On my other thread Demise had a great point that I never even thought of before. How come the ACLU if they really care about peoples rights, :rolleyes: get involved in Second Amendment cases?
Instead of just picking on the more liberal type rights infraction like prayer in school or at a football game?
Why do they choose the right to choose over the right to life? Who knows? They’ve certaintly wavered from the ideas of their founder’s intent I understand.
The ACLU’s position on the 2nd Amendment can be found here: http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
In brief, “The ACLU . . . believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.”
IOW, they do not believe that the 2nd Amendment freedoms are in as much need of defending as my right to sit through a football game without listening to advertisements for your religion.
LMAO! While this may not be an unreasonable interpretation to take, it pretty much conflicts with their interpretation of the rest of the constitution. I guess some amendments must be interpreted broadly, some narrowly, and some in-between. Whatever it takes to conform to what the ACLU has already concluded that our constitution says.
What kind of bs is that? Does that mean that they are not going to get involved because they are interested in helping liberal intrepretions of the constitution? That organization has ZERO credibility with stupid statements like this.
Why? If they(govt) takes our guns they can make you sit through any advertisements they want.
Actually, I’m not aware of any case where the ACLU has filed amicus briefs or set up test cases to defend the 8th or 10th amendments either. It appears to have a fairly sanguine view of taking private property for public use and increased federal authority.
Oops. I meant the takings clause of the 5th amendment, not the 8th.
What exactly makes their statement stupid? Yeah, I know that there are plenty of people who would very much like to ignore the “well regulated” bit in the 2nd Ammendment, but it is there after all. “Well regulated” pretty much rules out “unlimited right.” Or are you asserting that the ACLU should fight for rights that it doesn’t particularly believe in and advance Constitutional arguments it feels are without merit? That’s just bizarre logic.
While I am not a gun-control fanatic, and I do believe that individuals have the right to bear arms, I still cannot figure how certain gun nuts seem to believe that no possible regulation of firearms is permitted by the Constitution.
I do agree that the ACLU would be in a better position if they took on some cases where they thought a particular gun control regulation was unreasonable, but I don’t see the problem with this sentiment. Of course the ACLU has concluded the Constitution says certain things. That’s the whole point of the ACLU - that the Constitution allows certain civil liberties, and they will go to court to enforce them. Obviously, the ACLU’s interpretation of the Constitution differs from those of others - otherwise there wouldn’t be any court cases for the ACLU to take on. It doesn’t make the ACLU hypocritical that it interprets the Constitution in a particular way - it’s their very reason for being.
Furthermore, I think the ACLU has inured itself from claims of hypocrisy by its representation of the Klan and the Nazis in various First Amendment cases.
Sua
Well said Pthalis…
While you may disagree with the ACLU’s take on the Second Amendment I’d bet dollars to dimes that they’d file at least a friend of the court brief to try and bring down any law that outright banned (to take an extreme example) guns.
Also, while you may say the ACLU doesn’t seem to do much about the Second Amendment remember that they don’t have to. Gun owners have a staunch and strong advocate in the form of the NRA. Why would an organization with limited resources try and fight for the Second Amendment when the much deeper pocketed and more committed NRA will do the fighting anyway?
The Second Amendment is one well looked after amendment already…no need for the ACLU to step in.
Opus: Whatever it takes to conform to what the ACLU has already concluded that our constitution says.
Um, no, actually. Whatever it takes to conform to what the ACLU has concluded that the Supreme Court says that our constitution says. The ACLU is an advocacy group, not for instituting freedoms that some people think Americans ought to possess, but for the defense of the freedoms that it has been widely accepted, especially by the courts, that Americans do currently possess.
As explained very clearly in the site that andros linked to,
In other words, the Supreme Court’s position on the Second Amendment has been quite stable for a while now. It holds that Americans do not have a constitutional right to unregulated gun ownership, and generally doesn’t hear cases on the subject. Therefore, since unregulated or minimally regulated private gun ownership is not currently held to be one of our civil liberties, why would an organization devoted to defending civil liberties bother advocating it?
The ACLU is not about arguing with the judiciary about what rights citizens ought to have, but about standing up to legislatures and private entities to protect the rights that the judiciary already thinks the citizens do have. The point is not to change current judicial opinion, but to help citizens get access to courts whose judicial opinions can be pretty confidently expected to protect citizens from unconstitutional laws and policies. If the courts already agree with those laws and policies, what’s the point?
In short: you may personally feel that some particular legal restriction on gun ownership is unfair. (And there are probably a surprising number of ACLU members who would agree with you.) But unless you have reason to believe that this restriction would be widely held by U.S. courts to be unconstitutional, don’t look for the ACLU to be able to help you. See the difference?
This may not be quite the same thing as what you are thinking of:
Try a search on “forfeiture” here for more information.
I couldn’t find anything on the ACLU taking any simple eminent domain cases; I believe eminent domain is a pretty well-established government power, but it would be kind of interesting to see the ACLU take up one of those cases where eminent domain is being used to build a sports stadium or a casino or a shopping mall. According to this newspaper article “Witold Walczak, executive director of the ACLU in Pittsburgh, said the legal defense organization rarely gets involved in land use cases unless there’s an extraordinary issue involved” (and cites cases involving church-state separation as examples of “extraordinary issues”).
