So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
As always, we welcome your comments.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
So pretty much, your policy went from “we agree with the decision in US v Miller that gun ownership is not a constitutional right” to “we disagree with DC V Heller and still believe that gun ownership is not a constitutional right”, meaning that despite whatever ruling is laid down, the ACLU will be against the individual right of private gun ownership.
I was really hoping that the ACLU would at least reconsider its stance, now invalidated by the SCOTUS, and come around to the popularly accepted and now legally accepted view that an amendment in the bill of rights (whether it be the Firs, Second, Third or whichever) actually protects an individual’s right.
The ACLU has always claimed to protect the Bill of Rights and American values and its critics (myself included) have always seen it as just a clearing house for left wing legal advocacy that is willing to defend any shitbag with a grudge (be it John Walker Lindh, the Taliban, Al-Qaida, Soviet spies, the CPUSA, etcetera).
Well, now it’s confirmed, you are nothing more that a bunch of left wing hacks who could give a flying fuck about the Bill of Rights.
Q: How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . .
July 1st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
thank you for this consolidation thread. for conciseness, i will copy over my earlier comment; if the moderators wish, they may delete that earlier comment from the unrelated thread.
well duh — what else have we been doing around the first amendment all these decades? now the second gets to be taken equally as seriously, that’s all.
yes, there’s a lot of lost time to catch up on; there’s decades of litigation and precedent that’s established a culture of judicial debate around the first amendment’s various clauses that the second has yet to get. but now, it can and hopefully will. is the ACLU going to help or hinder this process? or is it going to play ostrich and pretend none of it is happening?
ostrich it is, i see. news flash: the ACLU is not the supreme court of this country. i’m disappointed in you.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
The ACLU’s position was wrong before Heller; to maintain it now is absurd. Not one of the justices in Heller endorsed the “collective rights” viewpoint. If the ACLU believes that it is the best public policy that individuals should not own guns, it should campaign for the removal of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. By instead arguing for a ridiculously narrow judicial interpretation of that amendment, it is undermining its argument for a broad reading of the rest of the Bill of Rights it so treasures.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Does that mean that I can interpret the constitution as not providing for a right to privacy? That wasn’t a dramatic innovation in civil liberties? Now that the Court has decided that, will the ACLU now feel compelled to defend it as a constitutional right? Does the ACLU only defend civil liberties it agrees with?
July 1st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I don’t know why this the only consitutional right the ACLU doesn’t defend. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of INDIVIDUALS, so the idea that the Bill of Rights protects a “collective right” is absolutely preposterous. The ACLU needs to change its position on the Second Amendment from the politically correct orthodox liberal position to the truly civil libertarian position. We cannot pick and choose which rights are worthy of more protection than others.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Why does the ACLU disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision?
Now that the Court has established an individual right, shouldn’t the ACLU be celebrating an expansion of rights for more americans, much in the same way that other amendments and cases have.
It seems that the reasoning at the ACLU is being inconsistent when one considers the other amendments and Civil Rights.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
All the rights in the bill of rights are individual rights, A true patriot stands up for all rights, even those they do not like,we can not change the meaning of amendments or allow modified definitions of them. what about slavery? should we allow some slavery? is a ban on slavery an individual right or a collective one should we change the meaning of the 13th amendment? of course not! If the ACLU does not like the second amendment tough, it means what it means and should be fought for as much as any other right.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
If the ACLU wants to maintain its credibility as the defender of the bill of rights then it must endorse the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and not maintain its pathetic stance claiming it disagrees with the SCOTUS. The fat lady has sung. Get with the program.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:38 pm
seeing as how there has never been a supreme court interpretation embracing 2A as a collective right, i’m unclear as to how the Heller decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:45 pm
> The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.
The ACLU long based its “collective right” interpretation on the Supreme Court’s ruling in US v. Miller.
The Supreme Court has now clarified what was meant by US v. Miller, that the Second Amendment never concerned a collective right, and that those who read US v. Miller to that meaning were incorrect.
In other words, the very *basis* for the ACLU’s “collective right” interpretation has been invalidated, and the individual right to keep and bear arms has been recognized as a vital liberty of equal standing as all those protected by the Bill of Rights.
I don’t want to hear any more about the ACLU prevaricating on how they “disagree” with this individual right protected by the Bill of Rights. What I (and many other members) now want is for the ACLU to step to the forefront of protecting our Second Amendment rights so that the damned NRA will stop being the only place liberal gunowners can turn to.
Will you just get with the program? Numerous polls show ~ 75% of US voters know the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and ~65% of registered DEMOCRATS agree with that position. We need you to show some leadership and embrace our rights, not leave the Second Amendment neglected for the NRA to continue to wrap in right-wing rhetoric.
Doesn’t your sense of decency demand you treat all of our Constitutional rights equally?
July 1st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
This blog entry is pretty vague – I’d like more detailed information about the ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment. More about why they view the Second Amendment as a collective right, and how this decision affects their position.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:29 pm
How can the ACLU (of which I’m a member) seriously consider the 2nd amendment to be a collective right, when there is not a single amendment in the bill of rights that refers to any collective or state rights, but rather individual rights and freedoms? Maybe this is something that the ACLU should logically address before taking this kind of a stance.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Fortunately it is the Supreme Court and not organizations such as the KKK or the ACLU that is the binding interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.
We now have the ACLU explicitly denying what the Supreme courts calls a specific enumerated right. This is even more egregious than the KKK demanding segregated bus seating, water fountains, and restrooms since the Constitution doesn’t enumerate the right for integration of public and private accommodations.
I had supported the ACLU in their support of the KKK because I thought the issue was one of free speech. Perhaps I was wrong in my assumption. Perhaps the issue was the ACLU enjoys the company of similarly minded bigots.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Your “collective rights” position on the 2A guarantee was justified on the basis of the Miller ruling. Now the court has clarified Miller via Heller … and you still hold to Miller. It’s surely a matter of convenience, for now, but how long can this position last?
ACLU, you have taken the low road on this one. Just how low you can go, and how long you can stay down there and maintain any relevancy, remains to be seen.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I posted on here before pointing out that you were incosistent with your understanding of civil liberties and my comment seems to have not been put up. Apparently you don’t feel strongly about the first amendment either.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Clearly, the ACLU has never bothered to seriously look into the origins and true meaning of the Second Amendment. Considering that all nine justices actually agreed that the Second is indeed an individual right (though the minority disagrees with the majority on the actual scope of the amendment), perhaps it’s actually the ACLU that has misinterpretted the amendment all along. It’s a pity really, when bigotry, prejudice and cognitive dissonnance so easily brushes aside a fundamental human right, and the clear historical facts that support the establishment of that right, when it doesn’t suit one’s taste.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I thought the ACLU’s purpose was to uphold the rights of American citizens, as dictated by the Supreme Court.
Am I missing something?
July 1st, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I just took the money I had slated to re-up my lapsed ACLU membership and used it to re-up my NRA membership.
Sorry ACLU you lost me.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
A “collective” is a group of individuals. How can a collective have a right that the individuals in that collective don’t have? Which of the members of the group gets to exercise that right on behalf of the others? Who decides who that person is?
What about the First Amendment? It talks about freedom of the press, and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” That’s the same “the people” as in the Second Amendment, which you’ve asserted is a “collective right.” Maybe we should limit freedom of speech to registered press members (who will, of course, be required to store their typewriters in a disassembled and locked state, so that they are not able to exercise that collective right at a moment’s notice). We’ll take their fingerprints, run a background check, and make them demonstrate competency at composing headlines. Of course, no press will be allowed to operate within Washington D.C. — to keep illegal typewriters off the streets.
After all, all constitutional freedoms have limits. The government needs to have the power to regulate especially dangerous free speech and typewriters that are capable of performing automatic carriage returns (”assault typewriters”).
July 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
ACLU,
You’ve lost another American here. I will never donate a cent to your organization of crazy, intolerant lefties. The right to “keep and bear arms” as recognized by the 2nd Amendment is very clearly stated in the Bill of Rights. Only those who are either outright liars or power-hungry liars see it differently.You lose and will continue to lose. Your arguments are incredibly lame.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
The ACLU is supposed to stand for civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It’s job is not to pick and choose which rights are or are not worthy of protection. Our founding fathers had already made that decision for us.
If the ACLU had performed any research themselves, reading historical materials from the times to actually discover what the founding fathers meant, they would clearly see that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Instead, it refuses to see what is there and tries to interpret what it wants to be there.
This group, in failing to acknowledge the now clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment stands for, is un-Constitutional is un-American. It is a total disgrace and goes against the principles for which it was founded. It is a danger to itself and a danger to the United States since it refuses to acknowledge the WHOLE Constitution.
I will never join this group and I hope that many leave because of this completely biased decision. I guess the ACLU is starting to show its true colors now.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Ditto SuperNaut. I’ve given to the ACLU in the past, but why would I give money to a group that claims to be a defender of civil liberties, but wants to deny me one of the most basic?
July 1st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
The ACLU is full of fail, this shows it.
What the real name of this organization is, American Civil Liberties that we support Union.
What a joke.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I defended the ACLU in every case taken because I truly believed you were defending the civil rights laid out in the Constitution.
Whenever you changed your position because a Supreme Court decision changed the understanding of the civil right and you defended people under the new ruling, I agreed and I defended the ACLU with the same rigor and I also adopted the new position established by the Supreme Court.
Now that the ACLU is not defending the established individual civil right to keep and bear arms, the ACLU seems to be partisan, biased and selective in what they see as civil liberties, is therefore not the defenders of civil liberties I hold dear. I am disgusted and repulsed as well as feel betrayed knowing my defense for decades of what I thought was a great institution and my hero in many matters is nothing more than a fraud and run by a mob of hypocrites.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I have previously given money to the ACLU and would like to do so again. In light of the Heller decision, I had thought that the ACLU would revise its stance with regards to the 2nd Amendment (of the Bill of Rights, of the Constitution of the United States… remember that?).
As it stands, I am very disappointed and now consider the ACLU to be a disgrace. You’re willing to take on the cause of some of the worst cases of humanity, simply because they represent the “cutting edge” of encroachment on our liberties. However, you’re willing to sell out millions of law-abiding citizens and their specifically enumerated rights, just because you don’t agree with the ruling.
How again is it that you’re any better than the people you work against?
July 1st, 2008 at 9:51 pm
How completely absurd! I agree with the above comments. If there was any doubt that the ACLU is pushing a left wing political agenda, that argument is over. It’s plainly obvious that the ACLU intends to support only civil liberties that support the left wing liberal agenda.
If you don’t have the 2nd amendment, how do you ever intend on keeping and defending the rest of them?
I will not be renewing my membership.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
ACLU remains Anti-2nd amendment? Perhaps ACLU really stands for the ‘Anti-Civil Liberties Union’!
July 1st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I support virtually everything the ACLU stands for… except for this extremely hypocritical policy. This demonstrates a partisan political bias.
In light of the recent abuses of the 4th amendment by our government, I have plans to donate to civil rights organizations such as the EFF, ACLU, and NRA… but I will now strike the ACLU off that list.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
You lost 9-0 on collective rights. When are you going to start defending our constitutional rights?
July 1st, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I bet if it were any other right, they would be shitting themselves trying to defend it…………..the aclu makes me sick.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I am sorry to say that the ACLU has disappointed me. I have consistently defended you to my firearm owning friends. I pointed out that both you and the NRA are defending the Bill of Rights and our civil liberties, both with equal zeal. The NRA was taking care of defending the one amendment you were not defending. While Miller gave you cover, your ignoring the 2nd Amendment was permissible.
Your are refusing to accept the Supreme Court decision in Heller, which is now the law of the land. There can now be no reason for this outside of the fact that you do not believe Americans deserve to have the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the law is. I no longer find it in my heart to defend you guys. You are just as bad as the Bush Administration, picking and choosing what rights protected by the Constitution they will let us have.
I used to have hope in the ACLU. I am very sorry to discover that I was mistaken.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Wow. I must say the ACLU has managed to completely lose their credibility with me. What a disappointment.
Serioulsy, how can this organization hope to be taken seriously with this stand on the 2A?
July 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Civil libertarians. PFFF!
The ACLU used to like the Constitution.
But with fascist positions like this, it looks no better than the Bush administration.
STOP BOWING DOWN TO LEFTIST OVERLORDS AND START OBEYING ONLY THE CONSTITUTION!
You’re a f***ing disgrace to liberty, ACLU.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:49 pm
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.”
So, since when does the ACLU’s interpretation of the Constitution supercede the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution?
The ACLU needs to recognize that this long running debate has been settled. *ALL* of the articles in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are now, have always been, and always will be *Individual rights.*
To argue otherwise at this point makes the ACLU look foolish, at best.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
So the ALCU believes we have rights, but only those the ACLU recognizes . Now that is a classic arrogant stance, and well worth ignoring your existance for.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
As a former member of the ACLU, who has appreciated much of the work the ACLU has done to preserve our civil rights in this country, I can promise you I will never give you another dime because of your statement on this. Pretty clearly the ACLU has demonstrated they are not a serious civil rights group when, even in the face of Supreme Court precedent, you hold to a discredited notion that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean exactly what it says in plain English.
I don’t expect the ACLU to suddenly start taking up gun rights cases, and putting their energies there. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that it’s an individual right, and there are other organizations out there dedicated specifically to that issue, so that ACLU has decided not to spend resources on it. I have no problem with that.
But to continue to pretend that the second amendment is not deserving of an honored place among the Bill of Rights is disgraceful for an organization that claims to defend it.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Are you for real? I thought the ACLU was in SUPPORT of civil liberties. I guess when it comes to the liberty to keep a firearm for self-defense, the ACLU won’t support civil liberties. Sad.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I’m sorry to say that I’m ripping up my membership to the ACLU and sending it back to your HQ. By calling the Second Amendment a “collective right” when all NINE Supreme Court Justices disagree with that statement, you completely undermine your organization’s moral authority to attack against the MCA, FISA changes, and so on.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:25 pm
As a long time member of the ACLU, I wish the organization’s policy were closer to truly neutral on the gun issue. That is, I’d like the organization to have no official opinion on the second amendment, and simply stay out of those issues. There are plenty of pro- and anti-gun organizations that can handle those cases, so it seems to me that the ACLU can maximize its efficacy by simply staying out of the way and focusing on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments, as they historically have done.
On the other hand, to the pro-gun commenters who express disappointment in the fact that the ACLU hasn’t modified its stance in light of the SCOTUS ruling, ask yourself this: if the ruling had gone the other way, and the court had ruled the 2nd amendment protects a collective right, would you abandon your individual right interpretation? Or would you simply hold that you disagree with the courts ruling?
I strongly suspect it’s the latter. So if you won’t change YOUR views based on what you believe to be a bad ruling, why would you expect others to behave any differently?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:30 pm
If the ACLU would apply the scrutiny to the 2nd amendment that is does the 1st and 4th, we would have no problem. Your organization is a joke, founded by a communist to help out some of his friends who were in legal trouble. You do not understand the idea of a Bill of Rights. Your ignorance knows no bounds in this area. You are just another mouthpiece of the gun control crowd supported by liberal democrats.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:33 pm
So, the ACLU, arguably the most staunch (some might accurately say “rabid”) defender of the individual rights guaranteed under the First Amendment has decided to “disagree” with the highest court in the United States, by which all lower courts and lawmakers must abide, or suffer its wrath.
First, how are the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment so different than those guaranteed by the First, especially in the light of “individual vs. collective”? Why is it that the word “people” should have such disparate and different meanings in two very similar contexts?
Second, how do you intend on going about “disagreeing” with the Supreme Court? Are we talking continued activism against the Second Amendment, or just stuffing your head in the sand and pretending it does not exist?
Third, who are you to disagree with all nine Justices of the Supreme Court? “But wait,” you say, “Only four other Justices agreed with Scalia!” You are correct… however, *all nine* Justices agreed with the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment… ALL NINE. Just how often do you get a 9-0 ruling, in any Supreme court? And how can you honestly expect to stand up to that bad of a beat-down on the collectivist interpretation?
Every year, the ACLU seems determined to not live up to its name, and considering that the right to bear arms has always been an individual right, this has just been confirmed by the most senior court in our country, and it would therefor seem to be qualified as a “civil liberty”, this situation is no different.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I’ve often found myself defending the ACLU to other conservatives and have supported many of your legal actions, but this I can not abide. You need to explain why you continue to refuse to defend the 2nd amendment as you do the others.
Or is this decision based on a need to protect a source of funds from certain donors?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
The ACLU’s position on this is insanity. First, there are NO collective rights in the Bill of Rights and the very concept is ludicrous. If you want to get particular about word usage, the militia was always separate from army “regulars”, as they were the body of civilians. (The Army and Air Guard, and I belong to the latter, didn’t exist, so that argument is worthless.)
As a Libertarian, and law-abiding citizen, I wish I could count on the ACLU to defend MY civil liberties, but perhaps that’s asking a bit much from an organization that began life with communist roots. After all, the soviets had to disarm their people before keeping them prisoner behind a wall…
July 1st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
The hypocrisy of the ACLU apparently knows no bounds. Picking which “rights” you support based on politics is beneath you (well, actually I guess it isn’t).
July 1st, 2008 at 11:47 pm
“Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage), adopted in 1920.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled”
That’s all from the ACLU front page. Now that the 2nd amendment has been declared an individual right, which STRENGTHENS the control on the majority in the name of the individual, how can the ACLU leave that amendment out of it’s claim to protect civil liberties?
It just doesn’t make sense.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Collective right. Surely you jest!
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 am
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision”
Well aren’t you people just too special. The weenies disagree with the Supreme Court, how sad is that.
Frankly I have always despised you people but I did give you credit for being somewhat honest.
Now I can totally despise you because you now prove that you are just another bunch of dishonest left wing hypocrites.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 am
Simply absurd. You will defend murderers and rapist so that the innocent can also be reasonably defended. We don’t like it, but it is right. You should seek consistency in your views so they don’t all get cast aside as absurd. Your position on the right to keep arms is absurd, rendering all of your positions absurd. You may not like the right, but to be reasonable, you must defend it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:35 am
Wow, my comment was erased. How’s that for freedom of speech? I wonder how long it will be before this one is deleted as well? After all, what kind of civil liberties group would want there obvious hypocrisy shown on the organizations own website?
The ACLU picking and choosing what a Civil Liberty happens to be is the ultimate in hypocrisy. You cannot just choose what is a liberty and what isn’t. The fact that they even take this stand is absolutely laughable.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 am
It would have been so simple to be gracious and nonresponsive to the critics at the same time.
“Yes, it is now clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right. However, we at the ACLU have not developed any litigation expertise in this area, and have no intention to. The Cato Institute and the NRA have developed an intense interest in defending and expanding the scope of individual gun owners’ rights.”
Instead, y’all decided to become the Forrest Gumps of constitutional law–stupid is as stupid does.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 am
‘Collectivism’ is a Socialist Term…it hasn’t any place in the Founding Father Documents nor in The Bill of Rights of Individuals fighting for civil rights that protects from those enemies or powers that are controlled by a tyrannical centralized Government, such as Russia’s. ‘Collectivism’ is a relative new 20th Century term born from Socialism & Marxism.
But since many of the founding ACLU members were members of the American Communist Party. And formed the ACLU for protection from the US Government I can understand how ‘Collectivism’ is a major mindset with those that seek to undermine the very individual rights that give them freedom.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 am
I was always under the impression the ACLU was meant to support and defend our rights….not decide them for us.
How very selective of the ACLU.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 am
I have to say…. I am no lawyer…. but I can read.
And as far as I understand what I have read NOT ONE SINGLE SCOTUS judge agrees with your position that 2nd is “collective right”.
I have to say – way to discredit yourselves…
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 am
The ACLU is showing their true colors by denying the supreme, and recently re-emphasized, law of the land. They are your friend as long as you don’t show them any teeth.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 am
Some people can’t seem to read or comprehend the Second Amendment. The part about “Militias” is double edged. The government (Federal) can’t stop the states from having Militias but to protect the states THEY can control large groups of armed men so they can regulate them. Simple as that.
The second part is clear that that “regulation” shouldn’t interfere with the individual right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The part that everyone discusses but isn’t in the Amendment is the right of self defense. It’s clear from the writings of the Founders that the right to defend yourself is so clear that they didn’t think it needed to be spelled out.
