One criticism I’ve had of the ACLU is their general refusal to get involved in protecting Second Amendment constitutional rights, as though their copy of the Constitution was numbered 1,3-27.
Fair is fair. As a vocal critic on that score, I am obligated to offer this report, believed to be “…the first time in the organization’s 90-year history that it has helped a gun owner retrieve his weapons from law enforcement.”
I suppose there’s a debate possible about the ACLU’s general role of luxurious ennui or outright hostility towards Amendment 2, because this event is definitely out of character for them… and all discussions about guns here have the potential of becoming contentious. Thus my choice of forum. But the purpose of this post is to acknowledge that the ACLU’s behavior here belies my criticism of them on this score. Good job, ACLU.
Apparently they just disagreed with your interpretation:
Personally I agree with them and it is certainly a rational and arguable position as the Constitution is written.
Yes I am aware the SCOTUS has changed that interpretation recently (presumably that bit quoted above was written before recent SCOTUS decisions on the subject).
So, I suppose, the ACLU should now defend the 2nd as the SCOTUS has said it is to be interpreted.
One might also suppose that when deep pockets like the NRA advocate for gun rights the ACLU can better spend its money elsewhere…like some poor schlub with no other recourse or agency to help him/her.
I’m ashamed to admit to not knowing this, as I have written a check to the ACLU every year for the last 15 years, but does the ACLU also defend individuals from violations of their rights as defined under state constitutions?
Because if they do, and I am presuming it is, many states have constitutions which, I believe, are explicit in making the right to bear arms an individual one rather than a collective one.
I’m glad the ACLU did this. If they can also get over their habit of supporting the supression of (incredibly distasteful and objectionable) free speech by anti-choice people, I’ll feel even less problem with the annual check.
That’s kind of the point isn’t it? That for speech to be free it has to protect distasteful speech?
Not sure but I think the ACLU only deals with the US Constitution. I checked the Illinois ACLU site and they simply look like the Illinois office for the ACLU and talk about Federal rights.
Definitely the point. Hence my annoyance at them supporting the supression of free speech of anti-choice people.
I’m not annoyed enough about it to stop being a member, I just wish they wouldn’t do it. I’ll happily donate money elsewhere to help squash the anti-choice message without doing it that way.
Exactly. I am a believer and supporter of the Second as a strong individual right, and I’d like the ACLU to say the same as a matter of principle. But I still wouldn’t want them to get involved in very many Second Amendment cases, because gun rights have plenty of defenders and other rights often don’t.
ACLU allows its state affiliates to interpret the 2nd Amendment differently than the national organization does, and Nevada ACLU apparently has taken them up on it.
FWIW, I find the national ACLU position untenable. I understand that gun-control advocates like to interpret the amendment to mean that state-run authorities–not individuals–have a right to bear arms. But it’s a ludicrous interpretation.
Yeah, I have to agree. Its one of those situations where you really do have to strain your reading of the constitution to read the right as an state right and not an individual right.
I will not debate it here because this thread is not meant to be a debate on the 2nd Amendment and also we have done 2nd Amendment debates to death here on the SDMB (many of which I have participated in at length).
Suffice it to say your interpretation that it is a strained reading to read “Militia” in the 2nd Amendment is patently wrong. Read the Amendment yourself.
Yes, current SCOTUS rulings support you. Previous SCOTUS rulings didn’t (see US v. Miller). Future SCOTUS rulings may change again…who knows?
Point is that it is not a “strained” reading. There is honest and legitimate debate on it from both sides and both sides have some good arguments, none of which are “strained”.
Here’s their official statement. Good on them. In gun forums I’ve seen, some people hate the ACLU. There shouldn’t be a reason to do so in this area, and the national/more states should follow suit.
If I had a dollar for every time I joked about blowing my head off… Good luck cleaning the rust off, Mr. Weinstein.
I find it interesting that many on the Right seem to *hate *the ACLU. Presumably this is due to the reason **Bricker **suggested, above- the organization doesn’t defend the 2nd as much as it should.
However, does that failure to aggressively protect the 2nd outweigh all the work they do for the other Amendments? Isn’t that a bit like discarding the infant with the water used to wash said infant? Why the hatred?
Search for ACLU on Snopes, and you’ll see quite a few things making the rounds about the ACLU that are 100% hogwash. So many rightwingers swallow said hogwash that there is a tremendous amount of antipathy to it that is undeserved.
Regarding the Second, until Heller the liberal view of the Second (that the first half of the amendment was there for a reason), WAS the mainstream view. Now, I don’t think either the individual rights or the collective rights version can be considered radical as each has been endorsed by the Supremes.
The 3rd doesn’t apply if you invite them in. I know a homeless soldier looks cute, but most people don’t realize the personal and financial commitment required to take care of one.
IME it’s not for this reason. Many dislike the NRA because they are kind of milquetoast, not taking risks and pursuing legislation only when they are absolutely sure it will pass. But the hatred doesn’t reach ACLU levels. It seems to, as villa says, stem from religious issues and sometimes fiscal, as well as them defending pedophiles and klansmen (something shared between people who just don’t get it on both the left and right).
The “collective right” thing always seemed to me to encourage the militia movement.
That’s not 100% true. Up until Heller, the liberal view (well the view of some liberals) was the view in line with SCOTUS precedent, but it really wasn’t the mainstream view of the country.
