recogized this man as a policeman. The citizen officer was called out and ordered to leave this public meeting, claiming he was a "spy for the government" etc.

The officer sued the ACLU, claiming he was attending as any ordinary citizen could, thus his expulsion was descriminatory.Lawyers fees were paid for out of his pocket, not the city's. At a superior court trial, the officer ultimately won a sizeable monetary award. The ACLU appealled it, but it was upheld that they had indeed, violated his Constitutional rights.

The officer, an NRA life member, did buy a Browning over/under, which was courtesy of the ACLU.
 
Back
Top