ACLU - The Firearms Forum

OBrien · 06-05-2009, 07:41 PM

Does anyone know what the aclu's position on the second amendment is? I tried looking on their sight but got confused. Are they pro-gun? I would imagine they would be where it is one of our rights and last I knew they were all about protecting them.

kutaho · 06-05-2009, 07:56 PM

All i now about aclu, is that's who some people call around here when the have a beef with the law.

OBrien · 06-05-2009, 08:23 PM

They can be a huge pain in the rear. I think they would be a huge help.

kutaho · 06-05-2009, 08:36 PM

They have there pro's and cons.
problem is there easily manipulated.
you know 'chip on your shoulder' kind of thing.

artabr · 06-05-2009, 08:40 PM

The Second Amendment is the Amendment that the ACLU loves to hate.

The link below is from their blog.

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/hell...ond-amendment/

Heller Decision and the Second Amendment

So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
As always, we welcome your comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The comments to the above post in the link are pretty good and worth reading.

It's funny how all of the Amendments are about individual rights except the Second Amendment.

Art

bcj1755 · 06-05-2009, 08:50 PM

"Collective right"? I was always taught that the Bill of Rights spells out INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. And going further, the Founding Fathers believed that those rights were NATURAL RIGHTS that were given to us by God and not by government. They put the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to ensure that the gov't could not take rights we already had from our creator, it's purpose was not for the gov't to give us those rights.

The ACLU seems to be liberal to me. Sometimes they do some good, but not too often. Most of the time they help "downtrodden and less fortunate minorites" file idiotic discrimination law suits because someone didn't respect someone else's feelings or diversity

OBrien · 06-05-2009, 08:54 PM

Can we be a minority?

kutaho · 06-05-2009, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcj1755

"Collective right"? I was always taught that the Bill of Rights spells out INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. And going further, the Founding Fathers believed that those rights were NATURAL RIGHTS that were given to us by God and not by government. They put the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to ensure that the gov't could not take rights we already had from our creator, it's purpose was not for the gov't to give us those rights.

The ACLU seems to be liberal to me. Sometimes they do some good, but not too often. Most of the time they help "downtrodden and less fortunate minorites" file idiotic discrimination law suits because someone didn't respect someone else's feelings or diversity

+1 separation of church and state. The target isn't the 'church per sa' in this edict, but also includes the natural laws of all human beings. if it will help them to further there cause.

In most cases i agree, thing is here you can count the minority families on one hand. but then again there not because they all have there american citizenship.

kutaho · 06-05-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBrien

Can we be a minority?

in regards to religion/culture/ancestral homeland/or shade?
or all of the above?
I forgot to add philosophy.

bcj1755 · 06-05-2009, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBrien

Can we be a minority?

I've felt like a minority ever since I heard the "benediction" given at Barry's "inauguration."

OBrien · 06-05-2009, 09:12 PM

I would say religion because we believe in the constitution and being allowed to keep our rights. Sounds like a minority now a days.

sakeneko · 06-05-2009, 09:16 PM

Interesting factoid: not all ACLU affiliates agree with the national organization on the Second Amendment. Take a look at this:

http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-nevada-su...ight-bear-arms

kutaho · 06-05-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBrien

I would say religion because we believe in the constitution and being allowed to keep our rights. Sounds like a minority now a days.

I respect your beliefs,
I follow the red road, my beliefs in the constitution, and the personnel rights of all human beings is what i have been taught to hold sacred.
I've always felt like a minority.

artabr · 06-05-2009, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sakeneko

Interesting factoid: not all ACLU affiliates agree with the national organization on the Second Amendment. Take a look at this:

http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-nevada-su...ight-bear-arms

It's good to see that at least one segment of the ACLU understands the Second Amendment.
One would hope that most of it's members would concur with this view, but from my observations this is wishful thinking.

Art

sakeneko · 06-06-2009, 08:19 AM

I'm not an ACLU member myself. (They support abortion on demand as a right.) :/ But I've been involved in human rights activism most of my adult life, so I know a lot of people who are members. In my experience, depending on where in the country you are, attitudes among ACLU members towards gun ownership vary widely. My husband and I moved to Nevada last fall. Reno is less than 200 miles from the San Francisco Bay area, where I lived for almost 20 years, but I've seen national borders with a *much* less noticeable cultural divide. I doubt the Nevada ACLU would have any members if they refused to support second amendment rights. ;-)

bcj1755 · 06-06-2009, 09:21 AM

Even the NVACLU is too liberal when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. They say, "The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations." To me, there are NO constitutionally permissible gun regulations. I think that "shall not be infringed" means ANY kind of gun legislation is unconstitutional.

