# ACLU, the SCotUS, and the 2nd **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408 "2004-12-17T20:10:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MrTuffPaws](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@MrTuffPaws](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrTuffPaws)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/1 "2004-12-17T20:10:29Z")
First question: Why is it that the ACLU does not step up to bat on issues of gun ownership rights? I have read their argument here > **[Police Practices](https://www.aclu.org/feature/police-practices?ID=9621&c=25&redirect=cfmredirect%2FPolicePractices)** > > Good police practices, thorough training, carefully crafted policies and appropriate allocation of resources in law enforcement can ensure public safety and prevent abuses in encounters between 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/2 "2004-12-17T20:14:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/3 "2004-12-17T20:17:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/4 "2004-12-17T20:21:11Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > one could argue that it would be something of a waste of resouces for the ACLU to join in. One could argue that, but I think **Bricker** nailed it… ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/5 "2004-12-17T20:23:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In fact, I’ll say it simpler: they are liberals. And gun ownership is antiethical to their world. [Really?](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_7_35/ai_110361473) > [@](#): > > reason: A lot of people were surprised when you took a post with the ACLU, but you actually cooperated with them going back at least to the early Clinton years. > > Barr: It started with the initial antiterrorism bill in '96. That probably was the first time that we recognized specifically that we had some very fundamental common interests. We worked together after that on several other pieces of legislation, such as the asset forfeiture reform, the national driver’s license, and the Know Your Customer program. > > **I had always known them to be a very, very consistent advocate for civil liberties** , but we disagreed on so many issues that I never really sought them out in terms of an ally. But shortly after I came up to the Congress, I realized–and I think they realized the same thing–that the size of government and the expansiveness of government power were creating a smaller sphere of personal liberty and personal privacy, and that we needed to find allies in this fight, and work together on those issues in which we agree and agree to disagree on the other issues. (bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/6 "2004-12-17T20:23:49Z")
A justficiation is in order: 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.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/7 "2004-12-17T20:41:09Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > A justficiation is in order: > > 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](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573921432/qid=1103316215/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-4152865-1193410?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)\*. \*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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/8 "2004-12-17T20:48:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/9 "2004-12-17T20:53:05Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > [Really?](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_7_35/ai_110361473) > (bolding mine) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/10 "2004-12-17T20:58:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. I think they did a pretty good job of explaining why they don’t take a liberal view of the 2nd. Do you really want RPG’s for sale at WalMart? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/11 "2004-12-17T21:05:03Z")
> [@](#): > > In fact, I’ll say it simpler: they are liberals. And gun ownership is antiethical to their world. 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. ---
**Author:** ![MrTuffPaws](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@MrTuffPaws](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrTuffPaws)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/12 "2004-12-17T21:06:28Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. You mean Glock 19s 😉 What part of the 2nd do you find conditional? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/13 "2004-12-17T21:15:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/14 "2004-12-17T21:26:13Z")
> [@MrTuffPaws](#): > > …What part of the 2nd do you find conditional? 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. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > … I couldn’t build a mortar from spare parts lying around the house, anyhow… Perhaps so, before the Duct Tape Famine of '03. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/15 "2004-12-17T21:39:24Z")
Duct Tape Famine was part of the Survivalist Movement of Y2K, remember? Anthrax? Trust me. Stocked for another twenty years. Still wish I’d gotten that Honda Generator in Feb 00, but I was strapped. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/16 "2004-12-17T21:45:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/17 "2004-12-17T21:48:49Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > 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. _sigh_ 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. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/18 "2004-12-17T21:49:37Z")
I personally like the idea of a personal right to bear arms. And welfare. Such a paradox! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/19 "2004-12-17T21:50:50Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > I think they did a pretty good job of explaining why they don’t take a liberal view of the 2nd. Do you really want RPG’s for sale at WalMart? I don’t want virtual child pornography either. Shall we take a more restrictive view of the First Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408/20 "2004-12-17T21:51:48Z")
Maybe **Bricker** simply believes that civil rights are one of them crazy-ass libural ideas. 😉 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aclu-the-scotus-and-the-2nd/280408.md?page=2)