# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/81 "2014-04-03T02:07:27Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I wasn’t pointing to their infallibility. The point is that the Federal government not having exclusive use of weapons is an ideological stance that merely involves a “tool”. Like I said, put “self-defense” in there. Got no issue with that. The conflation of guns and self-defense is the problem for me. Naming a specific tool is idiotic to me. The end. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/82 "2014-04-03T02:22:23Z")
Imho it would be idiotic to not mention ownership/use of weapons if you are talking about militias. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/83 "2014-04-03T02:24:53Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Imho it would be idiotic to not mention ownership/use of weapons if you are talking about militias. A militia need not be composed of men who own their weapons and keep them at home, though it might have appeared so in 1789. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2014, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/84 "2014-04-03T03:30:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > A militia need not be composed of men who own their weapons and keep them at home, though it might have appeared so in 1789. Well I suppose. But the specific point I’m addressing is whether a weapon/tool edict is a valid inclusion in an ideological statement. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/85 "2014-04-03T10:32:02Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Is there some benefit to thinking that they do? What on earth kind of a question is this? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/86 "2014-04-03T12:55:20Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > What on earth kind of a question is this? One with 9 words and a question mark. Similar to yours really. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/87 "2014-04-03T14:31:45Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Who, me? > > 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. Is there any conceivable scenario today in which such a case could arise? Nothing having to do with the National Guard would seem to present such a case. Neither would anything having to do with a private “militia” organization. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/88 "2014-04-03T15:05:34Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Nice try at giving a left-wing justification for a right-wing policy, but is it true? I’m thinking more anarchic/libertarian justification. Whereas the complementary statist policy would be significant gun restrictions or banning. (ETA: Both parties are quite statist in my mind. They just buy their votes differently. Dems use guns as a boogey man and Pubs use “gun grabbers” the same way, while trying to eliminate your freedoms via a different route. I’m not defending any “wing” here.) > [@](#): > > If the sky-high US gun ownership rate does such a great job of empowering the poor, why is it that the US not only has the world’s highest incarceration rate, but, also, those in our prisons are [overwhelmingly from impoverished families](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/10/toxic_persons.html)? That’s a separate issue. Overarching prison and justice system reform is imperative. > [@](#): > > As for the implication that guns equalize the marginalized vis-à-vis the police, you aren’t taking into account that when the populous arms itself, the police respond in kind. In countries where hardly any civilians carry guns, hardly any police do either. The US not only has the most guns, but also the most SWAT teams that can outgun those poor and marginalized people whose welfare the gun lobby apparently cares more about that I ever imagined. Giving a little power to the people doesn’t guarantee their dominance. Look at how little voting matters. But I wouldn’t suggest eliminating the franchise just because it doesn’t do much good anyway. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/89 "2014-04-03T18:07:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Is there any conceivable scenario today in which such a case could arise? Nothing having to do with the National Guard would seem to present such a case. Neither would anything having to do with a private “militia” organization. Thing is, I think the second amendment is very similar to the third: when it was written, it was highly relevant, given the contrast it drew between the nascent country and the colonies, but now it addresses a phantom menace. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/90 "2014-04-03T22:56:15Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Is there any conceivable scenario today in which such a case could arise? Nothing having to do with the National Guard would seem to present such a case. Here is a 2012 example of the federal government disarming a state national guard: [Governors Take Dispute over Air National Guard Cuts to Congress](http://www.defensecommunities.org/headlines/governors-take-dispute-over-air-national-guard-cuts-to-congress/#) > [@](#): > > “Unless precluded by Congress, the Air Force will still sweep 4 percent of total Air Force fighter aircraft from the ANG to active duty units. The result will be substantially higher manpower costs with no increase in the number of aircraft or combat capacity,” the two governors stated. As to why the governors are not going to the Supreme Court, let’s start with the near-certainty that their constituents don’t want them to. But I think a true strict constructionist would see a real constitutional issue here. The federal government is grabbing arms from what sure looks to me like a well-regulated militia. ---