Now, it is great to see part of the ACLU admit that the 2nd is an individual right. It's a lot better than the "colelctive right" crap that some of them spew at the liberal masses. I'm glad that some parts of the ACLU aren't as hypocritical when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

GMFWoodchuck · 06-07-2009, 05:38 AM

Trouble with the ACLU is while they do tend to try to protect freedoms and forth, the members tend to be liberals.

alhefner · 06-07-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcj1755

Even the NVACLU is too liberal when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. They say, "The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations." To me, there are NO constitutionally permissible gun regulations. I think that "shall not be infringed" means ANY kind of gun legislation is unconstitutional.

Now, it is great to see part of the ACLU admit that the 2nd is an individual right. It's a lot better than the "colelctive right" crap that some of them spew at the liberal masses. I'm glad that some parts of the ACLU aren't as hypocritical when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

I agree, every restriction firearm ownership and possession is illegal according to the Second Amendment.

I find it very confusing that the National ACLU leadership can possibly construe the Second Amendment as a collective right since the consider ALL of the other nine to be individual rights.

The original, and ratified, wording of the Second Amendment -

Quote:

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.

Notice that there is only ONE comma. that is of great importance in reading it. The first part states why this is in the Constitution. The second part is the operative portion. It is a "right of the people". As in EVERY other instance in the Constitution where "right of the people" is used, this denotes and INDIVIDUAL right that can not be taken or diminished by any law, regulation, or other means.

dbrodin · 06-07-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alhefner

I find it very confusing that the National ACLU leadership can possibly construe the Second Amendment as a collective right since the consider ALL of the other nine to be individual rights.

This goes back to the old augment that the use of "militia" means that it is a group right, not an individual one. You have to remember, the ACLU has it's roots as the legal arm of the American Communist Party in 1920. They cut their ties to the party about 1940, but their philosophy is still colored by their early history.

Dale

sakeneko · 06-07-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Trouble with the ACLU is while they do tend to try to protect freedoms and forth, the members tend to be liberals.

Trouble, or opportunity to work with them and let them know that a lot of people who care about civil rights aren't liberal, and are still willing to put their time and money where their mouths are? ;-) As I said, I don't feel able to join the ACLU because of disagreement on another (not gun-related) issue that they take a stand on. If the only problem were that I didn't agree with a lot of the members on issues that are not related to the ACLU's own principles or work, however, I'd join in a heartbeat. The National organization does a lot of good work standing up for the other nine amendments on the Bill of Rights, amendments I value every bit as much as the Second Amendment.

Yeah, I've heard all of the arguments why the Second is the most important. I've heard equally convincing arguments that the First is the most important. Personally, there isn't one of the ten I'd be willing to live without, however poorly understood and respected some of them are by the federal government today. :/

alhefner · 06-08-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sakeneko

Yeah, I've heard all of the arguments why the Second is the most important. I've heard equally convincing arguments that the First is the most important. Personally, there isn't one of the ten I'd be willing to live without, however poorly understood and respected some of them are by the federal government today. :/

+1!! All ten of those amendments are vital and all have equal weight. We need an organization that devotes itself to the defense of all those rights without just picking the ones that fit an agenda. Any agenda.

sakeneko · 06-08-2009, 12:57 PM

I agree 100%, alhefner. Even better, so does my husband. Even better, we both live in Reno too. If you want to start a local organization to do just that, pm me. Seriously. I'm new to the use of guns to protect freedom, and rather hope to keep that side of things theoretical, if you get my drift. But I'm an old hand at using the first amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly to defend my rights and those of others. I'd *love* to see an organization out there that focused strictly on this and did not drag other, unrelated issues into the mix. :-)

bcj1755 · 06-08-2009, 02:57 PM

I agree that all 10 amendments ar eof equal importance. But when the feds take one away, the others will soon follow. And they have chosen the 2nd. Once it goes, they hope to make all of us dependent on the gov't for our self protection. They'll probably kill the 4th at the same time they kill the 2nd, that way they won't need to waste time getting a warrant to search your home and make sure you turned in all of your guns. Once those two are gone, look for the 1st to go. The feds really hate the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th more than any of the others

sakeneko · 06-08-2009, 03:50 PM

Actually, I'm seeing at least as many credible threats to the First Amendment as to the Second nowadays. There are plenty of threats to the latter, but the political winds/trends are currently in the other direction. How many states have moved from "may issue" to "shall issue" in the past fifteen or twenty years? I'll add Heller and that recent decision by (of *all* things) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which incorporated Heller against the states. With the recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling directly contradicting that one, it's headed for the Supreme Court, which *already* gave us Heller.