It’s also that the “regulation” of Militias shows they mean to protect the “public” in general from uncontrolled threats so unfettered access to SCUD rockets, Stinger antiaircraft missiles or hand grenades isn’t in the public interest. That can be regulated.
Isn’t it amazing how smart those old dead white guys who wrote the Constitution were?
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 am
Since when it is the job of the ACLU to take the side of the restrictive efforts of the government, against the SUPREME COURT-RECOGNIZED civil liberties of the individual citizenry?
Your illogical stance on the 2nd Amendment places you on a collision course with the basic principles of your charter! Wake up!
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 am
I appreciate the ACLU for standing up for the civil liberties they do for every group or person, despite their politics or ideology. The leadership is tarnishing that record on this one by advocating, possibly for the first time, a restriction on a civil liberty, in possibly a political manner.
The previous statement on the second amendment was a bit different and qualified and things must have changed after Heller.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 am
(Hands held over ears)La, la, la, la, la, I’m not listening.
That, in my mind, describes the ACLU position on Heller and the 2nd amendment. It’s hard to believe any organization that holds itself out to be made up of professionls could behave in such a childish and immature manner, not to mention what appears to be a case of poor sportsmanship on the part of a bunch of loosers.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 am
Dear ACLU,
As a concerned defender of the Top 10 in the Constitution I’m concerned about number three and the statement which always seems to me to cover the other intrusions. Why doesn’t government intrusions into our houses get interpreted as quartering of troops in our houses without our permission. Why has this Amendment never been seen as being violated by the NUMEROUS intrusions into our electronic communications. In my house, I’m ALWAYS aware that BIG BROTHER–BIG BROTHER THE INTRUDER– is in the area. Big Brother would never be stupid enough to quaintly quarter a military unit in your apartment. They, however, have achieved a similar level of intrusion by electronic means. If they only knew the backlash against such intrusions. Nary a voter in this country is unaware of the assault on our senses by the politicos. They dare us to turn down the craziness on the tube. The 3rd Amendment has to be the next battlefield for defending our peace of mind. I’ll help fight that battle with or without a gun which is just a silly battle that should always be up to local jurisdictions anyway. End of controversy. I really never thought there was a controversy worthy of Supreme Court attention anyway.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 am
I have always considered it my civil responsibility to defend myself when attacked.
I have always considered it my civil liberty to learn how to do so, and carry the tools necessary to do so.
Without some guidance on why the ACLU’s position endorses removing that liberty, I must question the “union” that the ACLU claims to represent, because it certainly doesn’t include me.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 am
As he said above. I just took the money I had slated to re-up my ACLU membership and used it to re-up my NRA membership AND my Ohio CCW application.
Sorry ACLU you lost me as well.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:39 am
The ACLU is a joke!!!! Point blank. The ACLU is not concerned about if the rights of a person is “individual” or “collective” but how much money they can get from one group to front their kind of SOCIAL injustice. So who cares if the SCOTUS made the ruling that the Second Amendment is an Individual right like all the rights in the Bill of Rights.
Hey ACLU take a leap of a short peer!!!!!!
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 am
Even if there were any basis for describing the Second Amendment as a “collective right,” a view that most legal scholars and all nine Supreme Court Justices have rightly rejected, such a “right” would be meaningless without a strong individual component enforceable by individuals. No one individual has a right to determine an election or the ability to “peaceably assemble” on his own, so if any constitutional rights can truly be described as “collective,” it would be those two. Imagine a Kafkaesque world in which “the people” purportedly enjoy these cherished rights collectively, but no individual has an enforceable right to cast his individual ballot or come to the assembly. What on earth would this “collective right” protect?
Your organization’s reliance on such sophistry with an eye to literally decimate the Bill of Rights, first by dishonestly pretending to “agree” with a cryptic 70-year old ruling that said no such thing, and now by openly disagreeing with the Supreme Court for unanimously endorsing a view that an overwhelming majority of Americans has taken for granted all along, is proof positive that you are not now, nor have you ever been, a civil liberties union.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:21 am
I find it harder and harder to justify giving your organization my money, if you’re going to spend it shooting down my other civil liberties.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:44 am
After this statement regarding the 2nd by he ACLU, their right to exist as a org. should be denied.
Your political agenda is showing.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:51 am
Earth to ACLU: The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. Grade-school grammar led them to reach the only logical conclusion they could. Any Fifth-Grader knows that in a complex sentence the clause that can stand on its own as a complete sentence is the main thought. Remedial grammar may be in order for you.
How is it that the phrase “the people” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to you and me, but in the Second Amendment – and only in the Second Amendment – it refers to the state?
I guess there’s some truth to the old joke, “How does the ACLU count to ten? 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.”
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:04 am
Shame on you ACLU – the one amendment put in place to be able to defend all the others is the one you shun and pretend doesn’t mean what it says, what most people think and what the Supreme Court has now said it means. The Bill of Rights applies to all individuals and all rights. Your stance is illogical and smacks of an agenda that is Socialist as opposed to Libertarian. Try changing your name to the ASU – American Socialist Union – because that’s what it appears your agenda is all about.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:21 am
The ACLU’s mission statement is and I quote..
The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.
Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage), adopted in 1920.
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
It is therefore ACLU’s avowed intent to support the Bill of Rights in it’s entirety and not as a pick ‘n mix buffet.
The BoR addresses the inalienable and inherent rights of individuals and the Second Amendment remains one of them.
Consider the historically shameful and odious race and gender based basis of firearms controls.
Firearms law were, in the main, created to disarm and oppress people of colour and the economically disadvantaged.
I find it incomprehensible that the ACLU not only does not support the 2nd Amendment but interprets the constitution in such a racist manner.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:23 am
American Civil Liberties Union – now farther from reality, yet closer to the Union’s founders intent…the path to Collectivism.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 am
ACLU: Stop!!! No…the world is flat!!! Go neither east nor west via thine ship. Surely thine arse shall fall o’er the edge of the earth!! Come hither surf!!! Oh bloody fuck! Let them eat cake!
ACLU Supporter: But Sir, they shall fall off the earth and die a bloody, gruesome, horrible and miserable death!!!
ACLU: Bloody fool! The world isn’t flat…we just say that so people will not leave. If all the bloody fools left, who would we control?! Fear and ignorance are all we have left!
ACLU Supporter: Bloody brilliant. Observe the facts, and deny their existence by playing on people’s collective fears! Bloody brilliant!! Now I see why thine wife calls you the “impotent one”!
ACLU: Omnipotent, fool, not impotent!
ACLU supporter: Oh no, sir…she said “impotent”. She was quite clear. She said she wished you could fuck her like you fuck with people’s rights!
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:52 am
I used to be a member of ACLU. A few years ago I let my membership lapse because of their position on the 2nd amendment. It looks like it will be a long time before I send the ACLU any more money.
By the way, ALL NINE of the SCOTUS judges agreed that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. That’s right, even the four dissenters said it is an individual right.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:55 am
Because of this ridiculous policy, I will be withdrawing from the guardians of liberty monthly contribution program. You can’t pick and choose which rights you are going to support. As long as your head is buried in the sand, you won’t see any of my money.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the ACLU stand for “American Civil Liberties Union”. Which unless I’m mistaken would strive to defend the constitution and amendments. Or more realistically in this case defend which ones fit your agenda.
Not recognizing the ruling of the Supreme Court flies in the face of one of this countries basic principles, and frankly since just about everyone already “knew” that the 2nd was an individual right, your position is just childish.
Perhaps you should just defend the rights you want to defend and have no opinion on the other ones. And when the time comes, I’ll renew my NRA membership.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 am
The ACLU was wrong, is wrong, and now defiantly trumpets it will continue to be wrong.
Given that setup:
(1) Why does the ACLU persist in stating it supports individual rights?
(2) What else is the ACLU patently wrong about that it won’t admit?
(3) Why should patently wrong behavior be supported, by word, deeds, or funds?
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:11 am
Effective family planning being economically advantageous to the republic, the right of the people to obtain abortions shall not be abridged.
Now if an amendment said that, do you think the aclu would say that is an “absolute, individual right” to obtain an abortion?
As usual, the aclu only supports those rights that agree with its agenda.
Anyway, I think I will go out and celebrate Independence day by ordering a new semi automatic pistol.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 am
Before Heller, the ACLU had a principled neutral stand on the Second Amendment. Namely, that the ACLU was unable to articulate a civil-liberty rationale for supporting the 2A. OK, fair enough; I disagree but I understand.
Now, though, the ACLU has actually expressed OPPOSITION to the 2A. This is a dramatic change in policy and should only be addressed by the Board. You should withdraw this statement of opposition to the Heller decision until the full Board can address the matter.
I joined the ACLU with the expectation that it was an organization that supported ALL of the Articles of the Bill of Rights, not just those that the Left finds congenial.
You have defended Nazis and the KKK, but you draw the line at the NRA? That is indefensible!
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:17 am
The ACLU’s position of the 2nd amendment has consistently shown that this organization pick and chooses which liberties it wants to defend, and those which it wants to bury.
The ACLU is more interested in social engineering, instead of preserving individual liberties. This recent Heller opinion simply confirms many people’s long held belief.
Just out of curiousity, which other rights preserved by the constitution are “collective?”
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 am
Your position regarding the SCOTUS decision on the 2nd seems at odds with
your stated reason for your existance.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 am
All things being equal, I’ll take being a member of a Second Amendment rights group with no protection or recognition from the ACLU over being a member of NAMBLA with ACLU protection & recognition.
The ACLU has rightly sought to protect Civil Rights, but has always taken the position that the Second Amendment and it’s place in the Bill of Rights doesn’t really add up – it’s a collective rather than individual right (as other posters hae noted, ALL the Amendments in the B.o.R. refer to individual rights) and now that the Supreme Court has finally ruled on the side of individual Second Amendment rights, the ACLU cries “foul” – shame on you!
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 am
I think all of the commenters on this blog, by kool-aid drinking ACLU staff, Suzzane Ito, got it right. If the ACLU can’t find the individual right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd ammendment, then they are just typical delusional leftists. To them it seems that the right to self defense, a basic human right, is not one that an individual posseses. They have no trouble finding all types of elaborate “rights” that don’t even exist in the constitution and labeling them as “constitutional rights” so matter of factly. Their proclaimed “constitutional right” to kill an unborn human is just one of their fascist stances. Its about time people realize that the ACLU and their logically blind and brainwashed follwers oppose the bill of rights and later individual rights ammendments. Because they don’t see them going away any time soon, they have decided to twist them to use them for their extremist anti-freedom agendas to achieve rights for foreign enemies (terrorists), scumbag criminals (child rapists, murderers, etc.), illegal alien criminals, and for “doctors” that kill babies. But if your not a fanatical Muslim, illegal alien, sadistic pedophile, rapist or murderer, then your rights are thrown to the wolves. Look at the torture imposed on Terri Schaivo by their beloved leftist courts, against her will, that inflicted her with severe pain for two weeks before killing her. It was sanctioned by the ACLU because Terri had the “right to die” according to those fascists. If only Terri was some sicko serial killer threatened with painless lethal injection death, she would have had the full resources of the ACLU working to save her life. I challenge ANYBODY from the ACLU to e-mail me and tell me I’m wrong and why. They’ve never taken me up on this before because they are WRONG and they don’t care for the truth.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 am
I have always thought that the ACLU’s stated position on the Second Amendment was based on hypocrisy. To claim to champion the Bill of Rights and then just ignore the amendment you dislike is sad and pathetic.
Previously the ACLU could at least pretend to base its stance on Miller. Now the curtain is parted and the truth is revealed. If the ACLU is going to pick and choose from the Bill of Rights, then what little credibility they held is gone.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 am
I think all of the commenters on this blog, by kool-aid drinking ACLU staff, Suzzane Ito, got it right. If the ACLU can’t find the individual right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd ammendment, then they are just typical delusional leftists. To them it seems that the right to self defense, a basic human right, is not one that an individual posseses. They have no trouble finding all types of elaborate “rights” that don’t even exist in the constitution and labeling them as “constitutional rights” so matter of factly. Their proclaimed “constitutional right” to kill an unborn human is just one of their fascist stances. Its about time people realize that the ACLU and their logically blind and brainwashed follwers oppose the bill of rights and later individual rights ammendments. Because they don’t see them going away any time soon, they have decided to twist them to use them for their extremist anti-freedom agendas to achieve rights for foreign enemies (terrorists), scumbag criminals (child rapists, murderers, etc.), illegal alien criminals, and for “doctors” that kill babies. But if your not a fanatical Muslim, illegal alien, sadistic pedophile, rapist or murderer, then your rights are thrown to the wolves. Look at the torture imposed on Terri Schaivo by their beloved leftist courts, against her will, that inflicted her with severe pain for two weeks before killing her. It was sanctioned by the ACLU because Terri had the “right to die” according to those fascists. If only Terri was some sicko serial killer threatened with painless lethal injection death, she would have had the full resources of the ACLU working to save her life. I challenge ANYBODY from the ACLU to e-mail me and tell me I’m wrong and why. They’ve never taken me up on this before because they are WRONG and they don’t care for the truth. Email is [email protected]
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 am
Hmph. I didn’t know the ACLU liked to cherry pick it’s favorite amendments.
Some “defender” of constitutional freedom you are.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:44 am
The ACLU’s position on the 2nd Amendment, before or after “Heller” should come as NO surprise. After all, a BIG chunck of their funding comes from the Joyce Foundation. You won’t see them give up their lattes or limos over something as insignificant as principles.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
Hello,
I am conflicted about the ACLU’s position on the Heller case. In the past, I donated to the NRA to protect my individual Second Amendment rights and to the ACLU for everything else. I personally would like the assurance that none of my donations to the ACLU will result in opposition to “the ancient right of self-defense” inherent in the individual right to keep and bear arms before I consider making any further contributions. I think you will have to rely solely on your more politically correct and orthodox donors until then. Sorry.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
These are some strong and serious criticisms leveled at the ACLU.
It’s abundantly clear that the ACLU’s position on the 2A, especially now, defies logic and defies their core mission. Post-Heller, their position on the 2A cannot be reconciled with their core mission. This represents a SERIOUS conundrum for the ACLU.
ACLU simply must realize that something has got to give. They either acknowledge the 2A as protecting an individual civil right, or they fundamentally restructure their core mission.
I cannot help but think there must be (at least) a few on their Board of Directors who will save the organization from the intense embarassment, criticism, and eventual irrelevancy that would result from this current hypocracy. I predict that the ACLU will, just as Sanford Levinson did, eventually accept that “embarassing second amendment” as a meaningful individual civil right, and make it fit within their longstanding core mission.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 am
I have to agree with SuperNaut, as well as numerous liberty-minded bloggers. As much as I appreciate all the good work the ACLU has done over the years, I cannot fathom _financially_ supporting an organization who is this hypocritical. The ACLU cannot claim to promote and protect all of my rights, then choose which rights I am worthy of.
Should the ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment be changed to sync up with reality, I will happily put an ACLU card in my wallet next to my NRA card.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 am
Most unfortunate to hear of the ACLU’s stance. For the past eight years I have been donating money to the ACLU above the basic annual membership dues. Now that money will go to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the division pursuing litigation to enforce the Second Amendment. Previously, my ACLU extra donations matched my NRA life membership installment payments ($100/year, have the checkbook entries to prove it). Now $200/year will go to the NRA. Nice job ACLU! Your action is the equivalent of saying Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because the 4th Amendment protection from “unreasonable search and seizure” is a “collective right” and protects no individual zone of privacy.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 am
One more proof that ACLU = Anti Christian Liars Union. You have become an enemy of everything true and good in this country.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 am
I have been a supporter of the ACLU for over 20 years. I have been a member, provided financial support and have repeatedly explained the importance of many of it’s controversial legal defense activities as protecting ALL the rights of the people of the United States regardless of the individual repulsive positions of the people it defended.
The SCOTUS has now clearly stated the 2nd Amendment is an individual and not a collective right. Until the ACLU officially supports the individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment I will no longer provide financial or moral support to this organization.
All the individual rights guaranteed by the BOR should be supported by the ACLU or none of my support will go to the ACLU.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:32 am
If the ACLU cannot – and will not – abide by settled law in this case, what possible credibility does it have? You’ve undermined your entire mission with this ill-considered statement.
I, like so many others, will find other organizations more deserving of my financial support.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 am
Why don’t you folks just change your name to the “Civil Liberties We Approve Of Union”? It would be more accurate. You certainly don’t represent the majority of Americans.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Face it, ACLU: The days of plausible deniablity are gone. Miller’s confusing language gave you some cover, Heller stripped it away.
You either accept that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right, or stand revealed as, not a neutral in this fight, but an *enemy* of this particular civil liberty. Because only an enemy of this civil liberty would persist in denying it’s existence at this point.
I’d be content with you admitting the right exists, and leaving it to the NRA to defend. You don’t have to be the one stop for defending all civil liberties.
But if you’re going to be a *civil liberties* union, you’ve got to at least refrain from ATTACKING any of them. And that’s what you’re doing at this point.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 am
This position is disingenuous, since the Heller case has articulated an individual right, the ACLU is in reality stating, “Yes, an individual right would serve the purposes of the militia, but we don’t think that’s a good individual right, so we’re going to ignore it. We hope it will go away.”
I’m extremely disappointed that the ACLU would hold to a premise that has been so thoroughly discredited.
This has damaged my opinion of the ACLU – with the ambiguous Miller decision; it was at least an arguable stance. But with Heller and the modern scholarship about the 2nd amendment, it is simply intellectually dishonest to continue pretending that it’s a collective right.
I was hoping that we could finally close the gap – that the ACLU would protect all my rights, and that I wouldn’t be forced to choose between which rights I wanted protected.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 am
The answer here is simple. The ACLU should defend the 2nd Amendment collective right by suing the federal government to vindicate the rights of homosexuals who have been excluded from the National Guard under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” These people’s 2nd Amendment rights are being collectively infringed by their exclusion from the militia system under federal law. This could best be remedied in California, where state law prohibits discrimination against homosexuals.
This would 1) prove the validity of the “collective right” 2) strike a blow for gay rights 3) vindicate the 2nd Amendment in the form preferred by the ACLU’s board 4) be perfectly consistent with the ACLU’s mission.
To overcome the apparent technical difficulty that the National Guard system operates on a funding mandate rather than an express federal imperative, the ACLU can argue from the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine”, wherein Congress cannot make funding conditional on deprivation of a constitutional right.
The ACLU would only have to prove that the 2nd Amendment allows each state to establish its own standards for militia enrollment, in order to sponsor the collective right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This should be simple to accomplish — see J. Steven’s dissent in _Heller_, pp.19 n.20.
JNH
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 am
Any credability you once had is now gone! You have shot yourself in the foot! (pun intended) Just think , if you had done the proper thing, all these people mould have been supporters. You are no longer a valid entity, and your demise will be swift. You cannot say you support the BoR but not in its’ entirety…….Hipocrits!!!!This is exactly what you deserve….On the side of the American people my ASS!!!
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 am
I just renewed by NRA membership and will never put any money towards the ACLU.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:02 am
Boy !! People have a Constitutional right to an abortion, but do not have a right given to them by the Constitution? These guys are at best Socialists and at worst Nazis. Vote against any liberals you can, guys and gals, or this is what you will end up with.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am
Re. tgirsch, @ #39:
to focus on only certain few civil liberties would be appropriate for an organization with a more explicitly limited scope. but the ACLU has never before represented itself as any American Handful of Cherry-Picked Liberties Union. besides, that logic is not consistent; should the ACLU no longer concern themselves with establishment clause cases, simply because there is now an Americans United for Separation of Church and State? surely not.
on the contrary, the ACLU has a long and honorable history of taking principled stances for the liberties of all Americans, even in cases where the particulars seem distasteful. everyone understands that when the ACLU defends pariahs ranging from the Klan to Fred Phelps by way of the Nazis, they’re not defending the positions of those groups, but their rights and the principle that rights are for everybody, even if we may not like it in any given case.
against that background, their stance on the second amendment has always been a bit odd. reading a “right of the people” to mean rights of individuals except if it’s the right to own weapons was ever illogical, but lacking any Supreme Court pronouncement to the contrary, tolerable. now, however, it has become jarring. now, it raises the question of just what principles the ACLU really stands for, and just where they think our rights are to be settled.
the ACLU has a storied history of litigation in defense of our rights, but now they seem to be blatantly ignoring a Supreme Court decision because… well, why exactly are they brushing it aside? does the judicial system of this country no longer matter to them? or do they simply think they know better?
it’s understandable that large organizations can sometimes take a while to change long-held, probably cherished, positions. but in the face of a sea change in the laws of the land, organizations concerned with the law must change in response. at this point, i had expected the ACLU to at very least understand and admit that they need to reevaluate their position — i had not thought they would simply reiterate it and pretend nothing had happened.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
I am an ACLU member, and have been for many years.
