Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 8/7/2007 1:23:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2007 1:24:24 AM EDT by Willys48]
NOT HARDLY READ BELOW FROM THEIR WEB SITE.

http://www.aclu.org/info/18852res20040107.html

What is the ACLU's position on gun control?
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe 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. For more information, please read our statement on gun control.

Gun Control (3/4/2002)

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."

This is the one constitutional right the ACLU refuses to defend Americans on. They say they are neutral but as you can see they clearly have taken sides. If this were not true the ACLU would be defending the ruling in D.C. right now. The ACLU will defend the rights of NAMBLA but not our 2nd Amendment rights?
HAS ANYONE KNOWN OF THE ACLU TO DEFEND IN COURT AN AMERICANS RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS?
Link Posted: 8/7/2007 2:16:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2007 2:33:34 AM EDT by son_of_76]
Read the biography of Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU during the early 1900's. He was a professed Marxist activist frequently jailed for acts of violence and sedition. His goal in founding the ACLU was to instigate a workers' revolution in the US by manipulating the legal system and US laws to defeat the freedoms we had and ultimately our form of government. If you are interested there is a website established by a group dedicated to ending the reign of the ACLU over civil liberties litigation. I am not a member, but I do believe it has some very worthwhile arguments.

stoptheaclu.com
Link Posted: 8/7/2007 2:52:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2007 2:53:46 AM EDT by mjpjr45]
Why does the phrase "the right of the people" refer to individual rights in other amendments, but not in the 2nd.

1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2nd Amendment

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.


It is just amazing to me that the same 5 words can have 2 different meanings. I guess my problem is I am thinking too logically.


Link Posted: 8/7/2007 3:38:08 AM EDT

If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.





that would be a good analogy if there were another line in the bill of rights that says:
The right of the people to keep and bear cars shall not be infringed.

Link Posted: 8/7/2007 7:13:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2007 7:57:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mjpjr45:
Why does the phrase "the right of the people" refer to individual rights in other amendments, but not in the 2nd.

....I guess my problem is I am thinking too logically.



You got that right. It's a total bullshit argument to say "the people" means duckhunters or the National Guard. The founding fathers were extremely careful with their wording. The meaning of the words "the people" is absolutely crystal clear.

The Schumers and Bidens of the world who claim otherwise are baldfaced liars.

Riddle me this...why does Martha Stewart get jail time for lying, but we just accept that our elected representatives lie all the time and there are no consequences. The dems want to press charges against Gonzalez for lying, but the double standard doesn't apply to them. They're special liars, i guess.

Link Posted: 8/8/2007 8:30:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hellbound:

If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.




that would be a good analogy if there were another line in the bill of rights that says:
The right of the people to keep and bear cars shall not be infringed.


It would also be better if they treated guns just like cars. You go in, take the course, prove your proficiency, get the license. From there you can buy as many cars, and as many car parts as you want, as often as you want. You don't need to get a special license to buy a Corvette. (That would be an assault car, don'tcha know. Operates sooo much faster than a normal car)
It also wouldn't be so arbitrary. Now the sheriff can deny a CCW permit because he "doesn't think you need one." You never have to justify buying a car to the sheriff, and it isn't Constitutionally protected. But you have to justify owning a gun.

So where is the license needed to allow you to exercise your freedom of speech? Why don't you have to prove that you "need" to have freedom of speech? (A bit of hypocrisy in play, if you ask me.)
Link Posted: 8/8/2007 8:43:45 AM EDT
"Gun control laws increase the power of government and the criminal element over the average citizen and serve no other purpose."
-General Robert E. Lee
Link Posted: 8/8/2007 8:57:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2007 8:58:30 AM EDT by Aimless]
Link Posted: 8/8/2007 9:12:54 AM EDT
The well regulated militia part does not modify the right of the people part at all. Why bother explaining the well regulated part?
Link Posted: 8/8/2007 10:03:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheMocoMan:
"Gun control laws increase the power of government and the criminal element over the average citizen and serve no other purpose."
-General Robert E. Lee


Thanks for the new sig line!

Link Posted: 8/8/2007 11:11:15 AM EDT
The ACLU is nothing but a liberal-socialist machine.
Link Posted: 8/8/2007 11:42:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cornholio123:
The well regulated militia part does not modify the right of the people part at all. Why bother explaining the well regulated part?


My take on it...

"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."

....is saying in spite of the state maintaining an armed military body, the populace will *also* be armed.

See?

Constitutional law is pretty clear. Takes a lawyer, or a democrat, to muck it up.
Link Posted: 8/8/2007 11:57:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
The 2nd aint their thing. Thats why we have the NRA.


The 2nd ain't their thing either these days.
Link Posted: 8/8/2007 12:31:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:

Originally Posted By shotar:
The 2nd aint their thing. Thats why we have the NRA.


The 2nd ain't their thing either these days.


I sent them an e-mail about this once and that was basically their response. They said there were other organizations available to people to defend 2A rights... It's BS. They could jump in if they cared about the BOR.
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 4:22:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheMocoMan:
"Gun control laws increase the power of government and the criminal element over the average citizen and serve no other purpose."
-General Robert E. Lee


You sure that quote is legit? Did they use the term "gun control" in the 1800's?

Link Posted: 8/13/2007 5:34:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
The 2nd aint their thing. Thats why we have the NRA.


Maybe think again chek the last clip
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 6:50:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bkj:

Originally Posted By shotar:
The 2nd aint their thing. Thats why we have the NRA.


Maybe think again chek the last clip


If I join the VPC and make pro-gun comments does that make the VPC pro-gun?
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 9:51:03 AM EDT
In short, the ACLU believes the Second Amendment grants only the state national guards the right to bear arms.

This collective view has been abandoned by everyone, but the most extreme progressive Anti-Constitution groups. The majoirty of law review articles including those written by legal and Constitutional scholars have concluded that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

When taken both by strict construction with the comma that states both the goal and the right preserved to achieve it along with other acts like the Militia act or the Federalist papers of the times makes any argument in support of the state "collective" theory almost laughable. To assume that the Founding Fathers wouldn't as they did with the 10th Amendment spell out clearly that the Second Amendment applied to the States is also laughable.

To look at the various articles by those at the Constitutional Convention and their view points at the right of citizens to bear arms along with the fact that unlike most of the Amendments there was zero debate is also telling.

In the end the ACLU should just say "We really aren't about the Constitution, but instead are about the promotion of a progressive socialist state and we realize that we will not be able to achieve our communist utopia without disarming citizens."

If the ACLU can refute Parker with actual facts and citations to various acts or articles around the time period when the Second Amendment was created than they might be able to be taken seriously. However, all they offer is their own subjective opinions based on nothing.


Top Top