This is no time to get lazy on Second Amendment rights, but it's looking good and I'm feeling a lot better about it than I have for many years.

Meanwhile, how many states have passed or are considering "hate crimes" laws? I don't like the KKK or American Nazis any better than any other decent person does, but in this country the government does *NOT* have the authority to punish anybody for holding and expressing an opinion, no matter how disgusting that opinion may be to most of us. Worse, there's a general attitude out there that limits on freedom of speech can constitute a human right (just look at the Canadian "Human Rights Commission"), which is the craziest bunch of screwed up thinking I've encountered in a long time.

I won't get into threats to the Fourth Amendment (some provisions of the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, etc.) and others. IMHO a good many of the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights protect the other rights. We really can't afford to do without any of them. Looking back, I can't think of a time when fashionable (and usually sloppy) thinking didn't result in one or more of them being devalued or even put under direct attack.

06-05-2009, 07:41 PM	#1
OBrien Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Bangor Maine Posts: 554	ACLU Does anyone know what the aclu's position on the second amendment is? I tried looking on their sight but got confused. Are they pro-gun? I would imagine they would be where it is one of our rights and last I knew they were all about protecting them. -->

06-05-2009, 07:56 PM	#2
kutaho Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest Posts: 1,852	Re: ACLU All i now about aclu, is that's who some people call around here when the have a beef with the law. __________________ No man stands in the same river twice If all else fails grab a rock Mi Taku oyasin

06-05-2009, 08:23 PM	#3
OBrien Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Bangor Maine Posts: 554	Re: ACLU They can be a huge pain in the rear. I think they would be a huge help.

06-05-2009, 08:36 PM	#4
kutaho Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest Posts: 1,852	Re: ACLU They have there pro's and cons. problem is there easily manipulated. you know 'chip on your shoulder' kind of thing. __________________ No man stands in the same river twice If all else fails grab a rock Mi Taku oyasin

06-05-2009, 08:40 PM	#5
artabr Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Iberia, Louisiana Contributor Posts: 7,859	Re: ACLU The Second Amendment is the Amendment that the ACLU loves to hate. The link below is from their blog. http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/hell...ond-amendment/ Heller Decision and the Second Amendment So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again: The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized. As always, we welcome your comments. ----------------------------------------------------------- The comments to the above post in the link are pretty good and worth reading. It's funny how all of the Amendments are about individual rights except the Second Amendment. Art __________________ God and the soldier we like adore, In times of trouble, not before. When troubles ended and all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier is slighted. Francis Quarles 1592 - 1644 __________________ When asked for my race, I answer CauCajun. Hope is not a plan, and not all change is good. The resistance is here; the resistance is now. RESIST! These hands are neither cold nor are they dead!! Last edited by artabr; 06-05-2009 at 08:47 PM..

06-05-2009, 08:50 PM	#6
bcj1755 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: A wretched hive of scum and villiany Posts: 4,357	Re: ACLU "Collective right"? I was always taught that the Bill of Rights spells out INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. And going further, the Founding Fathers believed that those rights were NATURAL RIGHTS that were given to us by God and not by government. They put the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to ensure that the gov't could not take rights we already had from our creator, it's purpose was not for the gov't to give us those rights. The ACLU seems to be liberal to me. Sometimes they do some good, but not too often. Most of the time they help "downtrodden and less fortunate minorites" file idiotic discrimination law suits because someone didn't respect someone else's feelings or diversity __________________ History is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace, and revolution continue on forever. Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges - Cicero If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams

06-05-2009, 08:54 PM	#7
OBrien Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Bangor Maine Posts: 554	Re: ACLU Can we be a minority?

06-05-2009, 09:12 PM	#11
OBrien Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Bangor Maine Posts: 554	Re: ACLU I would say religion because we believe in the constitution and being allowed to keep our rights. Sounds like a minority now a days.

