ACLU and the 2nd Amend
I have been researching the ACLU for the last 3 days trying to find a case where they defended the 2nd amend. I cant find anything. I even sent them a few emails requesting they provide some info on their 2nd amend cases, they havent responded. Does anyone know of any cases ?
0
-
Troll.
D.0 -
closet homosexual 0 -
I'm not sure but I think I read that they were involved in the recent
case in Washington D.C.0 -
According to that post about the guy who paid for it, nobody was involved except him and a couple friends.
D.0 -
The ACLU tends to "overlook" the civil liberties afforded by the 2nd Amendment. I guess there is a big hole in their copy of the Constitution, just below the 1st Amendment. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
I'm not sure but I think I read that they were involved in the recent
case in Washington D.C.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=239080
The guy had no help and didn't want any. Hat's off to 'em. As for the ACLU, the 2nd doesn't fit THEIR agenda.0 -
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
I have been researching the ACLU for the last 3 days trying to find a case where they defended the 2nd amend. I cant find anything. I even sent them a few emails requesting they provide some info on their 2nd amend cases, they havent responded. Does anyone know of any cases ?
Ask and ye shall receive:
http://pun.org/josh/archives/2006/11/aclu_saf_sue_li.html
The ACLU and the Second Amendment Foundation joined forces to file suit against libraries in Washington State that were censoring access to pro-gun websites, namely the SAF's "Women & Guns" online publication and newsletter.0 -
From the ACLU website"
"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 #470 -
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
quote:Originally posted by newtgingrich
I have been researching the ACLU for the last 3 days trying to find a case where they defended the 2nd amend. I cant find anything. I even sent them a few emails requesting they provide some info on their 2nd amend cases, they havent responded. Does anyone know of any cases ?
Ask and ye shall receive:
http://pun.org/josh/archives/2006/11/aclu_saf_sue_li.html
The ACLU and the Second Amendment Foundation joined forces to file suit against libraries in Washington State that were censoring access to pro-gun websites, namely the SAF's "Women & Guns" online publication and newsletter.
that is NOT a 2nd amend issue, it was a 1st amend issue.0 -
Interesting interpretation. Thanks HeDog. Strange Newt couldn't find anything.
So they see the 2nd amendment as a right for the states to provide a militia to counter a federal military force. Therefore, individual firearm ownership is not necessary. Hmmm. Interesting.
While I do not support insurgents in Iraq in there fight against the American Army and the Iraqi national troops, I find it interesting that the insurgents are largely using small arms. No, they are not using Stinger missiles, but small arms and homemade bombs. While I'm using our enemy as an example, small arms are effective.
Yes, small arms in the hands or private citizens is a constitutional right because the Founding Fathers knew it is the front lines in a conflict against domestic or foreign enemies. It is also interesting the Founding Fathers saw armed citizens as an advantage not a threat to the federal government. Today's liberals see it as a threat. Makes me wonder.0 -
I just cut and paste capt. I make no defense or explanation for the ACLU position. In fact I think they are dead wrong on this one. 0 -
ACLU is all lawyers, of course. Lawyers don't want to be trumped by individuals with guns. Most lawyers are pumped out of liberal schools and are givern an extensive liberal indoctrination in the "Harvards" of America.
Lawyers now see themselves as social engineers. They want the power to change the Constitution through changing interpretations of that document which support their agenda of America.
Not all Lawyers think that way but a large percentage do and thats a big hurddle to overcome in the battle for the second amendment.0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
I just cut and paste capt. I make no defense or explanation for the ACLU position. In fact I think they are dead wrong on this one.
Yeah, I know. Just observing that Newt couldn't find anything. I suspect that wasn't hard for you to find.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Interesting interpretation. Thanks HeDog. Strange Newt couldn't find anything.
maybe you should go back and actually read it this time. i asked for a defense of the 2nd amend, NOT the 1st amend which that case points to0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
From the ACLU website"
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
If it ever comes to the point where the Government decides to completely disarm the citizens this will be what goes down. IMO I don't think we'll see that happen. The anti gun movement seems to have lost at least a little momentum in the last 5-10 years. With the exception of paper work hassles, and high costs of some items, I really don't feel restricted at this time. We'll see what happens.0 -
Wasn't this covered by the Founders when discussing the British Parliments having to periodically update the three lists of what was; required to bring, Forbiddon to bring, and what was optional for the Malitias to bring?
Wasn't it decided that if the Congress supplies it to the foot soldier then it was an arm?
Some authorities have suggested that this means commonly issued to the foot soldier and therefore does not cover cannon, hand gernades, rockets, etc. Not that this makes them illegal to have, just not disscused and therefore not atuomatically covered under the 2nd.
Oh yes, the authorities are the various authors of the books I recieved 20 years ago from the NRA and possibily in the US Senate Judiciary Committe's, Sub-committee Report on the right to bear arms.0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
From the ACLU website"
"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
Cool. So, there were nine amendments in the Bill of Rights that were individual rights, and one that was a collective right. And, interestingly enough, it is #2 and was probably placed there arbitrarily.
At least now I understand. I want to now frolic down a meadow, dance by the river and give someone a big, warm fuzzy.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
17 comments