# Good on the ACLU for helping a man gets his guns back **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498 "2010-07-21T18:33:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/1 "2010-07-21T18:33:55Z")
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](http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fort-lauderdale/fl-gun-guy-wins-20100721,0,7679239.story), 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.” > [@Sun-Sentinel](#): > > With the slide of a drawer beneath a bullet-proof glass window at a police evidence warehouse Wednesday, Robert Weinstein’s Second Amendment right to possess firearms was vindicated. > . > . > . > Earlier that morning at the Broward County courthouse, Circuit Judge Dale Ross ruled in favor of Weinstein’s petition by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. > > Broward Sheriff’s deputies seized the handguns in February, saying they believed he was about to shoot himself out of despair. His wife of 61-years, Dana Weinstein, had died in January. Three weeks later, her remains were not yet at a funeral home for burial. > > “Mr. Weinstein, you seem like a wonderful human being,” Ross told him after a 20-minute hearing. “I apologize for having to bring you down here. I honestly don’t know why they were taken from you.” > > Five months ago, Weinstein told Broward Sheriff’s deputies he “wanted to blow his head off,” according to a police report. > > Weinstein says the comment was taken out of context. The Broward Sheriff’s Office helped locate Mrs. Weinstein remains and she was buried. > > Weinstein said he agreed to surrender his pistols, along with ammunition and holsters, for safekeeping after authorities insisted on it. He was taken to a hospital for medical evaluation but was not arrested or institutionalized against his will. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/2 "2010-07-21T18:44:37Z")
Even if he does eventually blow his head off, it was the right thing for the ACLU to do. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/3 "2010-07-21T18:47:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Apparently they just disagreed with your interpretation: > [@](#): > > The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment 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. > > SOURCE: [Redirecting...](http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con11.htm) 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. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/4 "2010-07-21T18:53:36Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/5 "2010-07-21T19:00:13Z")
> [@villa](#): > > 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. Again not sure about that though. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/6 "2010-07-21T19:02:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > That’s kind of the point isn’t it? That for speech to be free it has to protect distasteful speech? 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. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/7 "2010-07-21T19:10:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. > > Again not sure about that though. The ACLU was involved with [_In re Marriage Cases_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases), which held that California’s Equal Protection Caluse required same sex marriage to be recognized. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/8 "2010-07-21T19:59:09Z")
The current paragraph on the matter (from [here](http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/second-amendment)), > [@American Civil Liberties Union](#): > > The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/9 "2010-07-21T20:03:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![palindromemordnilap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/db5fbb/32.png) [@palindromemordnilap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/palindromemordnilap)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/10 "2010-07-21T20:51:14Z")
> [@villa](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/11 "2010-07-22T04:13:38Z")
> [@palindromemordnilap](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/12 "2010-07-22T04:44:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. Wrong. 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”. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/13 "2010-07-22T06:46:47Z")
> [@palindromemordnilap](#): > > 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. [Here’s their official statement](http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-nevada-supports-individual%E2%80%99s-right-bear-arms). 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/14 "2010-07-22T13:27:46Z")
What gets me is how the ACLU ignores the 3rd Amendment. They’ve _never_ helped anyone whose 3rd Amendment rights were violated. Bastards. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/15 "2010-07-22T13:56:26Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/16 "2010-07-22T14:01:25Z")
Many on the right have a very different interpretation of the First Amendment than the ACLU (and also of the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth). They view the ACLU, for example, as seeing establishment where it doesn’t exist, and of ignoring free exercise in religion cases. They are wrong on this, of course :D, but they believe they are the one’s with the correct interpretation of the constitution. Similarly to those on the left who see the second amendment as guaranteeing only a collective right held by the states. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/17 "2010-07-22T14:06:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/18 "2010-07-22T14:13:28Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > What gets me is how the ACLU ignores the 3rd Amendment. They’ve _never_ helped anyone whose 3rd Amendment rights were violated. Bastards. > > 😛 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. > [@Lightnin](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/19 "2010-07-22T14:18:21Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2010, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498/20 "2010-07-22T14:36:37Z")
> [@villa](#): > > They view the ACLU, for example, as seeing establishment where it doesn’t exist, and of ignoring free exercise in religion cases. > > They are wrong on this, of course :D, [Here](http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/) is a handy index of the ACLU’s pro-Christian efforts, for example. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-on-the-aclu-for-helping-a-man-gets-his-guns-back/547498.md?page=2)