# The ACLU, Prior Restraint, Stalking, and Guns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001 "2014-03-31T17:17:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/21 "2014-03-31T21:18:22Z")
Isn’t a big part of why the ACLU may not be mounting as vigorous a defense against violations of the 2nd due to people not going to them for it? You have to have some person claiming one thing or another before you can make a case, don’t you? And the ACLU is widely known as being more liberal than most, and 2nd Amendment defenders are widely more conservative than most, so why would one go to the other? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/22 "2014-03-31T21:30:10Z")
It’s basically a legal action group. If they were really interested in attacking gun rights, don’t you think they would be? ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/23 "2014-03-31T22:58:14Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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 want to repeal it, and I like to think I’m not crazy or fringe. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/24 "2014-03-31T23:09:45Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > I want to repeal it, and I like to think I’m not crazy or fringe. Do you really genuinely think you’re not fringe? I mean, what would you estimate as the percentage of Americans who straight-up want to repeal the second amendment? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/25 "2014-03-31T23:21:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A [Missouri man](https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-files-suit-protect-free-speech-rights-second-amendment-advocate) 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 . . . Why? The man was **guilty** of disturbing the peace, wasn’t he? ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/26 "2014-03-31T23:34:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Do you really genuinely think you’re not fringe? I mean, what would you estimate as the percentage of Americans who straight-up want to repeal the second amendment? I’m probably in the fringe on this particular issue; but I meant I was not _in general_ on the fringe, unlike, say, the “Neo-nazis” in the post I quoted whose fringe ideologies taint every discussion they enter and every policy they advocate. Also, I suspect the number of people who advocate for a repeal of the second amendment jumps much higher if you phrase the question as “Do you advocate a repeal of the second amendment, _assuming the Supreme Court’s current interpretation will be upheld_?” Most people accused of wanting a repeal respond with “no, I just want it interpreted correctly.” Edit: but this is a bit of a hijack, so I’ll leave it be at that. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/27 "2014-04-01T01:46:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > There are members of this board that wish to repeal it. There are many Americans here who don’t consider the Bible and/or the Constitution to be sacred. That just shows a lot of us to be atypical. In my view, the influence of the US Constitution on gun rights is not all that great. Gun law in the US is shaped by the democratic process far more than constitutions. That’s why in Hawaii you have strong gun control despite a second amendment-type provision in the state constitution. And that’s why you still can’t generally get a carry permit in D.C., despite Heller. Or, for that matter, why you [can’t get an abortion in 87 percent of US counties](http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/access_abortion.html). Part of it is the old story of the Supreme Court not having power to enforce its decisions. Also, they often have to decide on narrow issues specific to circumstances of an individual case. Some parts of the US Constitution do get obeyed. That’s why we elect the President, instead of having the President selected by Congress, as in parliamentary systems and the, on this point superior, Articles of Confederation. Suppose the second amendment was abolished, but the Supreme Count had five consistent GOP votes. I predict they would use the full faith and credit clause to get New York City to honor Texas carry permits. That would actually be a much stronger enforcement of gun rights than you get with focus on the second amendment! And if the Supreme Court gets even one vote more Democratic, they will find obscure reasoning so that gun controllers win every cases. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/28 "2014-04-01T01:53:10Z")
Here’s what my state’s [ACLU says](http://www.aclunv.org/issues): > [@](#): > > The ACLU of Nevada respects the individual’s right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations and defends this right as it defends other constitutional rights. There might be others, but I’m not going through 49 websites. I’ve always found the “collective right” argument to be not apparent in the text. But I think it’s just a cop, they don’t cover gun cases on either side often/ever, right? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/29 "2014-04-01T03:26:08Z")
The objection of gun rights supporters to the national ACLU is that they accept certain court interpretations of rights as absolute, but reject the court’s decision on the subject that they concern themselves with the most. As has been amply demonstrated over the years, they will go to the mat for free speech and other rights contained in the Constitution, using precedent to do so. Yet when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the court’s decision is determined by them to be wrong, thus they do not take up for gun rights deemed by the Supreme Court to be fundamental. This apparent contradiction is taken as a slap in the face. And, really, why shouldn’t it be? ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/30 "2014-04-01T05:03:58Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > This apparent contradiction is taken as a slap in the face. And, really, why shouldn’t it be? Because it’s the American Civil Liberties Union, not the Americans Worship the Constitution as God-Given Union. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2014, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/31 "2014-04-01T05:12:16Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > And, really, why shouldn’t it be? I dunno… maybe if one is an adult…? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/32 "2014-04-01T06:06:17Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > The objection of gun rights supporters to the national ACLU is that they accept certain court interpretations of rights as absolute, but reject the court’s decision on the subject that they concern themselves with the most. As has been amply demonstrated over the years, they will go to the mat for free speech and other rights contained in the Constitution, using precedent to do so. Yet when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the court’s decision is determined by them to be wrong, thus they do not take up for gun rights deemed by the Supreme Court to be fundamental. > > This apparent contradiction is taken as a slap in the face. And, really, why shouldn’t it be? I don’t think you entirely understand the purpose of the ACLU. They don’t exist to promote the _court_’s interpretation of the Constitution, they exist to promote _their own_ interpretation of the Constitution. Their interpretation of the Constitution doesn’t guarantee an individual right to own guns. They’re not hypocrites for holding that position in spite of current legal precedent, any more than they were hypocrites for opposing Jim Crow, back when that was backed by legal precedent, or DADT, back when that was legal precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/33 "2014-04-01T14:09:52Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Do you really genuinely think you’re not fringe? I want to repeal it too, and I suspect if you asked you’d get an answer somewhere between 25-30%. > [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Here’s what my state’s [ACLU says](http://www.aclunv.org/issues): > > There might be others, but I’m not going through 49 websites. I think this raises an important point: the ACLU is not a unitary organization like (say) the NRA. The national organization is a largely empty umbrella; the bulk of the group’s work is done by autonomous state affiliates (or regional affiliates, in the case of California.) So it’s really sort of pointless for the national organization to take positions on issues. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/34 "2014-04-01T18:02:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The charges were dropped as meritless and the seized guns were returned. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why? The man was **guilty** of disturbing the peace, wasn’t he? He was indeed. My mistake. The “meritless” item was the order of protection, not the charge of disturbing the peace. Klaffer admitted his guilt to the misdemeanor charge and paid a $125 fine. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/35 "2014-04-01T18:50:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > … 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… Are you (or the ACLU) saying that if you ask a judge to do something, and the judge agrees and does it, that you are later liable for some penalty based on the judge’s decision? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/36 "2014-04-01T19:06:55Z")
That’s a pretty good question. What relief is the guy entitled to? ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/37 "2014-04-01T19:12:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s a pretty good question. What relief is the guy entitled to? [http://www.aclu-mo.org/download\_file/view\_inline/1096/487/](http://www.aclu-mo.org/download_file/view_inline/1096/487/) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/38 "2014-04-01T19:22:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s a pretty good question. What relief is the guy entitled to? Whatever sanctions can come from the tort of abuse of process, I would imagine. The officer’s declaration in support of the order alleged that he had been “stalked,” even though no actions of the plaintiff amounted to stalking. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/39 "2014-04-01T19:23:50Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Are you (or the ACLU) saying that if you ask a judge to do something, and the judge agrees and does it, that you are later liable for some penalty based on the judge’s decision? In this case, the officer asked the judge for an order of protection based on, inter alia, the written claim that he was being stalked, even though that was not legally correct. In an ex parte hearing, the judge can only rely on the facts presented by one side. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/40 "2014-04-01T19:35:16Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Are you saying the ACLU is actually a supporter of the 2nd amendment? Is there some benefit to thinking that they do? They support expansive views of everything in the bill of rights except the second amendment. There they have something closer to Mexico’s interpreetation of the RTKBA. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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? It’s not just fringey posters on a left leaning website. Its senators in the senate, its congressmen. I am going to speculate that Obama would like to repeal the second amendment as well but knows it can’t be done, his constituency is not the same as Dianne Feinstein’s constituency of Michael Bloomberg’s constituency. Like I said, I expect that we will see leaked photos of Hillary Clinton hunting ducks in Pennsylvania this fall. > [@](#): > > 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. It may have been ambiguous once but it is no longer ambiguous. It is now clear that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. This is the only individual right I can think of where the ACLU seeks more restrictive interpretations of rights rather than broader interpretations of rights. > [@Reyemile](#): > > Also, I suspect the number of people who advocate for a repeal of the second amendment jumps much higher if you phrase the question as “Do you advocate a repeal of the second amendment, _assuming the Supreme Court’s current interpretation will be upheld_?” Most people accused of wanting a repeal respond with “no, I just want it interpreted correctly.” Who would overturn the supreme court in this case? Are you saying that the supreme court would do an about face on this anytime soon? > [@Reyemile](#): > > Because it’s the American Civil Liberties Union, not the Americans Worship the Constitution as God-Given Union. > **[Civil liberties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties)** > > Civil liberties are guarantees and freedoms that governments commit not to abridge, either by constitution, legislation, or judicial interpretation, without due process. Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, t... -the right to liberty and security -the right to defend oneself Its a free country, they get to pick and choose what they want to support and heaven knows that there are some right leaning organizations that aren’t exactly as advertised (see Fox News “Fair & Balanced”). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001.md?page=3)