The Bill of Rights isn’t a buffet, you can’t just pick and choose what Amendments you like and don’t like.
Sorry, ACLU – you just lost my renewal and any future chance for funding from my family.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 am
Wow. 100% of the comments take the position that the ACLU is WRONG on it’s view against the 2nd Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Hello? Anyone listening? ACLU, get your head out of the ground, shake the sand out of your ears and get your morals back on track. Support ALL Civil Rights, not just the ones you like.
SELF DEFENSE is a BASIC RIGHT. Bearing Arms for self defense is a BASIC CIVIL RIGHT.
Help us, please?
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 am
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision”
It is not the place of the ACLU to contravene the decisions of the SCOTUS. ALL of the Supreme Court Justices – even the dissenters – agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right.
For years the ACLU has had the luxury of hiding its true colors regarding firearms behind the Miller ruling. Now, with Heller, that prop has been knocked out from under you, and you are going to have to explain yourselves.
The ACLU has taken a position directly contrary to the Constitution as interpreted by the highest court in the land.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 am
It was said perfectly above:
“If the ACLU wants to maintain its credibility as the defender of the bill of rights then it must endorse the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and not maintain its pathetic stance claiming it disagrees with the SCOTUS. The fat lady has sung. Get with the program.”
I was going to join the ACLU until I realized it was just a liberal group using the Constitution as a veil of fraud.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:32 am
As a working journalist on five continents I have defended the ACLU against all comers for the past 48 years. Even when I didn’t agree with you I defended you for I _knew!_ that your only client was the Constitution.
I’ve been betrayed.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
I posted this to one of the forums I vist. I figured you should see it:
OK….
I rarely comment on the activities of the ACLU. I don’t particularly like some of the stances they take, but I do get it– based directly on thier own comments in interviews.
I have the ability to disagree with someone or an organization, but still respect that they have conviction of thier beliefs and integrity. I can actually despise a group or person based upon thier views, and still respect their convictions– as long as they show integrity.
Now, I say the above as a prelude for this:
From an interview that I saw regarding the ACLU NAMBLA case, they explained that they did not support or assert the notion that a person’s civil rights were being infringed upon by laws preventing them from having sex with underage boys. They explained that they were taking the case because they felt that legal precedent was lacking and it would be beneficial to establish a more codified position.
OK. So what they are telling me is that SC interpretation is needed and that they respect the rulings of the SC. In fact, much of the activities of the ACLU has been bringing cases in order to establish legal precedent through cases. At its foundation, they are deferring to the rulings of the legal system as being the final arbitrator of precedent and the rule of law.
And then we get this….
[Quote:
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized. ]
They have literally stated that they disagree with the SC and that they are therefore– by dissenting– suggested a fallibility of the very entity which they have touted and relied upon as the final arbitrator of codified rights.
What they are saying is that the SC is the final word– unless it goes against our viewpoint.
By the statement I have quoted, the ACLU has now identified itself as an organization who is more interested in social engineering rather than codification of rights.
Many defend the ACLU for not having a position on the 2A as stating that they do not have to defend ALL of the BOR. I reject this notion. If they are to have as thier mission statement that they defend Civil Rights, they do not have the luxury of picking and choosing. They should amend thier mission if that is the case.
As it is, I see the ACLU as having lost ALL integrity on this issue. Along with it goes the very last vestige of respect that I may have held for the organization.
I suppose it is liberating for me.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
As a minor note, the ACLU has long claimed that the Miller court case from the 1930’s supported a collective right.
To my understanding, the Miller case did NOT find in favor of any kind of collective right. The USSC (erroneously) found that the gun Miller had used was not a gun normally used by the military or militia, and thus not covered by the 2nd Amendment.
(I say the finding was erroneous because Miller was charged with illegally owning a sawed-off shotgun under the restrictions laid out in the 1934 National Firearms Act. Strangely, no one told the Court that sawed-off shotguns did have military use during World War I…this strange fact may be connected to the fact that Miller’s attorney was unable to travel to DC to argue the case…for more details, see Wikipedia.)
However, it is perfectly possible to argue that Miller supports some firearms restrictions…but it is also possible to argue that Miller supports ownership of military-use firearms (ranging from 1911-style pistols with high-capacity magazines to Springfield rifles and M-16’s…).
It is very hard to argue that Miller supports a collective-right interpretation.
As a curious aside, there was this one case from the 1850’s, in which the Supreme Court noted that the rights extended to all legally-recognized persons in the United States included the right to own guns. (At the time, most personal guns were indistinguishable from standard infantry weapons.)
That case was the Dred Scott case, in which the Supremes found that Blacks were not persons…because if they were, then they would have all the individual rights guaranteed by Amendments 1-10 of the U.S. Constitution.
Next time you think about Civil Liberties and firearms, think about Dred Scott and whether he was a person under U.S. law.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
As a former member of the ACLU who let my membership lapse because I came to the conclusion that the Bill of Rights must be protected in its entirety, I am very dismayed at your response to the Heller decision.
My donations will go to the Cato Institute in the future, and I will suggest the same to my family, friends and acquaintances as well.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
I don’t know why I was actually disappointed to see the ACLU’s position post Heller. I guess I’d thought that maybe they actually believed in the word “Liberty” in their name. Clearly, they wouldn’t know liberty if Sam Adams smacked ‘em across the face with the Declaration of Independence.
What’s interesting, is the volume of revenue the ACLU is losing because of their position. So, so many gun owners would join if they recognized such a clearly worded individual right both in the BoR and so many state constitutions.
But no. They shove their fingers in their ears and yell “nananananan we’re not listening nananananan collective right nananananana don’t care what SCOTUS says nananananana our socialist agenda is at direct odds with personal liberty and responsibility nananananna”
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Where do I send my cut up membership card?
I’ve been a member since 1990 but your behavior in the wake of the clear Heller decision is unacceptable.
Should you ever become a civil rights organization again I will consider rejoining.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Perhaps the name, A.C.L.U. (American Civil Liberties Union) should be changed to A.C.L.T.W A.W.U. (American Civil Liberties That We Agree With Union) as it is unbelievable that you would “cherry-pick” which parts of the Bill of Rights that you support from those that you don’t… What gall!
Even if you formerly beleived that the right was a collective one, you now have NO EXCUSE to continue with that belief. Eat your crow, swallow hard, and SUPPORT ALL THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS!
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:18 am
If you don’t change your position, you will loose a good deal of financial support over it….not to mention your intellectual honesty.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
I’m a former member of the ACLU. I let my membership lapse during law school precisely because I believed that the ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment was hypocritical and unworthy of the legacy of the institution.
The ACLU had the opportunity with the Heller decision to win back people like me, who value what the ACLU does in other areas but cannot accept that the ACLU completely denies a fundamental freedom of the American people.
The ACLU became great by defending our rights even when the right or the client was unpopular. The hard cases the ACLU fought in the name of freedom demonstrated moral courage.
Today’s ACLU has lost that moral courage. By abandoning the protection of our Second Amendment rights, the ACLU has abandoned its claim to stand for our freedoms, and transformed itself into simply another partisan advocacy group.
In this day and age, that is a tragic loss.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
Are there any other Amendments in the Bill of Rights that are “collective”?
Why would the authors of the Bill of Rights put one, and only one, “collective” right in the middle of the greatest statement of INDIVIDUAL rights ever written?
The “collective right” theory was a desperate attempt to twist reality to achive a desired outcome. It was based on a convoluted interpretation of US v Miller to make Miller cover ground it didn’t cover. It was absurd from the beginning and to cling to it now that it has been officially debunked is ludicrous.
Change your name to the American Capricious Liberals Union.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
The ACLU only supports what will make it look good in headlines.
Our rights are not a buffet for you to pick and choose from. Let me know when you actually care about rights more than you care about media image.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
OK
I read the bad comments on Heller stance.
Where is the good comment forum located?
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
I am a member of the ACLU. I can tolerate a neutral stance on the 2nd because of the work the ACLU does for the other amendments, but this statement is not acceptable.
I guess the big donors who want gun control are more important than people like me.
If the ACLU is going to serve as a front organization for the Joyce Foundation just tell us, so we can cancel our memberships.
If their anti-gun donations are more important than my membership I can accept that, but don’t expect to be effective as a civil rights organization if your real goal is socialism.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Congratulations, my donations will now be directed to the CATO Institute. Reading your duplicitous policy release was unnecessary. One merely has to browse your “Issues” topics to observe your priorities and lack thereof:
Criminal Justice, Death Penalty, Disability Rights, Drug Policy, Free Speech, HIV/AIDS, Human Rights, Immigrants’ Rights, Lesbian & Gay Rights, National Security, Police Practices, Prisoners’ Rights, Privacy & Technology, Racial Justice, Religion and Belief, Reproductive Freedom, Rights of the Poor, Safe and Free, StandUp/Youth,
Voting Rights, Women’s Rights
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Given your assumption that the Second Amendment is a collective right, and given the identical language elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, do you also consider Freedom of Speech to be a collective right?
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
JNH – I don’t think it would help my opinion of the ACLU if they were to defend the Second Amendment via a collective rights argument. The “collective right” theory, which has been academically dead for years now, is now legally dead as well. I hate to say it, but at this point those who espouse the “collective rights” theory in regard to the Second Amendment are either dense, stupid, or intellectually dishonest.
In addition, while the “collective right” as they view it isn’t a right at all, and it certainly does not address anyone’s right to join the “militia”.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
You need to remove American and Liberties from the organizations name. You have exposed yourselves as a political agenda organization. American Liberties come from the constitution. To ignore, no, to repudiate the Supreme Courts decision shows the ACLU is nothing but a bunch of hacks with an agenda.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Unfortunately, at least for this liberal (a title I am proud to wear), the ACLU’s position on the 2nd Amendment is simply pandering to the majority of the liberals (certainly not me) who send you money. Seems the ACLU only supports those individual rights that will get them the most money. Too bad. Very sad.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
What scares you the most ACLU? That individuals have the right to own weapons to protect their lives from life threatening offenses? Or the fact that your “collective” stance means that whatever your agenda was, you can no longer arbitrarily proceed with it without the justified threat of getting a .45 ACP in the chest?
To deny human beings the individual right to self-defense is the same as condoning slavery. I find the ACLU’s position on the Heller decision quite disturbing in the least, especially considering how hard they have worked to undo the “Master” and “Slave” relationships in the 20th Century.
It’s quite obvious the ACLU is in fear of losing money from its large benefactors should it support the Heller decision, or even that these very benefactors make policy decisions for the group.
I find the hypocrisy going on here quite grotesque. It seems that according to the ACLU, slavery should still exist in the United States, just under your own terms.
Its refreshing that you’ve finally shown the public the true face of your organization.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The Bill of Rights is a document that protects the individual from excesses of government power. How is it that your take on the second ammendment only recognizes a collective right in defense of the state?
Words fail me.
I guess the supreme law of the land as established by the Supreme Court means nothing to you. I guess your communist history begins to show through.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The question before the Supreme Court in Heller was whether an individual right to keep and bear arms existed outside of membership in a militia. The answer was that, yes, the individual right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the 2nd Amendment, and that government was limited in its ability to legislate away that right. The necessity of an enumerated right to keep and bear arms was explained as being in support of the unenumerated but inherent, individual, inalienable right to self defense.
So what is the ACLU position on the individual right to self defense, considered so fundamental that it remains unenumerated in the Constitution?
This individual right to self defense exists (like the unenumerated right to privacy) as a well-recognized basis for an awful lot of law.
So what says the ACLU in regards to the individual right to self defense, which is supported by the existence of the 2nd Amendment?
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I want my $50 back.
I could tolerate your absenteeism on the Second Amendment when you took a neutral stance, but now that you’re in actual opposition to the fact that this is a pre-existing, enumerated, individual right, I can no longer support you with my donations, or tell people that you’re not actually a bunch of socialists.
Please give me a call whenever you realize that this is going to decimate your member base. We’re in open revolt now, and I expect you to receive my cut up membership cards within the week. I’ll include a copy of the Heller opinion for further review, with the words ‘individual right’ highlighted wherever they occur.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Thank you for confirming your hypocrisy, by claiming to be for civil liberties, yet you won’t stand for one of the most important. It IS the SECOND Amendment for a reason. It was important to the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Bill of Rights.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I’m a libertarian who has long believed that the right-wing critique of the ACLU was overstated but not without merit. I have long believed that the ACLU does worthy work, but adheres to a definition of “civil liberties” that comports with elite liberalism first and an honest and robust reading of the Constitution second.
I had hoped that the ACLU would demonstrate some moral courage and dispel those criticisms by embracing the Heller decision. I find it very sad, and very telling, that you’ve decided that you’ll have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accord the Second Amendment the same respect as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Gregory Morris –
You are right, of course. I simply suggest the ACLU put its money where its mouth is. If the legal experts advising the board believe there exists a colorable argument for a collective right, the board should put that knowledge to constructive use.
And just because there is an individual right in the 2nd Am does not exclude the possibility of a simultaneous collective right. Right?
My own (published) research on militia caselaw indicates that Congress has plenary over the militia, via Art.I Sec.8 cl.15 and the Supremacy Clause, and that Congress may preempt state militia laws that conflict or interfere with implementation of the federal law.
But the ACLU, comprised of many expert lawyers, think they have a colorable argument that Congress cannot interfere with arms-bearing by citizens under state sponsorship. California law gives homosexuals a right to enroll in the militia, but Federal law threatens to withhold funding of the state Guard if California enrolls them.
It’s an ideal opportunity for the ACLU to prove its commitment to the collective right. The victorious result will be fifty states with fifty different standards of militia enrollment, each state vindicating the collective right of its citizens by bringing them under the protection of the 2nd Amendment, just like the ACLU says. A patchwork militia system that “looks like America” even if it is unfortunately unusable for organized national defense.
JNH
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
As a libertarian-minded political activist, I’ve frequently defended the ACLU in the past against the usual batch of accusations.
I’ll not be doing it any more. I’m off to review the CATO Institute’s membership offerings.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
JNH: Interesting theory. I agree with most of what you are saying… but I seriously doubt that the ACLU or anyone else would go after the “gays in the national guard” issue in court on Second Amendment grounds…
Aside from the unlikeliness of that court case, the “militia” referred to in the second amendment is NOT the modern instantiation of the National Guard (in California, or elsewhere.) The “militia” is and always has been a body of all armed citizens. The Militia Act, of course, defines it as all men within a certain age group _as_well_as_ women who are members of the National Guard.
On top of all that, the ACLU isn’t “devoted” to the “collective rights” theory, they just get a lot of money from gun control advocates. The “collective rights” theory was invented as a means of legitimizing what would otherwise be clearly unconstitutional gun laws. The ACLU is willfully adopting a legal theory which has very few merits and even less legitimate scholarship… all in the name of money. They have given up the moral high ground they used to claim all because some deep-pocketed donors have a disdain for the right to lawful self defense.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I’d like to say I’m surprised by the ACLU refusal to acknowledge the US Supreme Court’s decision, however that doesn’t diminish my feeling of disappointment.
I have been tempted at times to join the ACLU, but haven’t because of their opinion the 2nd Amendment protects a collective right in connection with a militia. Now that the US Supreme Court has unambiguously ruled the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, my temptation has turned to pure disgust in hearing the ACLU (the so-called world’s premier civil rights advocacy group) refuses to accept the High Court’s opinion. Just when I thought I could finally join the ACLU, I now think it’s time to replace the ACLU with an organization that’s more open and less political.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Why is it that we’re only seeing this on a blog instead of being presented in an official manner on the main ACLU webpage?
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
As the supposed defenders of civil rights -it amazes me you would say any of the admnedments contained in the Bill of Rights is not and individual right that all US Citizen’s have! That can never be taken away, nor nulified by law! You have lost all crediabilty with us real Americans!!
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
BTW, I am not kidding. This gay National Guardsman sued California over his membership in the militia, and he won:
andy-holmes.com/dadt/index.htm
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I guess I will have to add my name to the list of progressives who will now resign from this proud organization. It is clear that a political agenda has replace the noble protector of American Constitutional liberties it once was.
What happened to the ACLU that defended the Nazis in Skokie?
Now that I think about it, how about a class action suit against the ACLU for fraudulently accepting our contributions over the years? Anybody else interested?
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I’m not going to claim to have been a supporter of the ACLU, either morally or financially, tho I’ve usually found myself in agreement with the organization’s battle de jour and haven’t been afraid to say so. However, I’ve always felt your… reasoning regarding the 2nd Amendment was disingenuous, at best. The organization’s latest position, particularly in light of the majority of the last 20 years of scholarly opinion and the Supreme Court’s opinion, is simply inexplicable. I can’t say as I’d be any more a supporter, in either respect, were the ACLU to adopt an RKBA-friendly stance, but your position pretty much guarantees that isn’t going to happen.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
tgirsch said: LAs a long time member of the ACLU, I wish the organization’s policy were closer to truly neutral on the gun issue. That is, I’d like the organization to have no official opinion on the second amendment, and simply stay out of those issues.”
This is exactly wrong…the ACLU must either support all constitutional rights or admit that it has sold out to the liberal left.
Much of what is wrong with the ACLU has stemmed from the shift of financing from individual donations to left oriented foundations. I no longer consider the ACLU as a true civil rights group, and will govern my donation policy on that basis.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Up until reading this blog post I was a firm regular supporter of the ACLU and it’s work toward protecting individual rights.
I’m disappointed in this decision that the 2nd amendment doesn’t qualify or declaring that it is “anachronistic”.
Ignoring the human right to personal protection, there are plenty of examples in the last few decades where governments around the world have shown what they are capable of doing to disarmed citizens (example: Rwanda). Anyone who believes that that our government has evolved to a point where it will never abuse it’s citizen should go read a history book.
I’m still a fan of what the ACLU does for our country but I will no longer be sending in financial support.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I am a libertarian, and the ACLU’s absurd sophistry on this issue reveals that the organization is nothing but doctrinaire leftist to its core, and cares only about the rights and liberties it THINKS you should have.
You guys will have to hit up the Joyce Foundation for more cash. You’ll never see another dime from me.
I joined the NRA today instead.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
What would be the point of passing a law that states that collectively, the United States of America can have a military?
Were the founding fathers, having recently run away from a military superpower, actually so worried that an abusive government might eliminate the collective right to a military?
That is absurd…
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
So, basically, the ACLU puts its fingers in its ears and screams “It’s not so!”. Sorry, folks, you’re credibility, while limp in the past, is completely deflated at this point.
No matter your high minded goals, you do not support the 2nd amendment; therefore you do not support civil rights.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Unbelievable, the ACLU protects some of the scum of the Earth, but won’t stand up for my right of protection. Go to France, I’m sure they would love you…
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
dear left wing shills…
ive been on the fence about becoming a member of the ACLU for many years.as distasteful and disgusting i find many of the stances/causes you take up,i felt i could deal with it as it acts as a counterbalance to the disturbing stances on the opposite side of the spectrum.its been your hypocritical stance on the 2nd amendment thats kept me away…i see things havent changed unfortunately.
i think you’ll find that if you stop picking and choosing which rights you feel we’re entitled to,your membership would levels would swell to new heights.
until then…
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I believed (past tense) in the work that the ACLU did. You hypocritical take on the 2nd Amendment has caused to me rethink my support both financially and morally. The right to proctect my own life and those I love seem to fall below the rights of child molesters, rascists and terrorists in the ACLU playbook. I’m a gun owning liberal in NYC and look foward to converting all the New yorkers I know away from your hypocritical Institute
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I’m a huge fan of the work the ACLU does.
