Where oh where is the ACLU when you Want them?

R

Rome

New member
I've been wondering this for quite a while now: Why hasn't the ACLU gotten on board with us, the legal owners of firearms? Go to www.aclu.org and check out "about the ACLU" and read their mandate. It clearly says there main purpose is to ensure the Bill of Rights. They clearly spell out the First Ammendment. I wonder if they are ignorant of the Secomd Ammendment or just not paying any attention to it.

Truthfully, ladies and gentleman, I'm curious as to why the ACLU has not come to the aid of legal gun owners whose rights are being legislated away piece by piece. How many times have we almost gotten ill over the subjects or "people" they have protected? They've jumped right in when it suited them. Just try to "ban" some piece of filth book or "art" and they come running. But when firearm rights are being invaded, they are silent and conspiciously absent from the scene. I'd be interested in reading anyone's response to this question.

Rome
 
The ACLU is, indeed, interested in the preservation of the Bill of Rights -- all NINE of them.

The ACLU sees the Second Amendment as "settled law" and they have chosen to ingore any challenge brought on its behalf. They subscribe to the "collective right" theory.

A friend of mine went to the Los Angeles office of the ACLU and they have a copy of the Bill of Rights on the wall. The Second Amendment is missing.

They are not our friend.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 17, 2000).]
 
From the ACLU site, verbatim: 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]

Sublime hypocracy, the bastards



------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Rome:

More than likely, ACLU was fully occupied with fund raising, or cocktail party going, where they were Oh so liberal.

Check comment offered by DC.
 
Why doesn't their statement hold merit? I found the part about any type of arms including bazookas and nuclear weapons to be convincing. Argh, I'm confused.
 
They made a good point - and one more relevant than you may think. . . .

Most pro-gun people still think bazookas should be prohibited. They've never used them, they won't miss them, so why not.

It's how many feel about full-auto - admittedly, I was this way. I've never fired one, so I don't miss it. It is easier to convince someone like this that it's "reasonable" to ban full-auto.

Tomorrow it will be the same with semis and handguns.

Many pro- and anti-gun people just have the line drawn in different places. I suspect there are FEW true libertarians on the issue.


Battler.
 
You address that claim in two ways. First, they admit that the 2nd is all about the militia, so that must mean military arms. Therefore bazookas, grenades, SMGs, assault rifles, machine guns are all protected.
Anything larger that I can think of would fall under what the founders would call "ordnance," not arms--their word for artillery and field stuff. THAT'S why I wouldn't think you'd have the right to own a nuclear submarine--but a mortar and some grenades? Hell yes, by their own admission.

Someone pointed it out very well. Prior to 1934 almost everyone was legally allowed full-auto if they could afford it. Then it got rarer and rarer for anyone to shoot Class III's, until finally enough duck hunters said they didn't care about those nuts with the machine guns and in 1986 (is that the right year?) a deal was made. Nowadays it's the "assault weapons" that are getting rarer and rarer and more and more of the duck hunters are making noise about being associated with "those people" again.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Incursion:
Why doesn't their statement hold merit?[/quote]

ACLU: "We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one"
Then why do ALL the other amendments refer to an individual right?

ACLU: "...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."
Arms, in the 18th century, meant a personal weapon, not a crew serviced weapon and not an indiscriminate weapon like a bomb or a missile. Remember, rockets and cannons did exist back then.

ACLU: "Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected."
This means that it is OK with them if the government outlaws pocket knives. Their word is "weapons." Hell, a rock is a weapon.

What more do you need to read from them to see that their argument doesn’t hold water???

Want to learn more? ----> Read David Codrea’s response to the ACLU’s position at the GunTruths site.

The More You Know....


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
If the reason for the amendment is taken seriously, then presumably the type of arms protected are militia-type arms, namely rifles and handguns and shotguns. In the 18th century the militia did not have cannons or frigates, and they don't have atomic weapons today.
The militia does not have to defeat the standing army in the field to stop government tyranny. It only has to provide enough resistance that discipline in the standing army begins to break down, as it often does (as we see in many countries around the world) when asked to kill fellow citizens. Armies are formed to fight foreign enemies, and they don't usually last long if turned on the citizenry. But without a militia of some kind the standing army isn't even needed - the police can do the job of the tyrant.
 
IMO, not even the ACLU, for all its claims of purity, is immune from politics. The ACLU's politics are on the far left. Hence its cowardly, no-gun-rights rationalizations.
 
Now I've changed their stupid essay slightly, subsituting "Second Ammendment" with "First Ammendment" changing the examples of arms with examples of speech:

"If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to Free Speech, then it must allow individuals to create child pornography, make death threats against the president, shout "fire" in a crowded theater, spread slander, and libel and commit perjury, for these instances, like criticizing the government, are examples of speech. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right say absolutely anything they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any speech, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict speech, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction."

It's a pity they are so selective in their application of their "logic" or they would realize how vastly inconsistant their positions are. (Note, I'm not saying rocket launchers are the equivelent of child pornography, I'm just pointing out that not even the ACLU believes the first is "absolute" therefor it is laughable that they completely deny the Second since it is not "absolute.") By the way, the founder of the ACLU, a man by the name of Baldwin, was involved with communism, and wrote a book titled something like "Liberty Under the Soviets."
 
