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?
It’s basically a legal action group. If they were really interested in attacking gun rights, don’t you think they would be?
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?
Why? The man was guilty of disturbing the peace, wasn’t he?
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.
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. 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.
Here’s what my state’s ACLU says:
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?
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?
Because it’s the American Civil Liberties Union, not the Americans Worship the Constitution as God-Given Union.
I dunno… maybe if one is an adult…?
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.
I want to repeal it too, and I suspect if you asked you’d get an answer somewhere between 25-30%.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
-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”).