The stance they’ve taken on the 2nd amendment, while clearly not one that’s popular with all the people following the link here from the Cato Institute (you commenters are SO subtle), isn’t substantively changed by this posting.
I suggest you read their full statement here again:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
Also, I see a lot of people who were already not disposed to support the ACLU complaining. Shockingly, nobody cares. Calling the ACLU “anti-christian” is also pretty funny from people who supposedly follow a religion that suggests you “turn the other cheek.”
Dear ACLU: I’m a lapsed member. I’m fixing that right now. Thanks.
(personal note: My feelings on the issues are more closely represented by this:
samefacts.com/archives/crime_control_/2008/06/an_individual_right_to_
keep_and_bear_arms_ho_hum.php
).
People’s feelings can evolve. I suggest people find new and novel ways of discussing the issue with the ACLU than simply name-calling and berating.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I am pretty much a Libertarian and have never been able to stomach the hypocrisy of the ACLU with regards to the 2A. Miller never stated it was a collective right although many who wished to eliminate it chose to paint it as one. Now the SCOTUS has clearly stated it is and always has been an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
The ACLU will defend a host of “rights” not specifically mentioned in the COTUS because it fits with their social agenda. The 2A though has never fit that agenda and was therefore betrayed at every opportunity.
It is amusing to see those who have contributed money to your lying organization for years to suddenly see you for what I always knew you to be. While some of your stances have been correct your despicable position on the 2A and willingness to throw away Americans’ rights in the past, and now the future, proves what a fraud you really are.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“To my understanding, the Miller case did NOT find in favor of any kind of collective right. The USSC (erroneously) found that the gun Miller had used was not a gun normally used by the military or militia, and thus not covered by the 2nd Amendment.”
Actually the court stated they knew of no use suitable to the militia for such a weapon and sent it back to the lower court pending the discovery of such use, which never came up. As stated, WWI pretty much would have cleared this one up.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
ACLU sucks – American Communist Lovers Union
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I live in Los Angeles. I’m anti-war, I’ve supported a lot of the ACLU’s positions here but the idea that the 2nd amendment does not protect an individual right to gun ownership is nonsense. To believe that is to completely ignore the history of this country solely to push a political agenda, not to defend the freedom of the citizens of this great nation.
Gun control is a dead issue in this nation, in part because of the nonsensical laws that came into being because of the legislation passed in the 90’s. Hanging on to it at this point is a sad display of an organization grasping onto ideology as a last ditch effort to support the last vestiges of a dying cause.
Please live up to the ideals your organization stands up for, the freedom of all American citizens. Not just ideology.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
What a bunch of arrogant assholes you are, ACLU. Of course I am not surprised….
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Give to the NRA, forget the left leaning we like the rights we like organization.
I guess this ruling took out more than the Unconstitutional DC gun law, it also unmasked another liberal front group.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Wow, the hypocrisy of your stance just floors me. Guess I’ll support other groups that actually care about the legal rights of Americans
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Well that cements it for me. My money will go to an organization that fights for the *entire* Bill of Rights.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I can’t wait to see what other amendments the ACLU will disagree with and make their own interpretations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an individual’s right, but that’s not good enough for the ACLU. What about the 1st amendment? Come on, if the second is collective than the rest must as well. How do you account for this?
Come on now.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
- “The stance they’ve taken on the 2nd amendment, while clearly not one that’s popular with all the people following the link here from the Cato Institute (you commenters are SO subtle), isn’t substantively changed by this posting.
I suggest you read their full statement here again:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html”
So…your defense of an intellectually dishonest position is that it is consistent with a pre-existing intellectually dishonest position?
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Unbelievable. To claim that “the people” in the 2nd amendment is a collective is like saying that “the people” in the First is collective…and that individuals don’t have the right to peacefully assemble because we’ve elected people to do that for us.
I celebrated Heller as a validation that the BoR is ALL about individual rights.
I can’t tell you how saddened I am by your position. Seriously. I have been a staunch defender and member of the ACLU for years…for what? To have them morph into another myopic organization who only quotes the Constitution to support their own policy goals? You are no better than Bush’s hack lawyers.
Since you are so good at “interpreting the meaning” sentences, try to figure out what I am saying here…”I QUIT. YOU HAVE LOST YOUR DIRECTION. I QUIT. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES. I QUIT. DECADES OF GROUND-BREAKING WORK WASHED DOWN THE TOILET. I QUIT.”
Any problems with that, or do I need to clarify?
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.”
I used to live in a collective when I was a young idealistic man.
Even then I knew there was no hope of revolution without “the people” having the right to own a weapon and knowing how to use a rifle.
I would like to thank the A.C.L.U for helping swell the ranks of the N.R.A with this absurd & pitiful statement.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I am truly disgusted with the ACLU’s stance on this issue. I will no longer be donating or renewing my membership and will be telling all my friends to do the same.
Shame on you.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I just took the renewal letter mailing out of the “in” box and moved it to the trash. I’m as disappointed as if my child were caught stealing from the offering box at the church. I would have thought they had more respect for themselves, the law, and our community.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Bigots.
Still supporting laws originally passed to disarm blacks, I see.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The Second Amendment…Because Freedom Can’t Protect Itself
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
The ACLU is the best friend of Mugabe, Castro, Chavez and company. These tyrants are firm believers of the rights of the collective (their goverments). Teh individual, well, they can go to h>>l
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
ACLU, your stance is absolutely absurd. Thankfully, you have now exposed yourselves as being the hypocrites you are. There is no such thing as a collective right, and not one justice, even those that dissented, found the Second Amendment to enshrine a collective right. Stop pouting that you lost and have some integrity.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
So its now official. ACLU only supports those civil liberties which agree with it’s ‘liberal’ agenda.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Well my comment is this then -
The ACLU is NOT a “civil rights” organization.
As the SC said in Dredd Scott – “if blacks were citizens they would have the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went”.
That was waaaayyyyyy back before the civil war. Finally in 2008 the SC grants full recognition to the basic right to arms.
But the ACLU won’t go for it.
Ergo the ACLU is now an enemy of freedom, because the freedom (and the right to the ability) to defend oneself from attack is the MOST basic right of all. Without it there are no citizens, only slaves.
The ACLU will never get a dime for me and I will work actively against the ACLU (and ANY of its causes) wherever I can.
The ACLU clearly does not want people to be free – they want the people to be defenseless victims waiting to be slaughtered.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
It’s all been said in over 98% of the above comments, but I’ll add my voice:
The ACLU has to make a hard choice to make between libertarian or merely liberal. If they have even a wisp of integrity, they will support the civil rights guaranteed by the second amendment, as clarified by Justice Scalia in D.C. v. Heller.
I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is. If the ACLU will join Chicago v. NRA and San Francisco v. NRA or whatever the official names are) or even write a pro-2A amicus brief in those cases, I will become a card-carrying member. And you know what? I bet tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of others will too.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
This is why I have refused to support your organization even though I am a very strong advocate of the bill of rights and agree with most of the ACLU’s positions. Saying the second amendment is a collective right is just ideology over its obvious meaning.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I guess I’ll have to find a different organization to give my money to.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
It is with great disappointment that I must remove the ACLU from my list of supported organizations.
Just as I will no longer support a Planned Parenthood that accepts money specifically for aborting black children.
What on Earth is wrong with you? Where did you take this turn?
Is there ANYONE there listening?
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“isn’t substantively changed by this posting”
That’s true, it was wrong before Heller, it’s wrong now. The only difference is that they lost their fig leaf.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
As an ACLU member for more than a decade, I am disappointed that a clear civil rights victory is denigrated by the ACLU.
My next membership-renewal envelope will probably be returned empty.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.”
SCOTUS ruled that it IS an individual right as in right now this present moment. It is a FACT. That ruling IS now the law of the land and is definitive on the issue of “individual right vs collective”.
If there are going to be other lawsuits, those lawsuits will not be challenging whether or not the 2nd amendment is an individual right. The challenges will rise out of existing laws that have violated that individual right like Chicago’s handgun ban. Other issues will, of course be incorporation of the 2nd amendment through the 14th amendment.
Your stance is 100% wrong on the 2nd amendment. The ACLU should adopt at least a “wait and see policy” saying, “Yes, it’s an individual right, but we need to wait and see what all that entails.” Not the BS line you have stuck with.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
If you guys are shaking in your boots that you might lose ultra leftwing members due to a policy reversal on the 2nd amendment, you will make up that lost membership many times fold by attracting rightwing moderates. Use some business logic and common sense!
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
What’s a liberal/libertarian to do? Cato seems to be too much about cutting taxes, NRA is too extreme (no bazookas please). I thought the NRA was the only real “pure play” civil rights group. guess i was wrong.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
It is astonishing that the ACLU cannot even take the time to logically defend their viewpoint in light of a Supreme Court ruling ‘expanding’ the rights of U.S. Citizens that contradicts their own.
I have been a member or donated money to the ACLU for about seven years. I let my membership expire a few months ago and keep getting renewal notices begging for my money. I put off renewing because I wanted to see how the Heller case would turn out. I have always been annoyed by the ACLU’s lack of support for the 2nd amendment, but have been willing to overlook it.
Now it is clear that planned ignorance is dictating the policy of the ACLU. Good job guys, you should feel real proud of yourselves. At this point I wouldn’t put it past you to log my IP address, call your friends in the FBI, have them issue a NSL and come take a look around my house for anti-ACLU information. Whatever it takes to protect your precious ego.
ACLU… either support the whole constitution of the United States or quit asking for my money!
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Please, reconsider your position here, ACLU. The rest of the things that you fight for are so good. I really wish you would support my civil liberties outlined in the second amendment as well as you support the others.
You really have a good reputation. Statements like these hurt it, because you are turning your back on one of our civil liberties. And that makes me sad and should make you feel ashamed.
Thanks for your other work. But please, reconsider.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I have in the past donated large sums of money to the ACLU but this latest stance sickens me. You dare to pick and choose which civil liberties you will defend? You have lost my money forever
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
It’s pretty clear that, just as the Second Amendment is a collective right, the First Amendment is also a collective right; it refers to the right of the state governments to establish a religion, print newspapers, and meet to send a petition to the federal government.
Thanks to the ACLU’s principled stand against individual rights, we can now silence all subversive organizations. Including the ACLU
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Funny how the ACLU seems to forget a large percentage of the guns laws (especially down here in the South) owe their existence to Jim Crow and disarming African Americans.
Then again, being for one amendment of the Constitution but patently against another pretty much demonstrates the sort of “flexible” principles their members like to see.
Urine on a crucifix? Fine!
Personal self defence? Heck no!
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Then the ACLU is not a defender of the constitution of the United States but is a defender of its interpretation of the constitution.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Great, Thanks for deleting my comment! Real professional, guys.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
From the ACLU “About Us” page:
“If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled.”
Sounds nice. So, lets say a gay man is being attacked by a much stronger man in WA DC. Must he be beaten or killed because, according to the ACLU, he has no right to armed self defense? How many more must be victimized because their own government has effectively disarmed them, turning them into helpless little lambs for the slaughter?
What right could be more important that the right of self defense– the right to live?
The ACLU has been a joke for a long time. This statement of yours is just the icing on the cake.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
If the ACLU supported an individual 2A right then they would lose their funding from the Joyce Foundation and other anti-2A organizations.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Whomever at the ACLU decided that the 2nd is a collective right, within the group of individual rights, should justly suffer cognitive dissonance into perpetuity, even while in the grave… Such a position is clearly a stretch of the imagination and illogical. Is this a case of Group Think?
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
ACLU has become a bunch of candy butts who stick up for people toO sorry or lazy or pathetic to stand up for themselves. YOU ALL WANT A FREAKIN FREE RIDE AT THE EXPENSE OF REAL HARD WORKING AMERICANS. TAKE A HIKE!!! GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GET A JOB!!! LEARN THAT GUN CONTROL WILL ONLY TAKE AWAY GUNS FROM HONEST CITIZENS. YOUR STREET THUG PUNKS WILL STILL HAVE THEM!
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I like the heading of the page, “Blog Of Rights”. SOOO you want to pick which rights? You think that the 2nd amendment isn’t a right? You think that law abiding citizens, who go through the proper procedures to purchase and/ or carry a firearm, is a danger to society? As a slap in true american’s faces, why don’t you try to get habitual criminals, those who disregard the laws for purchasing and/ or carrying a firearm, better TV channels while you are trying to get them out of jail! At best I believe the whole organization is hypocritical!
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Pardon me, but your ideological slip is showing-
So, the ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Isn’t that hypocritical in light of the fact that all of the other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights and the ACLU has sued in court to defend those individual rights? The ACLU has no basis to interpret anything, let alone what rights I have-the framers of the Constitution have already done that, quite clearly enough without any help from any of you.
Don’t Tread on me!
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Over a decade ago, Nadeen Strossen invited me to attend a meeting regarding the ACLU’s policy on the Second Amendment. I declined to attend that ACLU policy meeting in the 1990s. The sole reason for my invitation was as the editor of The Origin of the Second Amendment, which was cited several times in last week’s Heller decision.
Note that if the ACLU ever decides to have such a meeting in the future and would like me to assist them on this subject, I would seriously consider trying to help the ACLU better grasp the historical information that directly contradicts current ACLU policy on the Second Amendment.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Well, it looks like the ACLU is pissing everybody off today.
Sucks when you aren’t on the moral highground, doesn’t it???
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
It is curious that ALL of the other Rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, but the ACLU takes the position that only the Second is a collective right.
Like the first, you don’t have to agree with something but you should support it if it allows others to express their freedom or beliefs.
How can the ACLU say that it is for civil liberties when it won’t even defend the entire Constitution?
The Constitution is an all or nothing document. If you don’t support it all, you don’t support it at all.
The money that I normally send to the ACLU is now going to the NRA, an organization that stands for freedom, 1st and 2nd Amendment.
The ACLU leaders need to leave NY sometimes and come out to meet the real America. It’s not limousine liberals.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I used to be an ACLU supporter. Then I realized they ignored the 2nd Amendment. I had a fun phone call last year with an ACLU membership drive marketer. He was a nice guy, but he had no clue as to what the 2nd even was about. That shows how the ACLU is at its core anti-2nd and anti-personal freedom. He was shocked that the ACLU had mis-informed him so much. I wasn’t. SHAME on you ACLU.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I’m an ACLU member and a Democrat. I’ve defended the ACLU’s positions to many conservatives and liberals, with good reason I felt. I’ve been a member since 1989.
I was OK with the neutrality on the 2nd Amendment because there wasn’t clear caselaw on it and the ACLU shouldn’t be in the position of making up a position for or against it.
Now that it’s been settled that the right to arms is a protected individual right, it’s different now. The ACLU’s position on the 2nd is now as untenable and unpalatable as if you had endorsed Jim Crow laws or segregated schools after Brown vs. Board of Education.
I’m going out of the country for a month soon. If the ACLU’s position has not changed when I return, you will find my well-worn ACLU membership card in your mailbox – cut into pieces.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Allow me to point out that the history of weapons prohibitions has always been one of disarming peasantry in order to better facilitate the control and exploitation of that peasantry by some elite. Let us review some of the history of weapons prohibitions. First look at the Toyotomi shogunate of Japan. Society was divided into five classes which were made hereditary, and only the Samuri and Nobility were allowed to own swords. In the post-bellum South, weapons restrictions were used to leave freed slaves defenseless when the KKK came calling with their whips and ropes. In New York, the Sullivan Law ensured that opponents of Tammany Hall were disarmed and only Tammany Hall thugs had guns on eleection day. In Britain, in 1920, their National Firearms Act was passed, ostensibly as an anti-crime measure, but actually as the result of fears of a Bolshevik type revolution in the depression that followed WWI.
These, along with defense against criminal attack by the sociopaths of society, fit with the founders’ comments on the reason why the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. While we may not be in danger of imminent dictatorship, the threat of the criminal predators is still with us.
Finally, read Miller, especially the sentence where that opinion defines the militia. That definition is all able-bodied men over the age of 18 who are willing to defend the United States, using arms supplied by themselves. It is there. Read it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
How can the ACLU disagree with the bill of rights? What part of “shall not be infringed” do you guys not understand? Besides the supreme court now has ruled that it is a individual right, and since this iss the highest court in the land, how can the ACLU contradict its rulings regarding civil liberties? You have no credibility in my eyes until you change your position to one more consistent with the bill of rights. An above poster said it well. “If the ACLU wants to maintain its credibility as the defender of the bill of rights then it must endorse the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and not maintain its pathetic stance claiming it disagrees with the SCOTUS.”
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
From your official position posted
“IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.”
You do NOT have to register or license cars, you only have to do that if you intend on using cars on public tax supported land aka roads.
I own a car that is NOT registered or licensed and an affidavit clearly defines that it is NOT used on public lands.
OOPs, there you go looking silly again.
Disgraceful is how you look when you do not support individual rights after they have been clearly defined, STUPID is how you look when you try and compare it to another commonly owned item and then say something about that item that is 100% false and incorrect.
I thought you guys had some lawyers working for you to prevent such public and stupid mistakes!!!
Then again, ignoring SCOTUS rulings clearly does not indicate a large level of smarts now does it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I agree with David here. Once again, people are commenting without knowing the full extent of the situation. And the excessive name calling in these comments is, at best, childish. I believe as the ACLU does. Furthermore, I don’t see the reason as to why someone needs an AK-47 or a pistol. I would have absolutely no problem with someone owning a rifle for hunting or a shotgun, a handgun is useless in this case unless hunting a human, which is not my style. The 2nd amendment is widely misunderstood, it protects militias, not an individual’s right. All you need is a little American History lesson to realize why this amendment was enacted. It was not enacted so that some little old lady could shoot an African American man who is across the street because she feels threatend but rather to protect our democracy by holding a revolution against our own govt. if necessary. All of those that agree completely with the ACLU except for this decision and are not renewing their memberships should really consider all of the things that the ACLU does. After all, they do occupy almost a third of the Supreme Court’s time in order to defend us. And to paraphrase Anthony Romero, the NRA has one amendment to protect, the ACLU has all the rest. So cut them some slack if you disagree with one mere decision.
Always a supporter,
Lucia
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Guns must be removed from the public so the aclu’s real agenda can surface.. Remember they were founded by communists.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
You have to be kidding me. This is very disappointing. I was hoping that the ACLU would stand up for the bill of rights instead of being a mouth piece for the Democratic party much like the NRA has become for the Republicans. I unfortunately won’t be renewing my membership this year.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
You have to be kidding me. This is very disappointing. I was hoping that the ACLU would stand up for the bill of rights instead of being a mouth piece for the Democratic party much like the NRA has become for the Republicans. I unfortunately won’t be renewing my membership this year.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 am
Finally the ACLU has revealed itself as the anti-American, U.S. Constitution-hating, godless Socialist/Marxist/Communist organization the conservatives have always known it to be. Nothing has changed, but much has been REVEALED by their stated position on the 2nd Amendment.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 am
I’ve long believed in the ACLU cause and looked the other way at their disregard of the 2nd amendment.
This is just too much, though. The ACLU’s position statement can be condensed to “Well, we just don’t like it, so we’re going to pretend it doesn’t mean what it (and the Supreme Court) says.”
I have long defended the ACLU against the “Just a bunch of flaming liberals” charge, and I now honestly question whether I was right to have done that. Their response to the Heller ruling seems to leave no room for any explanation other than that they are indeed driven more by a particular political ideology than by genuine principles.
I hope the ACLU continues to do good work. But their hypocritical stance on the 2nd has lost them an ardent supporter.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:43 am
I’ve been an enthusiastic supporter of the ACLU for some years and could tolerate your absenteeism on the Second Amendment when you took a pseudo-neutral stance. It wasn’t a particularly well thought out position, mind you, but I could understand the rationale — alienating would-be supporters are never good for business.
In light of the support you’ve lost following this announcement, I hope the reasons you cling to this collectivist “interpretation” are not intellectual ones. That would truly be pitiful, as the Circuit brief and SCOTUS (majority AND minority) opinions so obviously spell out why the RKBA is an individual one. Put in that context, it’s remarkably surprising the collectivist-school had as much credibility for so long.
Do you actually get enough donations from wealthy partisan individuals and entities to makeup for the utter cognitive dissonance this must cause, or is it just flat-out denial? (I really hope it’s the former.)
