Why is it that the ACLU does not step up to bat on issues of gun ownership rights? I have read their argument here
And while it is a common argument against the 2nd amendment, even Cecil himself thinks it is pretty bogus.
Even though, working in the bounds of their argument, they mention that they support reasonable restrictions, but yet still fail to step up to the plate on complete bans of arms, even when the capabilities of the banned arms are the same as other available arms.
Second question:
Also mentioned on the page above, why does the SCotUS refuse to give cert. to 2nd amendment cases?
In my view, the ACLU is being hypocritical. Their view of the Second Amendment, standing alone, is a reasonable one. But given that they taken such a liberal view of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, their recalcitrance on the Second is questionable.
In fact, I’ll say it simpler: they are liberals. And gun ownership is antiethical to their world. So they choose to view the Secodn Amendment in a restrictive sense, a sense they do not extend to the other rights in the Bill of Rights.
Well, there already is a huge organization with crud loads of cash dedicated to the preservation of the most liberal possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the NRA. So, given that the NRA has both the will and the capability to do just about anything they can to defend the right to bear arms, one could argue that it would be something of a waste of resouces for the ACLU to join in.
I don’t buy Malodorous’s argument because that isn’t the position they’re taking. I don’t think we’re ever gonna here the ACLU say “We support the NRA, and devote our resources to other constitutional cases because they do such a good job.”
Why the smilie face? I’ve heard that exact argument from a former director of the ICLU (Indiana CLU), Sheila Seuss Kennedy*.
*The book may not contain such language, but she was a professor of mine, and that was nearly her exact response to a “2nd Amendment & the ACLU” question. Hope that helps.
The 2nd Amendment was damn poorly written, first and foremost. But it does contain that proviso about the necessity for a “well-ordered militia”. This cannot be interpreted as solid certain support for crazy Uncle Charlie’s alleged “right” to own an Uzzi. When the Constitution outlines other rights to be protected, there is no need to supply the rationale: freedom of speech, for instance, is deemed to be entirely essential to the governance the Constitution is meant to support. Without freedom of speech, the other rights become academic and irrelevent. Freedom of speech is fundamental.
Clearly, gun ownership was not held to be fundamental in this sense, because the Founding Fuckups felt compelled to supply thier rationale: so far as an armed populace is important to maintaining a well-ordered militia, individual gun ownership is important. The obverse of that may be fairly assumed: if gun ownership is not conducive to public order, it is no longer a right, it is a right only in context, it does not rise to the level of importance assigned to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc., those rights which are, in fact, entirely essential to a democratic governance.
I agree that the 2nd Amendment does not offer either side of the issue entirely irrefutable standing. But the simple and cogent fact that the Founders felt it necessary to add such a proviso makes it clear that gun ownership was not one of the “inalienable” rights, but conditional, hence, subject to change as circumstances permit or demand. We already have a sufficiency of well-ordered militia, a population awash in Glock-9s will not further enhance order. Quite the opposite.
Nothing in your post contradicts mine. The ACLU is a very consistent defender of civil liberties, with the exception of individual gun rights. And there is nothing a stuanch conservative becoming an advisor to the ACLU that changes that. Barr doesn’t agree with them on many issues, and the link you provided makes that very clear.
They believe that the Constitution permits “licensing and registration.” Nowhere in their mission statement, this article, or in their case histories have they supported or advocated outlawing gun ownership. You go too far.
I think he may mean Tec-9s, actually. Or Glock 22s. Besides the point. I find, from a simple reading, the first half of the 2nd Amendment to be a bit more closely aligned to rhetoric than to law. This is not a rare interpretation, this is not my thought alone, but this is how, from a plain reading, I have always read it. I understand the other interpretation as well.
It’s not like, given a half hour and some motivation, I couldn’t build a mortar from spare parts lying around the house, anyhow.
It is not stated to be conditional, but it supplies a rationale: that well-ordered militia is needed, therefore gun ownership is important. One may safely assume that if a well-ordered militia already exists, then it is not necessary that individual citizens be armed, and the necessity that supports the 2nd Amendment does not pertain. None of the other rights require such a rationale, the are fundamental, “inalienable”, not subject to circumstance, hence, not conditional. The 2nd Amendment is only conditional when compared to the rest.
Saying that “They” are liberals is contradicted by evidence that conservatives are also members. Certainly many ACLU members are liberal; but you can’t use a blanket statement about why they don’t take on 2nd Amendment issues. Unless you consider everyone who defends civil liberties to be liberal, then “They” are not all liberals.
Yes. I acknowledge that my statement was not technically correct. Each and every member or contributor to the ACLU is not a political liberal. However, as an entity, the ACLU is liberal.
So “they” are not necessarily liberals. IT is liberal.