There have been some debates in the ACLU on the national and local level about this position.

They also defend Nazis and fight police abuse. They have joined the NRA on several issues.

Except for their position on the 2nd we are better with them than without them.

All the cursing about liberalism gets you nowhere. Perhaps reasoned approaches to them, joining the organization and working from the grass roots level - might be better.
 
Follow the money, guys. Pro-gun ACLU members (Yes, there are a FEW) admit that their funding from contributions would dry up if they were to take the principled stand on the Second.
 
I love it when people who know absolutely nothing about military strategy try to tell me that a bunch of guys with rifles are no match for our military (therefore the Second Amendment is antiquated). Yeah, right. That is total ignorance. Need I give examples of bunches of guys with rifles that kicked our butt? Or, that bunch of guys with rifles and horses that kicked the Soviets butts? And that was all out WAR were everything was fair game. In "all out" war, you can bring in Apaches and tanks, napalm, scuds, air strikes, nukes etc and just blow the hell out of the cities and flatten the place to get to the infantry. Civil war is not like "all out" war, because in civil war, (quelling an insurrection), you are NOT going in and nuking your own cities, that would defeat the purpose because you may get rid of the rebels, but you just blew up your own country! What would be the point of that? Civil war/insurrection is block by block, house by house...no scud missles apply. If each household has a rifle, short of just blowing up the city, no military is going to win without enormous losses. And that is why the Second Amendment if fully applicable to keeping our gov't down. They know that there is no way they could take a nation full of riflemen without just blowing everything up...and then what has anyone gained?

Just a small point I wanted to make.

------------------
When they speak of instituting "common sense gun control laws" keep this quote in mind:

"A `common-sense' approach to gun violence in America would be to ban handguns,"
- Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, (Washington Post, March 2000)
 
The ACLU states, claims or whatever, the following, it seems:

ACLU: "...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."

This may have been mentioned by others however the "arms" mentioned in the Second Amendment WERE NOT CREW SERVED WEAPONS, the things mentioned by ACLU in the above (bazookas, missiles, neuclear warheads) ARE CREW SERVED WEAPONS, which outfits like ACLU rather conveniently forget, assuming that they know the difference.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Incursion:
Why doesn't their statement hold merit? I found the part about any type of arms including bazookas and nuclear weapons to be convincing. Argh, I'm confused.[/quote]

Don't be confused...the intent of the Founders was to forbid a standing federal army.
I concur about the Bazooka's, nuke's, etc; but I look at it this way (if I were to argue it infront of the Supreme Court): "Any weapon authorized (by the federal government)for use within the borders of the United States (including Alaska, Hawaii and protectorates) shall be available to any citizen".
This, in my opinion, would be a win-win situation. It would severly limit what the governments could use against the citizenry (if they didn't have all those toys at Waco, maybe it could have been settled peacefully). It would also ensure the citizens had parity should the Second Amendment right be used for it's intended purpose.
The Second is very obviously an individual right. The ACLU may change there course (I wonder if they'll get involved with the Emerson case?).

But as far as the alleged supremecy of the federal law enforcement and military services...well, a bunch of folks with vintage weapons kicked our asses in Viet Nam, didn't they?
 
If money is the issue then all the members of the NRA should join the ACLU and become a signficant funding block.

If the NRA said guns should be banned, it would lose its money.
 
I never thought about the fact that all of the other 9 amendments to the bill of rights are individual rights. You guys are correct in the assumption that it would not make sense for the 2nd to not apply to individuals. Damn those antis. Twisting the words to make it sound good.
 
I must say that I feel that each and every one of your responses this thread are lucid, valid, and logical. The fact is that the ACLU is no longer the champion of “blind justice” because it has determined that the 2nd amendment is settled. How arrogant they are! They are willing to rally to the defense of the scum-of-the-earth reprobates but not the legitimate citizen whose rights are being violated daily. Since when is the ACLU the defender of the spirit of the Bill of Rights? How can they consciously turn a blind eye toward the true meaning of the term “Militia”? I wonder if I refused to sell a gun to one of their “client-types” if they would step in to demand that guarantee of the buyer’s rights? I wonder how many ACLU members actually own guns? What hypocrisy and double talk. I read their website before I posted this thread and I hoped others would, too. For the ACLU to claim that they aren’t liberal or conservative or anything else is silly. In closing let me ask these two questions: When was the last time you heard of a case that the ACLU was involved with that you agreed with? I can’t think of one. Wouldn’t it be terrific if someone sued the ACLU for abrogation their accepted responsibility to defend the entire Bill of Rights regardless of their personal conviction? Heck, even Elian could use them now.
 
Sorry ! The ACLU is busy at this time in Texas . A small town school system sent a letter to every parent insisting on the right to drug test students at random . The sticking point is that a students OR parents refusal would be considered a positive test result . Kinda like refusing a breath test at a check point or a traffic stop .
What do you think ? Talk to me people .

------------------
TOM SASS MEMBER AMERICAN LEGION MEMBER NRA MEMBER
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top