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights aren’t a Chinese take out menu. You don’t pick one from column A, one from column B, and substitute out column C for a vegan option to appease the hippy chick you’re dating. Every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is vital and important.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 am
First off, I’d just like to say that I’ve always been a supporter of the ACLU, and have contributed money in the past.
But now not only are you NOT going to recognize our constitutional right to own firearms, but you are going to do it in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling. “Our mission is to protect the rights of American citizens… unless of course that right is the one we ignore.”
I agree with your positions and the actions taking on other issues and constitutional rights, but you really lose a lot of respect from me when you are so hypocritical about it.
The only reasonable, logical conclusion that one can make (based on the definitions of words, grammar, and writings of the time it was written) about the 2nd Amendment is that it protects citizens’ rights to own firearms. Even cursory readings of founding fathers’ writings will show that that was the intention (to protect against both criminals and tyrants). Any other interpretation is based on a biased viewpoint, and anyone who does interpret it differently is just trying to justify their own opinions.
Every single argument that gun control opponents make can and has been refuted either by peer-reviewed, empirical studies (ie: not one-sided studies from organizations like the Brady Campaign or VPC), government reports such as the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics or Department of Justice, CDC, or other agency reports, or simply from logic itself.
The fact that otherwise intelligent people that run the ACLU ignore the facts and continue to disregard such an imperative constitutional right as the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous. I would have hoped that you would have turned your stance on the issue to at least neutral, but alas, you continue your illogical and emotionally-based policy.
You won’t be receiving another dime from me or my family.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:02 am
Since you deleted my last comment, I see that the first amendment means nothing to you either.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:15 am
I guess mostly the ACLU’s response makes me kinda sad.
You’ve always been the good guys. The white hats who come in and do what is right because it is right. Even if it meant standing up and defending someone who stands for all you find most abhorent, you stood up and defended them because everyones rights deserve defending.
To have you now say that this right, well, not only do we not defend it, we don’t even believe in it, well, it just makes me sad since those white hats are looking a little grey today.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 am
When did the bill of rights become a grab-bag?
I could live with the neutrality expressed in the previous policy statement. I can’t except overt opposition to a right guaranteed in the constitution.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 am
The court’s ruling was dead on the money, and ACLU has now confirmed that it supports only the rights of the left, to coin a phrase.
The history behind the Second Amendment defines its meaning. Those that created the United States and organized the Continental Army to fight the British had a distrust of a standing army, seeing it used by the British as an instrument of subjugation. Indeed, that army was disbanded after the Revolution, and a new standing army was created only after it became evident that one was needed. (It happened that the need was the conflicts with Native Americans, but that’s another topic. And then the War of 1812 . . .)
So, at the time the Bill of Rights was debated and created, it was anticipated that there would be no “army” that was to be armed. The “militia” referred to in it is meant to describe the voluntary coming together of armed free men to resist oppressive government, should that reoccur.
The ACLU’s stand, then, is actually pro-oppression by a government run amok.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:24 am
Very disappointing, ACLU. I’ve donated in the past and am glad we have someone that stands up for first amendment (even the controversial stuff), but I don’t think I’ll be sending any more money your way until you start treating the second amendment like it’s a part of the bill of rights.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:36 am
WTF? How can you pick and choose what individual rights to defend? It is either all or none. The second amendment is there Because Freedom Can’t Protect Itself. Fuck you ACLU.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 am
SHAME!
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:24 am
It would be one thing if the ACLU was making a principled stand in favor of liberty against a wrongfully decided Supreme Court decision, but for the ACLU to actively support the side of oppression and advocate a police state rather than supporting fundamental civil liberties is disgusting.
I’ve considered donating to the ACLU multiple times in the past, but could not and will not as long as the ACLU continues to support a intellectually dishonest and nonsensical view of the 2nd Amendment and the fundamental civil liberty that it protects.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 am
This means I’m not done sending you bricks with your return postage envelopes.
Respect the decision; it is an individual right; as are all the others in the BOR.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:18 am
It is unfortunate that the ACLU has chosen not to support the civil liberties protected and conferred by the second amendment.
An intellectually honest position would be to say that the NRA, Cato Institute and similar organizations are dedicated to protecting our right to keep and bear arms, and the ACLU’s resources are best spent elsewhere, in the full accounting of resources and rights.
The ACLU is on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the fight to expand and protect civil liberties in its ill-conceived and plainly politicized decision to disregard Heller.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:39 am
Where in the heck were you people for decades when the ACLU sat by and allowed the infringements of the 2nd amendment? How could you have been giving them money before? I’m glad to see you have the nerve to speak up now, but where were you? And it’s not just the 2nd amendment. “Life, liberty and property” and “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are two very basic phrases in our founding documents and both phrases begin with the word “Life.” What more basic right is there than life, including the right to defend your life. It’s one of the few circumstances in which the most proscribed act, the taking of a life, is allowed. Is this rocket science?
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 am
Suzanne Ito wrote:
“As always, we welcome your comments.”
Welcome, as long as they don’t exceed 150?
It’s your call … I do realize, mind you, that it’s only the government that is barred from abridging free speech.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:55 am
As a libertarian, I agree with so much of what the ACLU does. But it is assinine stance on the 2nd Amendment which is so flat wrong that keeps me from being a card carrying member.
The hypocrisy in the ACLU’s position on the 2nd Amendment versus the others in the Bills of Rights is stunning and beyond disingenuous.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 am
Shame on you.
Why won’t you stand up for my rights.
2A has now been heard and decided yet many states continue to inhibit my right to carry a gun through back door rules,policies,and laws that seem to me to be arbitary and only stop law-abiding people from carrying a gun.
Sounds to me like there’s a fox in the hen house. Where’s my gun? Oh I forgot, the government took it.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 am
I have always respected the ACLU and the work they do. They are a vital presence in the face of a government that seems bent on seizing as much personal liberty from its citizens as it can. Why they would choose to endorse government supremacy with respect to such a fundamental human right as self-defense to me is unfathomable. They have shown themselves to be nothing more than puppets of the wealthy left.
Neither does it make financial sense. There are many ridiculous gun laws out there just begging to be repealed in the light of Heller. Think about all the contributions that would roll in if the ACLU had announced that they will defend Second Amendment rights with the legendary vigor with which they defend the others!
I guess “power to the people” is a bit anachronistic, too.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 am
I’ve never understood this bizarre blind spot in the US liberal community, and I still don’t. Look, I’m a long-haired kinky polyamorous atheist. I believe in gay marriage, freedom for the speech I hate, and a wall of separation between church and state so high that Jesus couldn’t see over it standing on Muhammad and Buddha’s shoulders. I believe that the surveillance powers of the government should be wildly curtailed, even if that means an increased danger of terrorism. Racial and religious profiling makes me furious, and I don’t much care whether it works. I am the freakin’ poster child for your organization.
And yet the ACLU and other US liberal groups continually alienate people like me by insisting that, while they’ll fight tooth and nail to protect the Constitutional rights of the worst people in the country, they’re going to ignore the flagrant offences against on right in particular. Freedom for the thought we hate… Unless it involves guns.
Look, I’m completely with you on neo-Nazis, the KKK, and everybody like them: no matter how odious their actions may be, they’re protected by the Bill of Rights, and thus we must hold our noses and stand up for them. An attack on them is an attack on us all. But that’s equally true of my neighbor, who owns a handgun to protect his two little daughters.
Gun owners _aren’t_ bad people, and they certainly deserve to be stood up for as much as some horrible skinheads do. An attack on gun owners’ rights is an attack on us all. If your organization can’t separate its feelings about the victims from the principle of civil rights in this case, then I’m afraid I can’t stand with you.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:29 am
So now instead of standing up for our RIGHTS, you decide which ones even apply to us now???
Good luck with that.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:42 am
The ACLU’s absurd stance on the 2nd amendment makes their defense of all other constitutional rights implausible.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:45 am
You have really shown your true colors on this one. You have shown that this organization is not motivated by a desire to protect the rights of Americans but is instead politically motivated.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 am
ke_future says: seeing as how there has never been a supreme court interpretation embracing 2A as a collective right, i’m unclear as to how the Heller decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.
As interpreted by the ACLU of course.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:53 am
I first became involved with the ACLU as a 21 year old grad student who supported the organizations position on the Skokie marches despite the opposition of my family, who felt that defending people who espoused the same philosophy that sent so many relatives to the death camps in Germany and Poland was simply going to far. At the time I truely believed that the statement “I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it” was the best policy.
I always looked at the ACLUs policy on the 2nd as a bit of sophistry; the Policy #47 seemed to be a deliberate misinterpretation of the SCOTUS decision in Miller, but there was wiggle room there. And since the ACLU did not actively pursue an anti-gun agenda, I was willing to ignore their lack of defense for the 2nd.
Well, it took 30 years, but you did finally proved my older relatives correct; perhaps I should have taken their counsel 30 years ago when I first started sending you money.
The ACLU no longer has a vague SCOTUS ruling to hide behind regarding the 2nd. And they have taken this opportunity to show their true colors.
It does make me wonder; who was the big money supporter who wanted to see the ACLU out there defending the rights of the American Nazi Party 30 years ago, and how much does it cost to buy that kind of loyalty from the ACLU today?
More than my 30 years of contributions, I’m sure. And infinitely more than any future funds the ACLU will receive from me.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:55 am
So, what you’re saying is that you support our Constitutional rights except where they get in the way of your ideology? That’s a very sad position for the ACLU, of all organizations, to be taking.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 am
I am disappointed in the ACLU. Up to now you could have some basis for your belief in a collective right’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. However, will Heller that is no longer true. The Court examined the history, context, language, terms and meaning of the 2nd Amendment and found they did not support a collective interpretation. By what basis do you now claim to be able to interpret the 2nd Amendment to be a collective right which was not addressed and shot down by SCOTUS? Do you have some legitimate basis for your denial of Heller, or is it simply you find yourself unable to accept this particular AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTY? Maybe it’s time you considered changing your name?
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 am
So out of 150 comments thus far, only one (#146) could be considered pro- the ACLU 2nd decision. He bashes those that did little else but spout slander but himself did no more than to discount the whole thread based on the few. He didn’t bother to respond to all of the other arguments (well reasoned or not) other than to suggest that every 2nd amendment supporter in the comments was a thinly veiled Cato supporter come to bash the ACLU.
Well I haven’t happened on the Cato site in years. I believe the cherry picking of our rights is a fair and accurate criticism. I want to be behind an organization that believes in all of my rights, and not just their flavor of what they think it should be. For such a logical organization to provide such an illogical stance is beyond me. I can only hope that the ACLU changes their official policy; then I will support them with one of the few things an American citizen has left–my pocketbook.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:11 am
JNH: That wasn’t on Second Amendment “collective rights” grounds though. The reason that the ACLU never sued to even protect a “collective” 2A right is because the entire theory is indefensible. They aren’t sticking to it because it is the best, most correct theory. It is pure political agenda.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 am
I will be sending my membership card back to the ACLU tonight due to this BS. I will advise other ACLU members to do the same, and discourage potential members until the ACLU sees the light. The ACLU leadership is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. The RKBA has always been interpreted by the vast majority of scholars and, I believe, any reasonable citizen as an individual right and it is now codified in law as such by Heller. The ACLU’s interpretation of the issue is twisted and I am disgusted.
I have supported the ACLU as a bulwark against the dangerous expansion of power granted to the Bush administration since 9/11 and for their principled stands, defending even the despised from bad laws which surely would be expanded sooner or later to unjustly oppress average Americans. I can not support your position on Heller, and will not.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:19 am
Interesting that the rest of the Bill of Rights’ Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 are in recognition of individual rights, not government right. Why do you commie left-wingers believe the 2nd different?
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 am
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
How about this:
Gee, I think freedom of the press is a collective right. I think you, individually, aren’t free to publish viewpoints on your blog against the Supreme Court – or any government entity for that matter. If you can ignore the 2nd, I can ignore the 1st.
Someone throw these crazy ACLU lawyers on a waterboard for a few hours and see if they can remember other so-called “collective rights” mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
The only reason for the Bill of Rights is due to the fact that the signers of the Constitution were afraid of the government having too much power – of course the second amendment grants people their rights.
But hey, here’s the whole 2nd amendment explained in under a minute for you ADD ACLU folks:
youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 am
The ACLU has officially lost any credibility they may have had.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:37 am
Without the Second amendment the rest of the amendments and the Constitution itself aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. It is the People(individuals) who made this great country! It is also those individuals that keep the government in line.
An armed man is a citizen and unarmed man is a subject!
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 am
The ACLU STILL thinks that the 2nd is a collective right? Geesh, so much papered education amongst the group, yet so little cognitive ability.
Well, let’s take a moment to look at what some of the State Conventions had to say while the Bill of Rights was being developed, shall we?
New Hampshire, June 21, 1788; Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
New York, July 26, 1788; That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State.
Pennsylvania Minority, December 12, 1787; That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any or them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;…
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia’s proposals also presented that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
From Madison himself, in House, June 8, 1789; The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country:… Congressional Register, June 8, 1789, vol. 1, p. 427.
Being that Madison himself proposed the creation of the Bill of Rights, I’ll take his word long before I’ll believe the obvious misinterpretation of the ACLU’s.
Anyone interested in how our Country’s Bill of Rights came to be, would do well to read “The Complete Bill of Rights, The Drafts, Debates, Sources, and Origins”, edited by Neil H. Cogan.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
As an attorney who is not backed by a large endowment from liberal purses, I think I am free to look at rights objectively. The ACLU cannot.
Your stance on this issue is not rights driven. Rather, your stance on the Second is a calculated political position done with the intent to keep your doners happy.
You simply cannot be seen to side with rednecks. Moreover, you refuse to be seen as an organization that could facilitate inner city minority gun ownership.
In other words, your stance is classist and racist. Your stance is intelectualy disshonest. Your stance is driven by endowment not rights.
Sad.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:54 am
You’re supposed to defend our constitional rights regardless of your stance. You’ll not receive any more money from me!!!
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:05 am
If the 2nd Amendment can be construed only as a collective right, what prevents the entire Bill of Rights from being construed as only valid when exercised collectively? I don’t think it a wise practice to trample rights just because we don’t choose to exercise them.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
Shame on you!
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:37 am
Are you people that naive and ignorant of what the ACLU has become over the last 10+ years?! This is status quo in their cherry picking rights to defend. Never would I give a dime to the ACLU and I can’t believe they suckered so many people for so long. Criminy!
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:41 am
Huh, my comment, lucid and free of foul language, was apparently deleted. Censorship, ironic! Hopefully this summary gets by any “reasonable restrictions”:
1)I am a member, and I am sending my card back over ACLU’s position on the RKBA
2)I will encourage other members to follow suit and discourage others from joining until this position changes
3)I am doing this because ACLU leadership is performing extraordinary mental gymnastics to restrict an important constitutional right that SCOTUS and the vast majority of Americans support
4)I hope the ACLU changes their position on the 2nd amendment because I joined out of concern for Bush administration shenanigans, which continue, as well as other governmental intrusions and I would like to rejoin one day with a clear conscience so as to continue supporting those efforts. But I won’t rejoin as long as the ACLU closes their eyes and wishes Heller and reality in general away.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
Hey ACLU! Are you feeling the heat yet?
I see members leaving, money leaving and still you cling to your communist agenda.
Meh, you are not worth it.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
If the ACLU can read, how can you say that it is a “collective” right? Give the 2nd to a 7th grader, and ask them what it means (without coaching either way) and see what they say.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:01 am
No clearer sign is needed that the ACLU is a morally corrupt organization. Perhaps this was floated in a blog to give the ACLU an opportunity to word smith their official statement to make it less offensive, but at least we all now know the true organizational value that will underly any eventual “official position.”
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 am
It was always very disturbing to me that the ACLU refused to defend our Second Amendment right in the same manner that the ACLU defends other fundamental constitutional rights. Prior to the Heller decision, the ACLU could rest its Second Amendment policy on the fact that the right to keep and bear arms had not been judicially recognized by the highest court of the land. That has changed now. It is the province of the Court to say what the law is. The law is that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental individual right. The Second Amendment still says what it has always said. The Supreme Court has not created a new right, but, rather, has recognized a right that was created when the Second Amendment was ratified more than 200 years ago. The ACLU’s refusal to defend this fundamental constitutional right solidifies the suspicion of many that the ACLU is not a steadfast defender of civil liberties, but is instead an organization that pursues a particular social policy agenda, regardless of the guarantees that are actually conferred on the people by the United States Constitution.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
I never understood why my US History teacher didn’t support the ACLU when she was such an advocate for civil liberties. I do now, and sadly I won’t be supporting this organization.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
As the “defender” of the Bill of Rights, it is the ACLU’s obligation to do all in it’s power to protect our rights. It is not the ACLU’s business to have a “collective” opinion on these rights. As a group, you must remain non-partisan. Just as a lawyer ensures the right to a fair trial regardless of guilt, your mission is defend our rights, regardless of your opinion. Once you start to pick and choose which ammendment to support, you lose ALL credibility with the Americans the Consitution provides liberties to.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
This is insane! What ever happenned to “Law of the Land”?
I am canceling my Guardian of Liberty status right now – no more monthly cash payments from me.
I’ll buy more ammunition instead!
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
As a center-left independent, a regular on Democratic Underground and Huffington Post, and a general admirer of the ACLU, I cannot FATHOM why you continue to adhere to an authoritarian reading of the Second Amendment. How is it that you rightly recognize a general right to privacy in the penumbra of the Fourth Amendment, but cannot find a right of the people (not the government, the PEOPLE) to responsibly own and use guns in the Second Amendment, even when the Court has explicitly recognized that right?
Your position on the Second Amendment is little different that that of the late Jerry Falwell on the First Amendment. Your website tosses up the lame straw-man argument that if the 2ndA doesn’t protect nukes and bazookas, then it is not a right at all, and guns can be restricted or banned to any degree that Congress wishes. But the 1stA doesn’t protect child porn, libel, slander, or ritual sacrifice either, yet freedom of religion, speech, and press are STILL individual rights.
I would urge you to please reconsider your position, and support the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to continue to lawfully own and use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 (civilian) firearms in this country. To do otherwise merely harms the cause of civil liberties in general, by alienating many (most?) civil libertarians and providing political cover for authoritarians of all political stripes.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
If any comments were indeed censored…
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
You were wrong before Heller and you are wrong now. Your stance on the 2nd is nothing short of asinine.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
I’m very disappointed. I thought with all nine justices finally declaring the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, you would at the very least drop the collective rights theory hand waving you use to avoid addressing the second amendment. Not that it made sense before the decision, either – it’s quite a stretch to think that our Founders, a bunch of violent revolutionaries, would decide to guarantee all of these great individual rights but would purposely word the second amendment in such a way as to permit banning the individual ownership of firearms. Just because an individual right to firearms makes you uncomfortable does not permit you to try to re-interpret the amendment to remove its teeth – of all organizations the world over, I thought you’d understand this.
When I see the ACLU take an absolutist position on an individual right, and protect the rights of neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, the KKK, and others society would be better off without because respecting and upholding the limits on government enshrined in our Constitution is more important – it makes me proud. However, when the ACLU’s leadership is working to weaken one individual right, for whatever reason, it makes that previous zealotry for the Constitution look absurd. It makes it look like the ACLU would choose to represent repugnant people because it makes a big splash in the news, consequences be damned.
I’m too embarrassed to be associated with this organization anymore – I hope you will take an introspective look at this issue, reevaluate your purpose, and come back to the side of advocating for and protecting all of our civil liberties, not just a partisan subset of them. I you do that – I promise you I’ll come back into the fold and advocate that much harder for you and your message. As it stand now, you’re just as political as the NRA, but at least I expected it from the other guys who only claim to protect one civil liberty in the first place.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
I’m surprised the ACLU’s view of the 2nd Amendment has baffled the people who have left comments here. They had the same view before Heller. The ACLU has always had their collective heads in the sand on this one. While I’ve always observed their logic as flawed, it’s just laughable now.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Your hipocrisy knows no bounds. Your organization is just a stain in the fabric of this country.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
I think that everyone else has done a good job of pointing out how bad a decision this is. I simply wish to add my name to that list and increase the number by 1. The ACLU will not have my support until this absurd stance is changed.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
Lucia,
First, I respect your opinion and beliefs about this issue. I have one quick question though, with a follow-up cause I think I may know what your answer may be.