**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 8, 2014, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/91 "2014-04-08T06:19:38Z")
nm ---
**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 8, 2014, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/92 "2014-04-08T06:36:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I warned you: BWAHAHAHA! Either you have a distorted view of what the traditional view of the right was or you don’t know what Feinstein’s views are. > [@](#): > > Individual WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF MILITIA MEMBERSHIP? Whatever. Individual REGARDLESS OF MILITIA MEMBERSHIP? Nope. The traditional right did not require a militia context, thats just what you want the right to be. The Utah version of the right is a lot closer to what we had for most of our history than the recently departed DC version of the right. It certainly was nothing close to what Feinstein thinks the right should be (i.e. banning of all private ownership of guns). > [@](#): > > No, I don’t think that, and that’s not remotely what I said. Then you must have misread what I said. I said there is no other right where the ACLU is seeking a more restrictive interpretation of a right rather than a broader interpretation of aright. Isn’t it clear that I was saying that the ACLU does not seek more restrictive readings of any right than what we have under current law outside of the second amendment. If your point is that there is SOMEONE to the left of the ACLU on almost every issue, then your statement seems meaningless. ---
**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 8, 2014, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/93 "2014-04-08T07:17:22Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Nope. I want a repeal of the 2nd but I don’t want to ban gun ownership. > > I just want guns to be like other tools. There is no reason for a tool to be in a constitution. The word gun doesn’t appear in the constitution. The word “arms” does. This generally means weapons, it is my hope one day that this right will apply to light sabers. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > One reason the second amendment stinks is that it makes the US look bad. About two months ago, my younger son and I were in Taiwan… You mean the same Taiwan that would be part of a one state three systems China if they didn’t have barbaric Americans to watch their back (who knows for how much longer). > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > In other contexts, sure. But in this conversation, “not controversial” end up replacing “not ambiguous” to describe the Constitutional Individual Right to Bear Arms Regardless Of Militia Membership (CIRBAROMM for short), and I dispute the idea that CIRBAROMM is, in the sense of non-ambiguous, non-controversial. It’s at the center of a terrific controversy, with nearly equal number of Supreme Court justices coming down on either side of the controversy. The relevant definition of controversial is the one that applies to whether something is significantly disputed by a significant number of people, not the one that applies to whether an opinion is far out of the mainstream. First of all, I don’t think 4 members of the Supreme court would consider your version of the right to be correct (they might be OK with banning (or heavily regulating) handguns as long as we could own shotguns and rifles). A lot of things are disputed by a significant number of people, it doesn’t make them controversial. Evolution and vaccination are disputed by a significant number of people, do you think these things are controversial? > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > In countries where hardly any civilians carry guns, hardly any police do either. The US not only has the most guns, but also the most SWAT teams that can outgun those poor and marginalized people whose welfare the gun lobby apparently cares more about that I ever imagined. And if we made all guns illegal tomorrow, we would still have about the same number of swat teams for generations to come. Well, then you should be happy because that is the way that SCOTUS is interpreting the 2nd amendment. They talk about self defense (and reading between the lines, they mean effective self defense). Thats an idea that you seem to be OK with so you should be OK with where the law seems to be heading right now. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > I don’t care what the founders intended. I’m not sure how to make this more clear. I don’t care. They were fallible dudes. The founders realized they were fallible and if you can get 2/3rds of each chamber of congress and 3/4ths of the states to agree with you, you could get rid of the second amendment for good. Or is democracy not good enough for you? > [@](#): > > I think they were wrong to put guns in the constitution. I think guns do not belong in the constitution. The constitution doesn’t say the word guns. It talks about arms. > [@](#): > > If the constitution said “You have a right to self-defense” that would be fine. Naming a specific tool is not. Then you should be pretty happy with where SCOTUS is heading. Self defense (and by this they mean effective self defense (which these days means a gun)) seems to be how they read the individual right. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, but not the ideological stance most people seem to think of nowadays. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to make a large standing federal army unnecessary, because a large standing federal army was presumed dangerous to domestic liberty. That is irrelevant today. That was ONE of the rationales. They also thought guns provided a bulwark against tyranny. They didn’t really know how this experiment in democracy was going to work out. Right now, it seems like we probably don’t need guns to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > Like I said, put “self-defense” in there. Got no issue with that. Thats what the supreme court seems to be doing. > [@](#): > > The conflation of guns and self-defense is the problem for me. Naming a specific tool is idiotic to me. The end. In today’s day and age, self defense means guns. Hopefully, one day it will mean phasers and light sabers. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Here is a 2012 example of the federal government disarming a state national guard:… I remember it happening during Katrina as well. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/94 "2014-04-08T08:10:31Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > But I think a true strict constructionist would see a real constitutional issue here. The federal government is grabbing arms from what sure looks to me like a well-regulated militia. Are ANG fighters owned by the states? I thought they (along with lots of other expensive assets) were owned by the feds and placed with state units. Is it still “grabbing” if they own the planes in the first place? ---
**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:** [April 8, 2014, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/95 "2014-04-08T10:50:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Either you have a distorted view of what the traditional view of the right was or you don’t know what Feinstein’s views are. Nope–I understand the traditional view of the right and Feinstein’s view. If you disagree, you’ll want to put your argument forth. > [@](#): > > The traditional right did not require a militia context, thats just what you want the right to be. [US Vs. Miller disagrees with you.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174) > [@US Vs. Miller](#): > > he Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power – > > To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. > > With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. > [@](#): > > First of all, I don’t think 4 members of the Supreme court would consider your version of the right to be correct (they might be OK with banning (or heavily regulating) handguns as long as we could own shotguns and rifles). A lot of things are disputed by a significant number of people, it doesn’t make them controversial. Evolution and vaccination are disputed by a significant number of people, do you think these things are controversial? Of course 4 members of the Supreme Court agree with “my version” (i.e., the idea that the second amendment applies to militias)–did you not read the dissent linked above? That decision was 5-4; it’s hard for a SC decision to be more controversial than that. ANalogizing to antivaxxers is just stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/96 "2014-04-08T18:37:50Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Nope–I understand the traditional view of the right and Feinstein’s view. If you disagree, you’ll want to put your argument forth. > > [US Vs. Miller disagrees with you.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174) > > Of course 4 members of the Supreme Court agree with “my version” (i.e., the idea that the second amendment applies to militias)–did you not read the dissent linked above? That decision was 5-4; it’s hard for a SC decision to be more controversial than that. ANalogizing to antivaxxers is just stupid. True. Anti-vaxers might be vocal, but they are a small minority. (True insofar as the analogy is flawed; I don’t endorse “stupid.”) Er… but _Roe v. Wade_ was a 5-4 decision. ---
**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:** [April 8, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/97 "2014-04-08T19:40:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True. Anti-vaxers might be vocal, but they are a small minority. (True insofar as the analogy is flawed; I don’t endorse “stupid.”) > > Er… but _Roe v. Wade_ was a 5-4 decision. Yes, yes it was. And abortion and its constitutional protection is a highly controversial topic in our society, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/98 "2014-04-08T21:59:42Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Yes, yes it was. And abortion and its constitutional protection is a highly controversial topic in our society, right? Yup. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/99 "2014-04-08T22:36:45Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Sure. Power can be used for good or evil. The special thing about guns is that their power is _decentralized_, fairly cheap, and easy to use. And politically useless. ---
**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:** [April 8, 2014, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001/100 "2014-04-08T23:42:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yup. Okay. Maybe I should let this drop, but I’m genuinely confused–why is this significant? Did you think I was using the word “controversial” in some other sense? Did you think I was unaware that abortion protection is a controversial issue in the United States and in judicial circles? What am I missing, that makes this a relevant point? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aclu-prior-restraint-stalking-and-guns/685001.md?page=6)