You’re right, that wasn’t exactly what I was thinking of. But at least ACLU is doing something to protect that right, even if Nadine Strossen only mentions due process and cruel and unusual punishment rather than private property and the 5th amendment. Until now, I didn’t know that ACLU had taken the slightest interest in asset forfeiture cases.
Of course, the 5th amendment doesn’t prohibit eminent domain. It only requires just compensation when private property is taken for public use. What I am not aware of is any case where ACLU has questioned the “justice” of the compensation, or the breadth of the term “taken.”
Kimstu:
I’m not certain, but I seem to recall certain instances in which the ACLU has fought a case up to the Supreme Court, had their claim rejected, and then complained to the media that the High Court made the wrong decision. I never recall the ACLU having a claim rejected by the Supremes and then saying “Ladies and Gentlemen, we thought that the position we were arguing was constitutionally supported. Apparently, we were wrong. We will never attempt to argue this position again.”
In fact, now that I think about it more, pretty much any case which goes to the Supreme Court is original, by definition. It is a matter of law that has not been previously ruled upon, or else it wouldn’t make it that far. Thus, whenever the ACLU argues a case to the High Court, they are essentially taking sides on a position whose constitutionality has not been firmly established yet. This sounds like they’re picking and choosing their constitutional interpretation before the Supreme Court has decided, not after.
Personally, I have nothing against this. There are lots of organizations out there dedicated to defending certain constitutional interpretations. But the ACLU tends to put on airs as though they are the only ones on the right side of the law, and everyone else is out there to screw the constitution and take away your freedoms. If they’d just admit that they’re defending an opinion about the constitution, rather than the constitution itself, I’d be a bit less peeved at them.
Opus: *I’m not certain, but I seem to recall certain instances in which the ACLU has fought a case up to the Supreme Court, had their claim rejected, and then complained to the media that the High Court made the wrong decision. *
Well, I poked around on the ACLU Supreme Court Participation website, and AFAICT while they certainly don’t always agree with the Court’s decisions, the cases they lose are usually controversial split decisions or circumstances-specific narrowed interpretations of a civil liberties principle that’s usually construed more broadly. I did not find a case where the ACLU was butting its head against broad judicial policy that was pretty clear and consistent over the course of decades, as it would have to do if it attacked typical gun-control regulation. (Though I agree with Jeff that if a state passed an evidently unconstitutional gun-control law—say, one banning all private ownership of firearms of any kind—the ACLU would probably be quite willing to attempt to overturn it. But I also agree with Jeff that the NRA would be so all over such a case that nobody would even bother to call in the ACLU (which, btw, doesn’t step in on civil liberties suits unless a plaintiff requests it).)
But the ACLU tends to put on airs as though they are the only ones on the right side of the law, and everyone else is out there to screw the constitution and take away your freedoms. If they’d just admit that they’re defending an opinion about the constitution, rather than the constitution itself, I’d be a bit less peeved at them.
Well, it’s certainly true that any position on civil liberties is at bottom just an expression of an opinion, and any claim to absolute moral certainty is just posturing. So I’ll make a deal with you, Opus: you get the NRA to admit that they’re advocating the anti-regulation convictions of a pro-gun minority rather than protecting an inalienable human right, and I’ll get the ACLU to admit that they’re defending an opinion about the constitution rather than the constitution itself. Deal? 
I don’t think this is quite right. In the case of the death penalty, there is no widespread holding (certainly not by the U.S. Supreme Court) that it is unconstitutional. While I know that some U.S. states do not have the death penalty, I believe that’s by legislatural choice rather than because the state supreme courts have found the death penalty to be unconstitutional. In the many states that do have death penalty statutes, the penalty’s constitutionality is routinely upheld by the courts.
But I believe the ACLU does consider the death penalty unconstitutional, in spite of the majority of contrary judicial opinion against it, and that the ACLU argues the 8th amendment every time it files an amicus brief in such a case (which is often). Also the 14th amendment, because I believe the ACLU considers the death penalty inherently racist and thereby an infringement on equal protection.
Thus, when the ACLU does not pursue 2nd Amendment cases, I don’t think it’s because the case law is against it; that never stopped them with the death penalty.
Danimal: But I believe the ACLU does consider the death penalty unconstitutional, in spite of the majority of contrary judicial opinion against it, and that the ACLU argues the 8th amendment every time it files an amicus brief in such a case (which is often).
Yup, you’re right; thank you for the correction. The ACLU’s position paper on the subject is here.
I think the ACLU is aware of Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, and is taking this into account in their intepretation of the Second Amendment.
I find the NRA just as obnoxious as the ACLU. They just seem to be involved in fewer court cases.
Danimal: thanks for pointing out the death-penalty stance. I knew there were certain things that the ACLU disagreed with everyone on, and yet sill considered themselves to be on the side of the constitution.
Now, this is from an obscure document that people often refer to but don’t seem to have read…
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
Yes, that’s right. It’s the second amendment, taken straight from the Constitution. Now, where does it say, weapons are to be well regulated? I see the part of having a well regulated militia to keep the country free, and another part about the people having the right to keep and bear arms. There’s also a little part that says “shall not be infringed”. Gee, what does that mean?