Here’s the question: When it comes to issues such as abortion and etc, do you believe in the “Freedom of Choice”?
I suspect your answer is an almost unequivocal ‘Yes’.
Well, here’s my follow-up (assuming you did answer ‘yes’): Do you begrudge me my “Freedom to Choose” to carry a handgun for my defense and the defense of my loved ones? If so, why?
If no, great, and I don’t begrudge you you “freedom to choose” not to have one. I would caution you though, read the SCOTUS decison “Castle Rock vs. Gonzales” and you may find the reason why so many of us choose to carry handguns for self-defense.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
The NRA does a better job of protecting my rights than the ACLU. I’ve never heard of them disparage the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, but the ACLU just picks and chooses which rights to support and which ones to derail. Why send money to an organization that will protect some of your rights while undermining others? ACLU, if you don’t care about the 2nd amendment shut your trap. Your members aren’t part of the ACLU to support gun bans, they are part of the ACLU to support free speech. The reason the NAACP is irrelevant today is they are more concerned about banning guns than anything else.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 am
It would be nice for the ACLU to for once be able to say that they “support the bill of rights”, and be truthful. It is pathetic to cling to this wrong-thingking despite the Supreme Court’s correct decision. Thank God I cancelled my membership long ago.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:31 am
“As always, we welcome your comments.”
I thought the ACLU was dedicated to defending the Bill of Rights. But comments are welcome as long as they support the first, third, fourth … amendments to the Constitution, and not the second.
The prefatory clause may say why, but “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” should not have needed judges to interpret it. I am a people.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 am
- “I agree with David here. Once again, people are commenting without knowing the full extent of the situation. And the excessive name calling in these comments is, at best, childish.”
That’s both ironic and extremely hypocritical, considering that you then go on to demonstrate an understanding of the issue that would embarass a slow 3rd grader.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 am
The ACLU position doesn’t make sense. First they stated that they could not defend an individual right to keep and bear arms because the courts had ruled it was not an individual right. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is an individual right, the ACLU says that it cannot support that right because it disagrees with the Court’s decision. One would hope that the ACLU would support an interpretation of the Constitution that protects individual rights as much as possible in any case. The question that occurs to many of us is: Is the ACLU really a defender of our civil rights and liberties, or is it just a leftist pressure group that only defends those rights important to “liberals.”
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
Harvard Law Professor Alan Derschowitz once said, “Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”
The ACLU is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. If the ACLU is going to countenance the defenestration of the Second Amendment this way, then similar arguments can be used to eliminate other parts of the Bill of Rights. Including other amendments that use the phrase, “the right of the people” to describe individuals.
In its zeal to oppose the Second Amendment, the ACLU may be opposing them all.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:42 am
Proving with stunning clarity that the American Civil Liberties Union really isn’t interested in American Civil Liberties at all.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
If we just had a black Muslim who molested small children get charged with a gun crime the ACLU would be all over this!
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:47 am
Here’s the important thing. How the ACLU interprets the Constitution is irrelevant. That’s not your job. Now then, it’s time to get busy protecting ALL of America’s Civil Rights, not just the ones you like. It seems to me that if you can defend a “right” that isn’t even in the Constitution, You Damn well ought to be able to defend one that is! Or, is that too hard for you to understand?
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Stick a fork in the ACLU, it’s done.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Just sad.
The ACLU cannot read simple english.
Oh well … apparently four SCOTUS justices are having similar cognitive problems.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
The ACLU’s slogan: Because Freedom Can’t Protect Itself.
No it can’t, but a well armed citizenry can.
Our founding fathers understood that the greatest protection against the tyranny of despotic government is the right to bear arms.
It’s why every despotic government throughout history has one thing in common: a disarmed populace.
The 2nd Amendment protects what the ACLU only claims to: FREEDOM.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Seems they really don’t believe in the BoR after all…both my comments were deleted simply because I called them on their nonsensical position.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
After reading your “updated” stance on the 2A I’m doubly disgusted. To compare licensing and registering cars to guns is obtuse. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to drive, it guarantees the right to protect oneself. Driving is a privilage the 2A is a RIGHT!. The fact that the ACLU can’t distinguish or chooses not to distinguish between a right and a privilage proves your hypocrisy/stupidity
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
HA! I was so glad when I saw this post! I was the one that initially raised this issue on your June 26th blog post, and I initially proposed they do this, and it looks like its gotten an amazing response rate – and a very clear verdict. I’m a very proud rabble-rouser now!
So one question remains, Suzanne Ito – when is the ACLU going to announce a change in its position? I’m sure lots of news agencies would have a field day with this contradiction in the positions of the ACLU – it would just take a few emails for them to report on it. I think they’d be especially interested in the level of interest in the issue on this blog post. Sooner or later the pressure is going to be too much for you guys – so when will it be? When are you officially going to revise your position?
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
OK – I think everyone on the blog should send this form-email to their local news agencies. This should make a GREAT 4th of July news item:
Dear _____:
I think I have a news item that your viewers would find very interesting. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a strong supporter of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, has insisted since the DC v. Heller Supreme Court case that they do not support the individual right to bear arms, guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Recently (July 1st), they opened the issue up for discussion on their blog and received an unusually high level of response. The vast majority of commenters have opposed the ACLU position that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than an individual right, and yet the ACLU still has not agreed to change its position. Since its the 4th of July tomorrow, I thought this would be an interesting news item to explore – why doesn’t the ACLU support this important American freedom despite the fact that most of its supporters seem to embrace the 2nd Amendment?”
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I have a feeling all of this protest is a waste of energy. If the don’t listen to the SCOTUS what makes you think they will listen to you?
Please let’s just be honest and state that everything in the BOR represents an individual right.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I have been a member of the ACLU for many years and just received a mailing to renew my membership. Should I? Our (Your?) stance on the Second Amendment deeply disturbs me in light of the recent Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court has spoken, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. The ACLU needs to rethink its position. We are not about what some of our members WANT the Constitution to say, we are about what it SAYS. We have to ask ourselves, do we support the Constitution or not? All of it? I want to stay a member of the ACLU, you (we?) are my heroes. We are not a lobbying organization, we are the defenders of the Constitution. Please don’t make me leave the ACLU!
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
What happened to the ACLU that was willing to take on the task of defending Nazis’ right to speech in Skokie? Are you not willing to protect the rest of our individual rights in the same way, or are you just concerned with the rights of the enemies of US citizens? Regardless of what you think, the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue–will you now step up to the plate to defend all Constitutional rights, or just the ones that you personally agree with (or find in the nonexistent penumbra of rights)?
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Has ANYBODY responded affirming the ACLU’s position? I’ve read a lot but don’t have time to read all.
Does anybody know if anybody supports the 2nd Amendment being a collective right???
What a damning critique!!!!
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Lucia: “I agree with David here…” (snip)
Lucia, I’m not going to defend the inappropriate name calling, but I can understand why it’s happening. ACLU’s refusal to recognize the letter and spirit of the Heller decision is infuriating to those of us that support the entire Bill of Rights.
You stated: “I don’t see the reason as to why someone needs an AK-47 or a pistol.” So, you are entitled to be the arbiter of our Second Amendment rights? Because *you* do not see the benefit of semi-automatic rifles or handguns, we all must bow to your superior intellect? Of course – *you* know better. How elitist.
You stated: “The 2nd amendment is widely misunderstood, it protects militias, not an individual’s right. All you need is a little American History lesson to realize why this amendment was enacted.” Please point us to the amicus brief you filed supporting your position. I assume you were able to teleport back to discuss this with our founding fathers? Why is your position worth more than that of many recognized Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum, let alone that of our Supreme Court?
You stated: “It was not enacted so that some little old lady could shoot an African American man who is across the street because she feels threatened…” Here you imply both racist motives on the part of those that choose to support the *entire* Bill of Rights *and* mischaracterize those that choose to exercise the natural right of self-defense. Again, how elitist. No, I take that back – how insulting.
Ken, ACLU member since 1986 – but no more.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment was in little doubt for most of our history;Miller was an anomalous decision which never went as far as the ACLU and other anti-civil righter’s said it did.
Now that the ACLU is faced with the decision, it still maintains it is a collective right. Nonsense…our government is supposed to have delegated responsibilities, and individuals have rights. Since when does a government ask for permission to do anything. Collective rights means gov rights.
Anyway, ACLU remains a liberal advocacy group and is not to be taken seriously on a legal basis.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Certainly you can disagree, but the decision of the Supreme Court is crystal clear –
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
Clear and concise. You don’t have to agree, but you have to acknowledge that this is now settled law.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I agree with the ACLU on almost every civil rights issue it stands up for, however in light of this stance I will refuse to aid or contribute to the organization at all until they support every right enumerated by the Bill of Rights. Sad.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Ok, so maybe they are deleting my comments, they’re just ignoring them and putting the into perpetual “moderation”.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Your interpretation of the Second Amendment indicates that the ACLU is duplicitous or plurally too stupid to understand English as written in the 18th century. The ACLU is so partisan that it has rendered itself irrelevant.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Just bought my 3rd handgun this morning. I’ll shoot a few rounds in the name of the ACLU.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
people, don’t panic if your comment doesn’t show up straightaway. comments here are moderated, and some poor soul is having to read through each and every one to approve it for publishing. your browser will sometimes show you your own comment even before it’s approved, but if you switch to another computer or lose the session cookie, you won’t see it until it’s officially published. don’t panic, have patience.
(by the way, have pity for the moderators here. i haven’t seen such a sh!tstorm descend on any one target since Jim Zumbo dined on his foot. wow.)
Lucia @ #197:
please, step back and consider what you’re saying. you surely cannot mean that nobody should have any specific right — or even, less awful but still bad, any one material possession — unless you, personally, can see a need for them to have it? that is not how we decide questions about our civil rights!
and surely you’ve read the rest of the constitution, not just the bill of rights? congress already had the right to raise and support armies; why would they need the right to raise militias guaranteed in a separate amendment? that would make no sense.
it’s true that the ACLU does a lot of good, but in a perverse way, that almost makes their stance on this matter worse. why does the ACLU do so much good? previously, we could say it was because they’re a principled bunch of people who believe in our liberties and rights, and work to protect those as a matter of principle. now, making that claim immediately raises the red flag of “what about this right, then? why do the ACLU’s principles ignore it?”
and quite frankly, i’d rather not join the NRA. they’re too political an organization for my liking. the ACLU used to look better — now i have to wonder if they’re not a bit too politicized, also, to truly claim to be independent and neutral. an organization that wants to fight for the rights of every citizen needs to be politically neutral, but the ACLU is rapidly losing their claim to that status, now.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
C’mon Ito – 283 comments moderated, and counting. You’ve gotta have some reflections on this by now. Has any post on your blog ever received this kind of attention before now?
Give us a response! When will the ACLU stand up for the Bill of Rights! I challenge you not to moderate a single additional comment (this comment included) until you respond to what’s been said and justify yourself!
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
The ACLU is dead wrong on this issue. Now that Heller is settled law you should get with the program and work to protect all of our rights.
Until then my money will continue to go to the NRA.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Suzanne Ito voice of the ACLU, looks like you should be working for a communist organization instead of the ACLU. You support the very same beliefs that Adolph Hitler made so “popular”. I’m cancelling my ACLU membership and joining the NRA, Second Ammendment Foundation, Jews for the preservation of Firearms and every other gun rights organization that is really fighting for my “American Civil Liberties” unlike the ACLU which doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ about the rights endowed to us by “Our Creator” before the Bill of Rights was even written.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Suzanne Ito voice of the ACLU, looks like you should be working for a communist organization instead of the ACLU. You support the very same beliefs that Adolph Hitler made so “popular”. I’m cancelling my ACLU membership and joining the NRA, Second Ammendment Foundation, Jews for the preservation of Firearms and every other gun rights organization that is really fighting for my “American Civil Liberties” unlike the ACLU which doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ about the rights endowed to us by “Our Creator” before the Bill of Rights was even written.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The ACLU is correct. It’s mission is to protect civil liberties. To the extent that the US Constitution advances civil liberties, the ACLU should support the Constitution. To the extent that the Supreme Court advances civil liberties and the Constitution, the ACLU should support their decisions.
The Heller decision does not advance civil liberties, nor does it correctly interpret the Constitution. As such, the ACLU should not support it.
It should be noted that the Constitution originally allowed slavery, and that the Supreme Court has allowed segregation, the internment of Americans of Japanese descent, and other errors. They’re not perfect.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Sounds like our civil rights are interfering with the ACLU’s left-wing socialist agenda. As a civil-libertarian, I’ve often thought about joining the ACLU, but some of their positions suggest that they aren’t really about protecting our civil liberties. This one is a good example.
I read Justice Stevens dissent in Heller. I found it to be a well-written, well-researched treatise on the origins and legislative intent of the 2nd amendment. As an argument for why the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean what it says, however, I found it to be specious and totally off-point. Stevens argues that we can infer the meaning of the amendment from what it doesn’t say. E.g., some states offered up language that referred to an individual right to self-defense, but that language wasn’t used, therefore we should infer that the framers left it out because they didn’t intend the amendment to be about a right to self-defense.
Stevens, however, conveniently glosses over the fact that some of the states also offered up language specifically stating that the right being protected was the right to maintain a militia, but that language wasn’t used either. The amendment doesn’t say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms for any lawful purpose shall not be infringed.” It also doesn’t say, “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed,” or, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”
So what are we left with? How about, it means exactly what it says, an absolute prohibition against the government infringing on the right of the people (i.e., individuals) to keep and bear arms, nothing more, and certainly nothing less. As a matter of fact, the language that the amendment used in its final form encompasses both the right to maintain a militia and the right to keep weapons for self-defense.
The position of the dissenting justices and of the ACLU is a perfect example of twisting your analysis to suit your agenda. Very sad.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
This is laughable. Look at Iraq.
“…in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.”
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
So Ito – no response? Overwhelming opposition to the ACLU’s position from it’s prime constituency… you’ve moderated 283 of these posts and counting – don’t you have a response for us yet?
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
That’s too bad…. because I don’t care what your stand is. The continuing fact is that the bad guys (criminals) have guns. Until someone can legitimately change that fact, this INDIVIDUAL (not to be confused with a COLLECTIVE) will continue to defend himself, his family, and his home with AT LEAST the equivalent firepower that the criminals have.
P.S. As an honorably discharged law enforcement officer, I’m not suggesting that the bad guys have guns. I’m TELLING you that a criminal will get his/her hand on a gun by any means available.
P.P.S. If you’re wondering why I’m an “honorably discharged” law enforcement officer instead of a “current” officer or a “retired” officer… the answer is simple. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science. Quite frankly, I enjoy professional computer work more than professional law enforcement.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Who are you to pick and choose what is and isn’t an individual right? How can you continue to ignore what is and was an individual right?
Fuck the ACLU.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
- “I have a feeling all of this protest is a waste of energy. If the don’t listen to the SCOTUS what makes you think they will listen to you?”
Well, for starters, ACLU isn’t dependant on SCOTUS for funding.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
So the ACLU still counts to ten ‘1,3,4,5…’
Of course, the consistent stance to take now will be for the collective right of states to run their own newspapers and churches, of course.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Since I generally agree with the stances of the ACLU, I find this disappointing. I can only hope that there hasn’t been enough time for the organization to fully digest the Heller ruling and reconsider its position.
I disagreed with the “collective rights” interpretation before the ruling, but at least then you could legitimately argue for it based on Supreme Court precedent. Not anymore.
Get together, discuss it, and formulate a better statement.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Not one single justice considers the second amendment a collective right. None. Your interpretation is a joke. I lost a lot of respect for you guys today.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Well, so much for the ACLU. Ostensibly a champion of the rights of Americans, now revealed beyond any shadow of a doubt to be simply a partisan organization that would rather uphold their prejudice than defend our liberty. Here they show themselves capable of the same arrogant superiority claimed by the Bush Administration in deciding which freedoms we deserve to keep and which we must relinquish.
This declaration dispels any doubt: the ACLU is an enemy, not a defender, of the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Greetings to the ACLU,
First, I’d like to thank you for maintaining this comment board. Certainly you are undergoing a lot of criticism here (and will be experiencing even more in the near future elsewhere, I’m sure). I do recognize that it takes some courage and principles to allow this forum to continue to be a soundingboard for the public, even while it casts an unflattering view of your organization.
That said, I’d like to put the emotionalism aside, and ask the monitoring ACLU representatives to consider a few things. I would also love to see their response if possible.
I understand that the ACLU has rested comfortably behind their “collective right” interpretation of the Second Amendment for decades, and that this has allowed you to dismiss matters concerning the Right to Keep and Bear Arms while embarking on matters you consider to be more important or relevant. However, this fig leaf has now been whisked away, and it is clear that the SCOTUS does not agree with your position. You don’t have to like it, but those are the facts. Heller and “individual rights” is the law of the land in regard to the 2nd, and will continue to be so, far into the forseeable future.
Since the ruling is so recent, and since we haven’t felt the immediate aftereffects of the decision in our daily lives, perhaps this does not seem real to you. Right now the ACLU appears to be in state of shock and confusion, and is simply responding by denying it is true, simply waving your hands dismissively and saying “We disagee!”
But it is not going to stop with that. This is only the beginning of a growing body of 2nd Amendment case law that is going to build over the years and decades to come, until it becomes an inescapable and powerful legal edifice. You need only look to what happens to legal organizations who can’t read the Supreme Court’s writing on the wall to see what future lies in denying such things; think of where groups stand today that denied the legitimacy of Brown v. the Board of Education when it was decided. Look at the low regard the courts have for organizations that repeatedly try to interject prayer or creationism into schools, or the Ten Commandments into courthouses, in spite of the SCOTUS’ clear denial of their lawful ability to do so.
Do you wish to join the ranks of the crackpots? Lawyers and “scholars” so partisan and distorted in their worldview that they cannot accept the truth of the legal landscape? Would you like to join their Quixotic efforts, destined to leave them bruised, penniless and subject to the laughter and scorn of others?
I would beseech to to consider these things before you continue with this charade. It could someday be very costly for you to continue as recklessly as you’ve done.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
For years I have admired the ACLU’s stance on free speech and individual liberties. I have always withheld my financial support, however, due to their stance on the second amendment. Until the Heller decision, the “collective rights” interpretation adopted by the ACLU was somewhat defensible and I respected the ACLU’s stance, even though I disagreed with it. This is no longer the case. It’s been settled. The right to bear arms is now held to be an individual right.
I would absolutely LOVE to be able to give my money to the ACLU, but I will not send one cent until they come around on this issue.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I served 20 years in the Marines to defend our Rights, all of them, not just the ones that I agree with. If the ACLU is not willing to do the same, defend all of our rights, they don’t want me as a member or need my support of them! My ALCU membership card is going to be moved away from the cards that represent the other important organization that I am a member of, VCDL and NRA. And, unless the ACLU changes its position on this case, I will not renew with them!
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Well, thank you for that explanation. You will no longer receive my donations. I thought that Individual Freedoms were the purpose for your existence.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Obviously your organization cherry-picks the rights that they want to support. So what’s good for me is what you think is good for me. You are about as dedicated to preserving my civil liberties as PETA is to providing ethical treatment to animals.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
The ACLU is guilty being in denial. Can’t you people read? The Second Amendment is written in plain English. Any 5th grader could understand it. As stated by many others here, the other parts of the Bill of Rights apply to individuals, so why does ACLU mis-interpret the Second Amendment?
It reminds me of the denial of the true meaning of the Second Amendment by politicians (N.Y. Mayor Bloomberg comes to mind),some cops and Feds, and others who are either armed for their jobs, or have their own armed guards. Since they do not need self defense as citizens, they act like dictators who think the masses do not deserve self defense. ACLU must defend the Constitution, just like the government officials who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I think the ACLU’s decision not to embrace the Heller decision just goes to prove how much of a radical, left-wing mouthpiece it has become.
If the ACLU doesn’t defend the entire Constitution, it loses all credibility. What the ACLU is showing is that it advocates only those parts of the Constitution that a certain vocal minority of the population like, then discards the rest. Truly, it is an organization that deserves the derision of freedom loving citizens.
There were a lot of organizations who tried the same fuzzy legal arguments in the 1950’s advocating segregation. Thankfully, they lost.
