I have at times criticized the ACLU for what has been, in my view, spirited defense of nine amendments of the Bill of Rights, and a somewhat less passionate attitude about Amendment the Second.
However, here’s a case which is only tangentially about guns, but still rebuts that criticism.
A Missouri man was arrested after a police officer responded to a noise complaint, which apparently arose because the man was (legally) firing guns on his property. The officer advised the man he had a choice: be arrested or surrender his guns. The man refused to surrender the guns and was arrested (various documents describe the charge as either “investigation of unlawful use of a weapon,” or “disturbing the peace”).
The charges were dropped as meritless and the seized guns were returned.
However, the man, aggrieved over what he saw as unprofessional behavior, posted a video to Youtube that showed the arrest. He also posted a picture of the officer next to a picture of Saddam Hussein with the caption “Striking Resemblance.”
The officer responded by applying for a order of protection from the court, claiming that he was being stalked by the man he had arrested. In support of his claim, he listed the posting of the video and picture as supporting evidence.
The court, amazingly enough, granted the order – although this proceeding was ex parte, meaning that only the officer appeared in front of the judge.
The order was ultimately vacated, and now the ACLU is assisting the man’s lawsuit against the officer for the violation of his First Amendment rights.
So – good on the ACLU. A reminder notice to myself that perceptions aren’t reality.
I’m a big fan of the ACLU, and largely indifferent when it comes to gun rights, and I don’t really see how this says anything about the ACLU’s stand on the second amendment. They went to bat for the guy because he made fun of someone online, and the target of his ridicule tried to get the courts on him. I don’t see how this implies anything one way or the other about how the ACLU feels about gun rights, anymore than their defense of Nazis’ right to march in Skokie doesn’t imply anything about how the ACLU feels about National Socialism.
The ACLU has limited resources. They could easily justify a decision to pass by this case and address another First Amendment claim with a plaintiff that was not a Second Amendment …er…supporter.
I agree it’s not a case ABOUT the Second. But I think in light of my past criticisms, it’s appropriate to post this and acknowledge that this action cannot possibly be called ANTI-Second Amendment.
This is a slam dunk. The only issue in question is whether the officer will have immunity from this suit. It has nothing to do with guns in any meaningful way.
It does remind me of an episode of The Good Wife where someone shames the police into dropping shitty charges by putting up Youtube videos.
If the ACLU takes on relatively few gun cases, does that say anything about their biases, or does it just say that people with gun cases don’t usually ask the ACLU for help?
As for the ACLU mounting a “spirited defense of nine amendments of the Bill of Rights”, have they ever addressed the quartering of soldiers?
I think it’s certainly fair to say they’re less spirited in their defense of the Second than of several other constitutional protections, and I say that as, like Miller, a supporter of the ACLU and a lukewarm ignorer of gun rights.
I’m not familiar with your opinion before today, Bricker, but it seems as though your prior perception of the ACLU on gun issues would have had to be of an almost cartoonishly villainous opposition. It’s damning them with exceedingly faint praise to point out that they didn’t spit on this open-and-shut First Amendment case because the guy loves shooting shit in his yard.
There was a court case years ago in which someone declared that rent control laws meant that “swarms of bureaucrats” would “be quartered as storm troopers” (where I’m not sure), in violation of the third amendment. The courts rejected this novel approach, just as for years the courts rejected the idea that the second amendment granted an individual right to bear arms.
If the ACLU refused to take up similar third amendment cases, it wouldn’t be fair to declare them hypocrites, or “soft on the third amendment” or whatever. It would simply mean that they had a different interpretation of the third amendment and saw no reason to take up cases that ran counter to their interpretation of it.
Most crucially, this would hold true even if the courts reversed themselves and started striking down rent-control laws.
As near as I can tell, they support the interpretation that the right to keep and bear arms within the context of a well-regulated militia ought not be infringed by the federal government, and they’d be happy to take any case in which the federal government were infringing that right.
It’s unfortunate for the ACLU that they take a similar position to those that employ an incremental approach to repealing the 2nd amendment so much so that it makes it difficult to distinguish them.
What if you say you are a supporter of the 14th amendment, except your interpretation is that it should be interpreted more narrowly, say, that it doesn’t apply to non-citizens? A group taking that position would hardly be considered a supporter of the 14th amendment.
Perhaps the phrase “supporter of the 2nd amendment” is rubbish to begin with, and asking people whether they’re saying a third party is one of those, similarly to asking “is this racist,” is basically an exercise in futility.
I am unaware of anyone who wants to repeal the second amendment. Plenty of folks want the court to return to its previous understanding of the second amendment. Is that what you meant to say?
This is a poor analogy, since the fourteenth amendment begins, “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
If someone claims that this only applies to citizens, that’s in direct contradiction of the text of the amendment. There’s none of the question about limiting clauses that plagues the second amendment, no grammatical ambiguity (and please don’t claim the second amendment is unambiguous; to do so makes liars of generations of supreme court justices). They’re simply wrong.
No. There are members of this board that wish to repeal it.
It’s not a great analogy. I should have limited it to the equal protection and due process clause which would be better, but not great. Even so, you get the point.
There are members of this board who want to execute all Christians. There are (or have been) members of this board who are Neo-Nazis. This board hosts all sorts of fringe folks. If you meant to compare the ACLU’s position to a fringe position, you are in effect saying that generations of Supreme Court Justices occupied the fringe of judicial thought.
I’m sorry, but I really don’t. You’re comparing a position with literally decades of support, due to ambiguous grammatical structure, to one with no support, due to unambiguous grammatical structure. The analogy never gets off the ground, I think.
You said you were unaware of anyone who wanted to repeal the 2nd. That was inaccurate then, right?
I guess I don’t care all that much to convince you. You could use my analogy, or craft your own. Imagine a position that is in direct opposition to the majority view of an amendment. If you think it’s possible to take a contrary position to the majority view on an amendment and still self identify as a supporter of that amendment, well, that’s your right. It’s silly and unnecessary, but it’s your right none the less.
The fact that the ACLU claims they support the 2nd amendment makes actual supporters of the 2nd not take them seriously. I’m sure they give zero fucks about that.
In the context, I thought you were referring to someone non-fringe. Technically I was accurate, as I still don’t know who you’re talking about, but at least now that I know you’re considering at least one human being holding the position to count toward your argument, I’ll stipulate that you’re right.
Thing is, it’s only recently a contrary position to the majority view, and it’s a very sizable minority. If you analogize them to folks who take a total nutball position, it’s a failed analogy.