06-05-2009, 09:16 PM	#12
sakeneko V.I.P. Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Nevada Posts: 83	Re: ACLU Interesting factoid: not all ACLU affiliates agree with the national organization on the Second Amendment. Take a look at this: http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-nevada-su...ight-bear-arms

06-06-2009, 08:19 AM	#15
sakeneko V.I.P. Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Nevada Posts: 83	Re: ACLU I'm not an ACLU member myself. (They support abortion on demand as a right.) :/ But I've been involved in human rights activism most of my adult life, so I know a lot of people who are members. In my experience, depending on where in the country you are, attitudes among ACLU members towards gun ownership vary widely. My husband and I moved to Nevada last fall. Reno is less than 200 miles from the San Francisco Bay area, where I lived for almost 20 years, but I've seen national borders with a much less noticeable cultural divide. I doubt the Nevada ACLU would have any members if they refused to support second amendment rights. ;-)

06-06-2009, 09:21 AM	#16
bcj1755 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: A wretched hive of scum and villiany Posts: 4,357	Re: ACLU Even the NVACLU is too liberal when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. They say, "The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations." To me, there are NO constitutionally permissible gun regulations. I think that "shall not be infringed" means ANY kind of gun legislation is unconstitutional. Now, it is great to see part of the ACLU admit that the 2nd is an individual right. It's a lot better than the "colelctive right" crap that some of them spew at the liberal masses. I'm glad that some parts of the ACLU aren't as hypocritical when it comes to the Bill of Rights. __________________ History is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace, and revolution continue on forever. Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges - Cicero If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams

06-07-2009, 05:38 AM	#17
GMFWoodchuck Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Binghamton, NY Posts: 1,369	Re: ACLU Trouble with the ACLU is while they do tend to try to protect freedoms and forth, the members tend to be liberals.

06-08-2009, 12:57 PM	#22
sakeneko V.I.P. Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Nevada Posts: 83	Re: ACLU I agree 100%, alhefner. Even better, so does my husband. Even better, we both live in Reno too. If you want to start a local organization to do just that, pm me. Seriously. I'm new to the use of guns to protect freedom, and rather hope to keep that side of things theoretical, if you get my drift. But I'm an old hand at using the first amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly to defend my rights and those of others. I'd love to see an organization out there that focused strictly on this and did not drag other, unrelated issues into the mix. :-)

06-08-2009, 02:57 PM	#23
bcj1755 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: A wretched hive of scum and villiany Posts: 4,357	Re: ACLU I agree that all 10 amendments ar eof equal importance. But when the feds take one away, the others will soon follow. And they have chosen the 2nd. Once it goes, they hope to make all of us dependent on the gov't for our self protection. They'll probably kill the 4th at the same time they kill the 2nd, that way they won't need to waste time getting a warrant to search your home and make sure you turned in all of your guns. Once those two are gone, look for the 1st to go. The feds really hate the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th more than any of the others __________________ History is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace, and revolution continue on forever. Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges - Cicero If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams

06-08-2009, 03:50 PM	#24
sakeneko V.I.P. Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Nevada Posts: 83	Re: ACLU Actually, I'm seeing at least as many credible threats to the First Amendment as to the Second nowadays. There are plenty of threats to the latter, but the political winds/trends are currently in the other direction. How many states have moved from "may issue" to "shall issue" in the past fifteen or twenty years? I'll add Heller and that recent decision by (of all things) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which incorporated Heller against the states. With the recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling directly contradicting that one, it's headed for the Supreme Court, which already gave us Heller. This is no time to get lazy on Second Amendment rights, but it's looking good and I'm feeling a lot better about it than I have for many years. Meanwhile, how many states have passed or are considering "hate crimes" laws? I don't like the KKK or American Nazis any better than any other decent person does, but in this country the government does NOT have the authority to punish anybody for holding and expressing an opinion, no matter how disgusting that opinion may be to most of us. Worse, there's a general attitude out there that limits on freedom of speech can constitute a human right (just look at the Canadian "Human Rights Commission"), which is the craziest bunch of screwed up thinking I've encountered in a long time. I won't get into threats to the Fourth Amendment (some provisions of the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, etc.) and others. IMHO a good many of the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights protect the other rights. We really can't afford to do without any of them. Looking back, I can't think of a time when fashionable (and usually sloppy) thinking didn't result in one or more of them being devalued or even put under direct attack.