Anyone with a basic legal education can see the flaws in citing US v. Miller as a sweeping endorsement of collective rights. The defendant, Miller, was not present the day of the Supreme Court hearing and, neither, were his attorneys. What the Supreme Court entered was, essentially, a summary judgment for the US. It’s very clear from the case text. The justices lamented about the absence of evidence for Miller’s side of the case.
DC v. Heller was a well argued case all the way to the Supreme Court and was thoroughly reviewed by some of the most brilliant legal minds in the US, unlike US v. Miller. DC v. Heller is going to carry far more weight in legal arguments as a result.
What DC v. Heller does is throw the burden of proof on the government when restricting firearms rights. The government has to show hard evidence that a particular regulation enhances firearm safety. Aside from background checks, most gun controls laws have been abysmal failures, especially DC’s laws.
Unfortunately, you can’t un-invent the firearm. Criminals always seem to find a way to get guns. If we can’t seal our borders against drug smuggling, what makes us think we can stop illegal gun trafficking?
Private, individual ownership of firearms is a cold, hard, and necessary balance of power.
I think the ACLU, by posting this position against Heller, is no longer the premier defender of Constitutional rights. It is just another radical left lobby.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Cato huh?….i’ll have to look into that.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I find it interesting that not only does the ACLU deny the ruling of Heller, but they have spun the heck out of what the court found in their writeup of the Heller case. (Page 3)
aclu.org/pdfs/scotus/2007_term_summary.pdf
You all but say that SCOTUS has declared that any firearm that wasn’t “common” at the time of ratification can be regulated when the court specifically found the exact opposite. A common handgun of today is protected, no matter how unusual it may have been at the time of ratification. I don’t know who you have doing your writeups but you need to fire them and get someone who will present the facts rather than their own personal (or ACLU) spin.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
The ACLU is not the only game in town. I can fund litigation and lobbying for every right I hold dear, without resorting to this leviathan.
These catch-all rights organizations invariably side with one political philosophy in the long run.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
The 1939 Miller case did NOT identify the Second Ammendment as referring to a collective right! It wasn’t until the late 1960’s that the Miller case was used as an excuse for gun control. Prior to the ’60s, an individual right was assumed, yet States had the priviledge of restricting what type of firearm or armament may be possessed.
The Miller case didn’t even involve the qustion of the right to bear arms; it merely decided if a State violated the individual right to bear arms by forbidding the possession of a type of weapon. The Court found that although Miller had an individual right to bear arms, that right could be restricted by the State, if that restriction were reasonable. “Militia” was mentioned only in the aspect of the State’s claim that it was reasonable to restrict the possession of an arm or device that not even the State Militia would use in the common defence.
That ruling was proper, since it has always been illegal for the common citizen to own a cannon or explosive device without permits since the founding of this country. It was an unfortunate ruling due only to how it has been misinterpretted by scoundrels.
The Heller case is the only case to decide pointedly and exactly the meaning of the Second Ammendment. What was always assumed before is now proven by the highest court in this land. It is a fact which cannot be denied.
Yet, States are still free to enact “reasonable” restrictions. The Supreme Court has acknowledged this, but has made it clear that an outright ban on ALL firearms is NOT Constitutional.
Now that the issue has been clarified, the ACLU is in an embarassing position; will it now defend the rights of law-abiding gun owners to the same degree it has defended pedophiles and treasoners, or will it deny its own mandate?
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Aclu,
Michael (#221) sums up my feelings, and i imagine the feelings of a lot of your historic core supporters better then i can.
No more name calling here, just please forward his post to your board and provide a response to your members. Trust me, it would be a good thing for you.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I must admit surprise at the ACLU’s position against the Heller decision. The Heller decision HAD to be decided as it was. Indeed, those concerned about securing our freedoms may wish it went much farther than it did.
If the word “people” in the Second Amendment, where it says “…the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” doesn’t mean you and me as individuals, then the word “people” (or “person”) in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments doesn’t mean you and me either.
Where does that leave us?
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I dont own a gun, never have and probably never will.
But I find it revolting that you can select and choose which rights are valid to protect and which rights you dont feel are in line with your agenda…you have not just lost me as a life long member;
you lost your credibility.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
The ACLU has always been an unpopular organization in my state. I have always defended and supported their actions (with both time and money). No more.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I agree with the vast majority here, in supporting the recent SCOTUS decision.
Your long held position is no longer logically defensible.
You were wrong. You are still wrong. You can correct it.
Until then it makes your organization look pretty silly.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I think the ACLU owes AMERICA a true explanation of why they disagree with the SCOTUS decision. Your explanation as it stands now is pathetic, and quite revealing of your true motives; “the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.” Um, sorry the SCOTUS decision has invalidated your excuse for being anti 2nd Amendment. Firearms are, and always has, been an INDIVIDUAL right, just like every other right in the Bill of Rights that you fight for. What is it about the Second that you folks in the ACLU fear? Why does the ACLU fight for every other right BUT the 2nd? Is the ACLU, now finally driven so far to Left that it now does the bidding of the extremists of the Democratic party? The ACLU has now become what many of us in the Democratic Party have said about the NRA. You sunk to the level of doing the bidding of those who pay your bills. What shocking is you no longer support ALL of the Bill of Rights! You are no longer the American Civil Liberties Union; you are now just the “American Union”. “Civil Liberties” no longer the main concern of this organization. YOU ARE PATHETIC!!!
I had thought all 10 of the original Bill of Rights were “individual” rights (as I was taught 25 years ago), BUT according to the ACLU their not. For some reason, all BUT the Second Amendment are individual rights according to the ACLU. WHY??? For some reason (I can only assume, money) the 2nd is considered an “expendable” right by the ACLU. I am not a lawyer, or a scholar but I can read. The right to keep bare arms is for the PEOPLE. Why are you so afraid of this statement?
For some reason many people, including the ACLU, stop at the word “Militia” and never get beyond that word. You also forget what a Militia was back in the mid 1700’s. It was NOT the National Guard. The Militia was made up of PEOPLE who brought their OWN firearms to the meeting. If you don’t like guns, just say that, but please stop being disingenuous and lying to every one, including your loyal supporters, by saying that the “right to keep and bear arms” is NOT an “individual right”. You only serve to embarrass yourselves and America.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
The “collective” right interpretation follows no logic whatsoever. When ALL of the first 8 Amendments, in the Bill of Rights, deal with Individual rights was it pure coincidence and luck that they would just happen to throw in a “Collective right” as the Second Amendment?
If the government was to become tyranical and eliminate All our individual rights how would citizens get those rights back? Ask nicely?
Did you guys ever hear of the American Revolution?
The 2nd Amendment was to give the people the means, if all else failed, to protect all of their other Individual rights.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I think the ACLU has finally shown it’s true colors.
I think a renaming is in order. How about “The American Communist Lawyers Union”?
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
If the ACLU had simply acknowledged the majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that the Constitution grants an individual right to bear arms, and left it up to the already existing, more specialized, organizations like the NRA and GOA to defend that right, that would be one thing.
But it is another thing to completely cover your ears to the lawful institutions of this country and ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling (not to mention hundreds of years of precedent) simply because you disagree with it.
This blog post embodies why the ACLU is often viewed as a partisan political organization rather than the defender of all rights for all Americans like it should be.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I must agree with post number five. I believe this is the warning shot across the bow of the ACLU. You stand for nothing but your own agenda, which is the Politically Correct Orthodox Liberal one. Maybe this common sense ruling will smack some sense into the organization.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I have long recognized that the ACLU were using Miller as an excuse to avoid supporting the Second Amendment. I would never, however, have expected them to expose their agenda so openly.
The word of the Supreme Court isn’t the Supreme Law of the Land when it contradicts the Constitution of the United States. In case of such contradiction, any honorable organization should stand up for the Constitution regardless of what the Supreme Court says. The ACLU’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, however, is supported neither by the Court nor by the Constitution itself. Rather, it is supported by the organization’s own ideology.
As a former liberal, I remember how it used to make sense for organizations to support bad people because nobody else would. I no longer accept that premise. There are many better people whose rights are being infringed, but the ACLU ignores because those people should be able to find support elsewhere. Thus, I would conclude that the ACLU’s real agenda is to support bad people because they like bad people.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Seconds count when the police are only minutes away. I know, I’ve been there.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Once again the ACLU has proven to be a mouth piece for the Liberal Left… I think they should change their name but I don’t know what rimes with “POLITICAL HACK”
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
LET ME CLEAR THIS UP FOR EVERYONE ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME; imagine you have just fought a enemy , or even a revolution, probably with some type of volunteer army, with guns, or the U.N. partioned land, and stated that now this NEW STATE is Herbyland. So Herbyland, or Israel, or a new state in the u.s. is formed. So are you going to tell me, that when writing your new States/Countries’ constitution, there comes a time when you have to say, ” You know what, We need an amendment, we have to write ourselves an amendment stating that it is okay for us to raise a standing army. And while we have this standing Army, we have to write another note, to tell us it is legally allright for us, in raising this army, to go ahead and arm them? And that they can train with arms?
This is , in a nutshell, the arguement being made by the ACLU, your dem.-owned politicians, and others, who believe that this is a Collective right, that they had to write themselves a law, to let everyone know, that we are going to first raise an Army , standing or militia, arm our Armies, or our States militias, and it is lawful for them to have and train with guns.
Anyone who truly believes this is a moron, anyone else is someone who wants this, wants to remove your individual abilities and rights, and will literally change the entire precept of the Bill of Rights; the entire origional intent for the rights was written because Patrick Henry, and others were absolutely not going to sign on to the Constitution, because they wanted absolute rights written that the Federal, again that is FEDERAL government could never step across, blot out, or regulate.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
just one more thing, seeing as tommorrow is the 4th of July;
“In 1776, John Adams declared, “The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.”
notice that 4 letter word above,’guns’?
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I guess the ACLU never learned about the number 2 in school. Either that, or gun owners aren’t people. How about defending ALL the rights granted by the Bill of Rights, not just the ones you pick and choose…. eh comrade?
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
The fact is that the ACLU is a Marxist-Leninist organization, and adheres to the unenforceable claim of a “collective right” to bear arms, because as all good Marxists know, collective rights cannot be protected. Since they do not inhere in individuals, “collective rights” have no practical value. No position makes clearer the ACLU’s completely anti-Democratic stance as to our basic constitutional rights. They also know that without the Second Amendment, American citizens have no power to defend their rights against the kind of oppressive regime for which the ACLU has worked the last 80-plus years.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:28 pm
“I will explain to you non lawyers the reason. You know that the original framers of our Constitution, federal and state, said that until you provide a buffer between the State and the individual, we are not agreeing to the Constitution. So they said, “We will provide a Bill of Rights for the people, not the State, not for the United States– A Bill of Rights for the people.” – Senator Pearson, Senate Debates on Revising the Virginia Constitution, (1969).
July 4th, 2008 at 12:06 am
The ACLU fully supports the right to privacy (nowhere listed in the Constitution); the right to contraception (nowhere listed in the constitution); and numerous other penumbras and emanations grafted onto the Constitution — except the individual right to keep and bear arms, clearly stated in the Second Amendment. While hypocrites, at least they are consistently hypocritical.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:11 am
So the ACLU doesn’t like Heller. There’s a shocker. Just wait until Roe joins Dred Scott on the ash heap of judicial history.
Additional litigation will be required to clarify what regulations are permitted? Any regulation that does not infringe the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms should pass muster. Of course, the Court has already held in other decisions that placing an ‘undue burden’ on the exercise of a right is a form of infringement. Multi-month ‘waiting periods’ will therefore undoubtedly be struck down, as well as asinine requirements that guns be kept locked and unloaded. When criminals start carrying locked and unloaded firearms, we can take another look at that restriction. Until then, NO.
What arms are to be permitted? Since Scalia (whom, it now seems clear, should have been Chief) recognized that the intent of the Framers was to secure the INDIVIDUAL right of self-protection, it follows that any weapon that an individual can use to defend himself or herself is covered by the Second Amendment.
The Constitution is not a ‘living’ and ‘evolving’ document as Comrade Kennedy believes; words have fixed meaning. The fixed meaning of words is what allows contracts (and the Constitution is a contract, make no mistake) to be enforced.
The Framers made their intent as clear as language allows. It is the job of the courts to see to it that that intent is upheld. If the day should come when the people decide that the Framers’ vision is no longer applicable, the people will make such changes as are deemed necessary — as the Constitution provides.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:28 am
The ACLU stance on the Second Amendment was never supported by anything. The Bill of Rights is obviously meant to protect the rights of THE PEOPLE.
The founding fathers also wrote volumes on how the Second Amendment was meant to protect THE PEOPLE from a tyrannical government.
The Second Amendment is simple enough to understand and anyone with a sixth grade education knows it is 2 independent clauses.
Also logically how can a collective group have gun rights without individuals owning and bearing arms?
Obviously the ACLU can’t handle the truth that the founding fathers wanted the people armed to protect their freedoms.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Give your money to the Cato institute instead! Give money to an ally, not the enemy.
Here’s how ludicrous the ACLU’s position is (where books have been substituted for guns):
Why doesn’t the ACLU support an individual’s unlimited right to read books?
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for “ignoring the First Amendment” and refusing to fight for the individual’s right to own a book or other written works. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the First Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to read is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain educated militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require books much more powerful than Poor Richard’s Almanac. The ACLU therefore believes that the First Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own books or other reading materials nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of book ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of book control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of book ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register books.
Most opponents of book control concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual’s right to own Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto or books on how to build a nuclear bomb. Yet these, Hello Kitty Yummy Coloring Book, are books.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict book ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
“The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the First Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear books applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of books by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of books.” — Policy #47
ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES
“A well educated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books, shall not be infringed.”
— The First Amendment to the Constitution
“Since the First Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual’s right to bear books, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a book.”
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
Unless the Constitution protects the individual’s right to own all kinds of books, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on books, magazines or websites.
If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear books in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess historical warfare books, tactical manuals, marksmanship books and even books on how to build nuclear warheads, for they, like Hello Kitty, A Storybook Adventure, are books. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such books. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any books they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any books, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict books, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:33 am
We can talk a lot about history in the 1700s.
How about a lesson in 2008 history:
The second amendment gaurantees the individual the right to keep and bear arms.
Given this new reality, is it now time to update your policy?
If you don’t, does that mean that you don’t believe in how the American justice system works?
Fact: the number of people killed by governments in the last 100 years starts to get very close to the entire population of the United States in 2008.
The intention of bearing arms is to ensure that the Government does not rule the people, but rather, the people rule the government.
To that end, the average American should have access to the same weapons that a modern foot soldier does… no more… no less.
That every able bodied member of society should be able to defend our country, both from within, and from without.
Government shall not take away the ability of the people to prevent that same government from getting out of control. If you think this is a non-issue, tell that to the over 250 million dead people at the hands of governments over the last 100 years.
Think current history, and think big picture. This is not so much about John on the corner… its about all the corners put together.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Does the ACLU’s stance on the 2nd Amendment really surprise anyone? They have alays been a left-wing, anti-American, communist organization (abortions good, God bad, etc.). Of course they don’t want the American people to be armed. No self-respecting communist does.
People, stop scratching your heads trying to figure out “why they would have this absurd position given the ruling”. IT’S PART OF THEIR EVIL PHILOSOPHY!!
Anyone see the light yet?
July 4th, 2008 at 12:55 am
“The ACLU will not have my support until this absurd stance is changed.”
I TOTALLY AGREE! Until the ACLU changes its stance on the Second Amendment and stops being so politically correct so as to pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights it will defend, I’m tossing aside my membership card, which I used to feel so good keeping closely tucked alongside my NRA one.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Why is it that the ACLU is at odds with so many things in the US Constitution?
July 4th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Where do you idiots get the notion that there is such a thing as “collective rights” anyway? All rights are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and ONLY INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS. Governments don’t have rights, all they have is POWER! Groups and collectives don’t have rights either, only the individuals that make them up have rights.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:54 am
The ACLU is, has been, and always will be a pox on our society.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:58 am
You Americans are surely delusional and confused. It is not the Bill of Rights that the ACLU supports and defends. It is the ten planks of my great social manifesto, you proletariat fools!
July 4th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Does the clause
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”
grant a right to the government to place conditions on the
“right of the people to keep and bear arms,”
or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
Then using the same sentence structure, this can be said peoples right to read books depends on if they are A well-schooled electorate
“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
ACLU is so full of crap.
You call yourself lawyers?
Hell you cannot even read plain English.
Change your name, you are guilty of false advertising and dhould be sued in a real court
July 4th, 2008 at 2:18 am
ACLU,
Even without a gun at least you could defend your stance on the Heller decision. Provide your loyal membership an in depth analysis of Heller that supports your viewpoint.
As it stands right now, if the 2nd Amendment was a bullseye… one would have to think that most of your staff at the ACLU owns firearms as your aim is almost spot on at blowing holes in the Bill of Rights.
Either get a new target or count me out, ACLU.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:46 am
I long ago gave up on the ACLU because you have degenerated into the defenders of Political Correctness, the cancer that is killing the USA. But it is your completely stupid stance regarding the 2nd amendment to the Constitution that is going to cost you more members than you can imagine. You are WRONG, admit it and move on. The ACLU is like an addict that can’t admit s/he is an addict. See, I can do PC, too, but I won’t let it allow our nation’s enemies to destroy us. That’s what’s different about aclU and me.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:57 am
So what the ACLU ‘leadership’ is saying is that they haven’t got the courage to stand up and tell the lame, leftie liberal members of the ACLU that it’s time to support cases involving the 2nd amendment rights of individuals?
It proves that the ACLU is anti-Republic, anti-Constitution, and anti-American!
July 4th, 2008 at 3:17 am
You cannot be serious!
July 4th, 2008 at 3:26 am
In keeping with Roger Nash Baldwin’s admiration for the collectivist style of the Soviet Union, you have only reinforced what I always suspected. You are only interested in those “individual rights” that will help to promote your model of what life in the USA should be. You folks are not interested in the most basic individual right to self preservation. You are not a “liberal” organization at all. You would subvert the individual right when it becomes necessary to your goal. What’s next out of you people? Sharia Law in the USA?
July 4th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Have any of you, who are ranting at the ACLU above, taken a look at the Heller v DC decision, or are you spouting off what you’ve been fed by whatever media you frequent? The decision applied to the federal jurisdiction of DC, it specifically did not mention cities such as Chicago with similar laws, and it did not rule on states rights. The NRA immediately filed a counter-suit which was designed to have the Supreme court hand down a judgment on states’ rights with regard to individual gun ownership (and apply the Heller v DC decision to all states as well as DC, which has always been a special case).
Why would you be surprised that the ACLU has not changed it stance, when such a decision has NOT been handed down and the Heller v DC decision specifically avoided applying the judgment to anything other than DC?
July 4th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Do you people have stupid stamped on your foreheads? You have no right anymore for your “collective” view.(Not that you ever did)If you really respect an individuals right that would mean ALL of them laid out in the Bill Of Rights.]
It goes to show you politically correct idiots do not respect the USA nor the freedoms our founding fathers gave us. Thank God they were much more intelligent than you fools!
July 4th, 2008 at 4:10 am
On this Independence Day I want you to know that my opinion of your organization has gone from “very low” to “indescribable contempt.” We now have concrete proof that the ACLU really is a tool of the far Left. You will defend child molesters, terrorists, murderers and Nazis, but not a clear ruling on the meaning of our Second Amendment. You deserve the scorn you have so justifiably earned.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:27 am
In the words of a great American radio host.. “I’m sending you a slapogram”
July 4th, 2008 at 5:30 am
worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68695
The American Civil Liberties is getting blasted on its own blog site for holding onto the belief that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes a collective right for militias to have weapons, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the right applies to individuals.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Try this one. “A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Now, does this this means that only well-educated people could keep and read books, or does it mean that everyone can have books as a means to produce a well-educated people.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Talk about stupidly maintaining an indefensible position in the face of a SCOTUS ruling, the ACLU now ranks right up there with Doofus Fenty and the DC Council!
July 4th, 2008 at 6:23 am
I will once again become a card-carrying member of the ACLU when it supports THE ENTIRE bill of rights, and not only those Amendments which it interprets according to its own political agenda. Militias didn’t need permission to bear arms. That is their PURPOSE. Your reasoning is too influenced by your non-constitutional agenda. I gave up on you years ago, because you have betrayed your purpose.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Rules Of Washington D.C.
- If it’s worth fighting for, it’s worth fighting dirty for.
- Don’t lie, cheat or steal…unnecessarily.
- There is always one more son of a gun than you counted on.
- An honest answer can get you into a lot of trouble.
- The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant to a liberal.
- Chicken Little only has to be right once.
- “NO” is only an interim response.
- You can’t kill a bad idea.
- If at first you don’t succeed, destroy all evidence that you ever tried.
- The truth is a variable to a liberal.
- A porcupine with his quills down in just another fat rodent.
- You can agree with any concept or notional future option, in principle, but fight implementation every step of the way.
- A promise is not a guarantee.
- If you can’t counter the argument, leave the meeting.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:51 am
It is sad to witness the death of an organization that has done so much good in America.
RIP, ACLU!
July 4th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Once again, the ACLU shows itself as agenda driven and not freedom driven.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I used to be a card carrying member of the ACLU. I quit after learning that you did not support my Second Amendment rights. I was hoping that after Heller, the ACLU would see the light. I was wrong. You will never get my support again as you have bared yourself for all to see.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Apparently, the ACLU doesn’t consider the right to self-preservation to be worth defending.
Apparently, the leadership of the ACLU aren’t native speakers of english.
Apparently, the ACLU doesn’t believe that the Supreme Court is the final authority when it comes to interpreting the constitution. They believe that the ACLU is. What?! The Supreme Court issued a ruling that’s inconsistent with the ACLU’s socialist agenda? The Supreme Court must be wrong! Such arrogance!
July 4th, 2008 at 7:21 am
The ACLU is totally wrong in thinking that the Bill of Rights are “collective”.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:33 am
This thread is a tour de force of concern trolling.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:42 am
When I was in the private practice of law a number of years ago, I worked on a couple of free speech cases with the state chapter of the ACLU. I have not always agreed with the ACLU’s position in some instances, but I have respected it.
Refusing to recognize that the Second Amendment applies to an individual right in the wake of Heller is intellectually dishonest. I understand that such recognition may be distasteful to many members of the ACLU but is it any more distasteful than watching neo-Nazis march through a neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois filled with Holocaust survivors?
It is perhaps too much to expect the ACL to actively support litigation on the right to keep and bear arms but perhaps it might at least be intellectually honest. Recognize the Heller decision as the law of the land and simply announce the ACLU is not going to participate in litigation on the subject. That would at least earn back some of my respect for the organization.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Actually the ACLU now stands and always has stood for, Anti Christian Lawyers Union”
The ACLU is pathetic, always has been pathetic and always will be pathetic until they begin to live up to what they CLAIM to be.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:02 am
I cannot believe I ever gave you freaks any money. Never again, not ever. If you won’t stand up for my individual civil right to own weapons to protect myself and my family, for sport and for opposition to tyranny, then I sure as hell cannot support you.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:06 am
As a former special operations officer, I would appreciate it very much if all of the executive officers, those that are responsible for the forming of ACLU official policy, and their families, would please place a LARGE patch on their clothing with the words “ACLU”. By doing this I can guaranty with 100% certainty that if I should witness anyone with the patch being mugged, attacked, or raped in any venue that I am present, I will whip out my trusty Blackberry and text the police about the emergency while videoing it to use as evidence at the trial while I upload the video to YouTube. Of course since I am now a private citizen, that according to the ACLU is without the right to carry a firearm, I will just leave my .45 Sig Sauer P226 in its’ holster, while I wait in a safe secure place for the police to arrive.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:12 am
I’ve been arguing FOR YEARS with NRA members about how they should keep an open mind towards the ACLU, as ‘there are more than two amendments,’ etc. That the ACLU isn’t anti-gun, just neutral over the collective vs. individual right interpretation, etc. Now this—hey, I was wrong, they were right!
I hereby drop my ACLU membership. Excuse me now, as I go to check-out the PFAW site.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Hitler agreed with the ACLU, only his military should have guns. What it does is guarantee that only Militia and criminals have guns, the rest of us are on our own.
The ACLU position against our right of gun ownership “collective rights” just makes you look like fools.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:17 am
There is no such thing as a “collective right.” Such a notion is legal fiction, invented by 20th-century European scholars with no ties to America– or to the concept of constitutional government of, by, and for the people.
You cannot find one contemporaneous citation of a “collective right.” No one ever has. No one ever will.
Even the four justices who dissented agreed it is an individual right! They claimed the DC gun ban did not infringe upon that right, but they did not deny the indivdual right.
Your organization now stands truly alone in its pathetic wrong-headedness. You are a ‘collective’ embarrasment.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:22 am
The ACLU broadly interprets all of the Bill of Rights except for the second amendment which is very narrowly interpreted. Sounds socialistic to me!
July 4th, 2008 at 8:23 am
To post #289
You must be an ACLU Lawyer, it shows.
You cannot comprehend the english language either.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Screw you aclu – you are not the solution – YOU are the problem. My GUN is the solution.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:36 am
ACLU member Lee Harvey Oswald shot NRA member JFK.
“When Lee Harvey Oswald was first arrested, Otto Mullinax, on behalf of the ACLU, went to the Dallas jail to see if Oswald wanted assistance, and word came back that Oswald did not want to talk to any ACLU lawyer.”
July 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Just one more illustration of the hypocrisy of the ACLU. It’s okay for the BAD GUYS to have guns and rob, steal, and kill innocent people but don’t let anyone stand up for themselves and have any rights to defend themselves. That’s a big no no. Just like their stance against common morality. It’s okay to let pornographers, sex perverts, and other degenerates, criminals, etc, have their way in the country, but we certainly can’t have any one promoting things like sexual purity, abstinence, prayer, bibles, street preaching, Christmas, etc, etc as those things are taboo. ACLU, wake up and smell the coffee, things are beginning to change and you are outdated and not needed.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I generally support the ACLU in almost all of their undertakings. I rarely identify with the NRA on any of their political stances outside the 2A. That said, I’m a member of the NRA and not the ACLU and that bizarre, continuing interpretation of the 2A as a “Collective right” is exactly the reason why.
The NRA advances, supports and protects the 2A and with few exceptions makes no other claims or furthers other agenda. They may be a bunch of right wingers but nobody else has the clout and the political muscle, and exercises it in defense of the BoR, specifically the 2A. They are the 800 lb gorilla defending our individual rights.
I can read on this website right now that the ACLU supports all of the individual rights enumerated in the BoR. I also read that “The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right”.
As long as the ACLU holds to their irrational and unreasonable view of the 2A they will continue to be an organization comprised of, by and for liars, hypocrites and ideological pawns. I will continue to financially support the NRA and attempt to convince as many people as possible – and I have occasionally been successful – that the ACLU is not concerned with the protection of individual constitutional rights.
I had really hoped for better from the ACLU in light of the Heller decision, it was the perfect opportunity to reevaluate their position and save face at the same time.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:40 am
The A.C.L.U. started as a communist organization and the acorn hasn’t fallen too far off the tree.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I thought the ACLU was a libertarian organization, but guess all those conservative NRA members have been right all along. Its a liberal organization.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:46 am
You people who make up the ACLU are some of the most sick freaks in the whole US because YOU are trying to destroy American’s freedoms under the guise of protecting our rights!
Traitors!
July 4th, 2008 at 8:57 am
In DC vs. Heller, even DC did not try to argue the “Collective Right” myth. During oral argument, the attorney for DC admitted that the second amendement was about an individual right in his opening sentence. The Senate specifically REJECTED collective right language; see page 77 of the 1789 Journal of the Senate, where
someone attempted to add “for the common defence{sic}” after the words “bear arms” to the draft of
Second Amendment, but it was voted down.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Just wanted to chime in and say that you won’t be getting my check this year. I fear that this formally great organization has been hijacked by ideologies.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:07 am
The ACLU is making itself irrelevant. Take the 1st Amendment which people are starting to realize is NOT defended by the ACLU. The 1A says “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof” regarding religion.
No organization in this country does more to “prohibit the free exercise” of religion than the ACLU.
Now it would also prohibit the individual ownership of small arms for the self and common defense.
What’s next, ACLU, free speech?
July 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am
One would expect the ‘collective’ interpretation to be supported only by intellectually dishonest Bolsheviks. If the shoe fits, ACLU…
July 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Why are there no more posts appearing on this Blog after 3 July at 11:09PM? Are the “censors” at the Freedom of Speech supporters in complete overload? I’ve noticed that the other topics have comments ranging from 0 to 6. As of last night the comments on this Blog are 325. What is the real number of comments or are you just selecting the least incriminating ones? Most people would call this “censorship” whereas you call it “moderation”.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:15 am
ACLU…..Anti Christian Liberals United
July 4th, 2008 at 9:17 am
The fact is that the ACLU is a Marxist-Leninist organization. That’s why they also do not recognize a first amendment right of the “free exercise” of religion (which is what the Constitution actually says) and instead claim a non-Constitutional law of “separation of Church and State”. Their stance on a “collective” is strait out of the Soviet Union’s very enlightened constitution, where rights, however, were “collective” and not individual, with the result that while the collective had rights, no individual did. This philosophy has been carefully thought out. Rights can exist in the collective for the ACLU, as in the right to bear arms, but that fact means that such rights cannot be enforced in favor of any individual.
The ACLU’s ploy should be absolutely clear here. They are employing a Marxist-Leninist philosophy, pure and simple.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:19 am
This is the LAST time I donate $!
July 4th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Doug C., post 55, says, “It’s also that the “regulation” of Militias shows they mean to protect the “public” in general from uncontrolled threats so unfettered access to SCUD rockets, Stinger antiaircraft missiles or hand grenades isn’t in the public interest. That can be regulated”. Doug C. is wrong. The term, “well regulated”, at the time it was written, meant the militia, made up of “the people”, should be well TRAINED.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Why is it that you choose to “moderate” our comments? What kind of freedom is that? The ACLU determines who has the freedom to say what?
I notice that other posts that have made similar points have been removed. Some concept of liberty!
July 4th, 2008 at 9:24 am
The ACLU is an enemy of the USA and should not be allowed to exist.
Why would any citizen of this country support this communist organization that is bent on the destruction of the USA?….Wake up people!
July 4th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I am deeply troubled by this hypocritical stance by the ACLU.
Using the logic that you disagree with the Supreme Court should mean that you will not use a Supreme Court ruling in any future case.
The ACLU is not the 8th justice of the high court. The ACLU is chartered to fight for our rights.
On this great day of our nation’s independence, the ACLU seeks to subvert the constitutional rights of the people.
Have you no shame?
July 4th, 2008 at 9:27 am
The ACLU is not the 10th justice of the high court…
July 4th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Isn’t it odd that today we celebrate the birth of our nation, which was achieved through bloodshed and the rising up of common people in war against the established government, with their own privately owned firearms and ammunition, and yet the ACLU still holds to a flawed, misinterpretation of the Second Amendment? How does one celebrate the achievement and then castigate the very means by which it was won? Hypocrisy!
July 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
heres what the aclu supports. watch this video
youtube.com/watch?v=C-yVu8×8oC0
July 4th, 2008 at 9:42 am
You are totally out of step with our nations laws and freedoms. You no longer belong here, move your lying stinking butts oou of here and go o China or Russia where yo will be at home.
Your group has no power and you were not elected to nothing so go flake off. and by the way you will never get my guns , I don’t care what law is passed.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I cherish all my rights and am a contributing member of the ACLU. I am disappointed in your stance re the 2nd amendment. In this case the supreme court was right. I hope you will reconsider and use the funds I have sent you to protect my rights. All of them.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Just another nail in your coffin, the entire nation views your entire orginazation as a fraud. As long as a law is passed that benefits your perverted and vile way, its okay, but when a law is passed that asserts our rights under our constitution it seems to offend an bother you, You cannot have it both ways. My advice to you is shut your communist doors and fade away into another country.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I am a criminal defense attorney and current member of the ACLU. I will not renew, nor will I send other support.
This statement, in the face of the latest decision changes the ACLU from being a controversial supporter of individual right to being a political anti-gun organization. If I wanted to be a member of a political organization it would be on with whom I could agree on all positions.
Sadly, the once relevant ACLU has shown their true colors with this one.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Amazing,
When is comes to ANY OTHER RIGHT, the ACLU’s interpretation is so wide you can drive a truck through it.
But when it comes to number “2″, their sphincters pucker up as if dipped in lemon juice, and rolled in talcum…
Incredulous, considering number “2″ gives the citizens teeth to see that the others are honored…
July 4th, 2008 at 10:01 am
You have ZERO credibility if you do not defend ALL the Constitution. You defend free speech even if you don’t like what is being said. On the same token you NEED to defend the Second Amendment even if you don’t like what it says.
Remember the Second Amendment defends all the rest.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Ok, so we have members, former members and contributors to the ACLU all in agreement, regardless of political affiliation that the ACLU has become irrelavant.
I also notice not a single comment on your blog supports your “standing”. That’s quite telling.
I have to say that I am proud to be a witness to history…The complete derailment of the ACLU.
How any AMERICAN can support or have any respect for a group that defends NAMBLA but not the very Bill of Rights it is supposed to cherish is baffling.
Further I think it would be prudent for someone in the ACLU to actually read the Miller decision, since it in no way or place makes any “collective right” assertion, nor does it imply in any translation that it is dependant upon any militia. But that’s just an unfortunate technicality that has been conveniently ignored for the past 70ish years.
Thank you ACLU for finally showing the world your true colors and true insignificance in our world.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Had it have been District of Columbia verses some smut peddler, or NAMBLA, the ACLU would have been all over this, again you have shown that it’s not the Constitution that you want to defend, but just YOUR twisted version of what YOU think it, and the bill of rights should mean, and how they fit YOUR agenda. Perhaps a name change for your organization would be in order, such as Pedophiles and Perverts are us.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I don’t know if the emperor has any clothes or not, but we know the ACLU does not. We see your shriveled genitalia, American Criminal Liberals Union.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:19 am
If it weren’t for the 2nd Amendment, none of the other ones would exist.
The ATF was recently criticized for their motto “Always Think Forfeiture”. The ACLU’s motto must be “Agenda Before Truth”.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:26 am
I am in awe at groups like the ACLU who claim to favor the Bill of Rights, on the one hand, correctly interpret the 1st, 4th, and 8th Amendments affirming free speech and privacy rights while preventing government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments, such as the death penalty, yet turn a blind eye to the 2nd.
The same with conservatives who mostly correctly interpret the 2nd, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments, while ignoring the 1st, 4th, and 8th.
It is time for people who subscribe to both ideologies and groups, like the ACLU, to realize that the Bill of Rights is an affirmation of the rights of the individual for a variety of freedoms they possess as a part of and preserve their right to life.
The Bill of Rights is not a document people can cherry pick to justify their positions on certain issues yet ignore others in their bias against certain personal activities such as owning guns; consuming drugs, prostitution, and adult entertainment.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:30 am
The ACLU is a ruse. It exists only to trample your God given, Constitutional codified rights.
It is a complete farce.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:32 am
“Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.
I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism is the goal.”
This quote is from Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU.
Is there any reason that their position would be anything else? Remember this when you start to send them money.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
The whole idea of questioning our rights is a JOKE! What if we started questioning the First Amendment,I bet that would shut all of you up!
July 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Just like your other left wing hack friends (Americans United, People for the American Way) you care for nothing but that which promotes your trashing and rewriting of American freedoms, history, and culture. If ignorance and stupidity were music, you all would be a brass band.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:41 am
So the 2nd is a COLLECTIVE right?
What about the 1st?
Or the rest of the Bill of Rights? Why just the 2nd?
When the Constitution says THE PEOPLE surprisingly enough it means THE PEOPLE and not the state.
I’m beginning to think that the COLLECTIVE intelligence of the ACLU membership is akin to a large potato chip.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:50 am
The ACLU is proving once again that it is the lapdog of liberal causes no the defender of individual rights. “Join the ACLU” … yeah right… now clicking over to nra.org. Please join me there and really defend your individual rights.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Ermmm…you need to look at the Constitution my friends, and the Bill of Rights. And…practice what your preach. Where’s the tolerance for Christians? You know, God won’t have any tolerance for intolerance of Him on judgement Day. But, anyway, ACLU stands for Anti-American Communist Liberal Union.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:02 am
ACLU is disingenuous when it refers to the Heller decision as a “reinterpretation” of 2A. In fact, the historical record, the founders writings, as well as Colonial and British common law all CLEARLY show that the “reinterpretation” was the collective rights nonsense which the Liberal fascists hold so dear. Basically our rights survive and have been reaffirmed by SCOTUS regardless of the ACLU. ACLU – you have been no help to the people at all. SHAME ON YOU! Now it is the 4th of July and I’m going to the Hernando Sportsman Association’s MACHINE GUN SHOOT. Where private citizens get to discharge their lawfully held fully automatic weapons. Since that demonstrates that they are not “unusual” I’m wondering when the ACLU is going to help us get the federal laws thrown out so I can buy one for myself. Right…I won’t hold my breath!
July 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
This position exposes the ACLU for what it actually is. The ACLU agenda is not personal liberty, it is cultural Marxism. Any relation between personal liberty and the ACLU’s actual agenda is purely coincidental.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
The ACLU has declared itself irrelevant in any future Bill of Rights discussion.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:10 am
This essay was written as an assignment for a course on the United States Constitution. For my own personal story of living through the ACLU’s idiotic wet dream of general disarmament of “the people”, please visit:
jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/jamaica.htm
=====================================
I shall address D.C. v. Heller, in which a narrow majority of five Supreme Court justices recently ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals (“the people”) to keep and bear arms, and that the phrase “the right of the people” in this Amendment refers to an individual, not a collective right. (That the four dissenting justices believe they can justify their pretzel-logic that the phrase “the people” in the 2nd does not mean the same thing (i.e., individual human beings) as “the people” in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments has me convinced that Orwell’s Newspeak is now the official language of these four stooges.)
Despite my concurring with the part of the ruling that confirms that the 2nd protects an individual, not a collective, right, I and others who have studied many quotes of the Founders regarding their views on right to keep and bear arms so that we might understand their intent in writing the 2nd, are not at all satisfied with the entire majority opinion. Here are three of these quotes:
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
These and many other quotes make it clear that the 2nd Amendment was written by men who understood the need to protect in writing the absolute right of a free people to keep and bear arms, especially military weapons, to defend themselves against potential government tyranny – including that of the new federal government created by the Constitution.
However, contrary to the position of the Founders, the majority opinion in Heller, written by Justice Scalia, specifically states the Court’s official, historically inaccurate, and alarmingly limited, view of the rights protected by the 2nd:
… [T]he most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
Libertarian/conservative writer Vox Day expresses the dismay of those who understand the original intent of the 2nd in his article: “Non-defeat is not victory.” (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68352)
Day provides a brilliant analogy to illustrate the problem with Scalia’s reasoning: He follows the above actual quote from the opinion with the following imaginary conclusion: “Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
Day goes on to write: “It is obvious that the (last) sentence is historically absurd. As the etymology of the term indicates, a “militia” is a fundamentally military term, and as even a brief review of the facts will demonstrate, the weapons possessed by revolutionary militias were specifically designed for military use and were employed in a military capacity. While it is true that muskets had other, non-military uses in the late 18th century, it would be interesting to hear Justice Scalia attempt to explain just what the non-military purpose of the bayonets required of the New Jersey militia might have been.”
Day’s conclusion regarding Heller, with which I concur: “It should come as no surprise that the king’s courtiers wish to defend his privileges, ancient texts to the contrary be damned. While Heller is not the defeat of individual rights that it could have been, my concern is that it could prove to have lain the groundwork toward a legal path to effectively disarming the American public over time. The king has graciously allowed the peasants to retain their pitchforks; the question of whether their right to own a horse, a suit of armor and a steel-tipped lance still remains is unanswered.”
” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”–Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)
July 4th, 2008 at 11:11 am
You are supposed to protect all rights. Not just the ones you like. Your opinion flat sucks on this one!
July 4th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Maybe for once the ACLU should look at actually SUPPORTING individual liberties instead of picking and choosing which liberties they like. Once the SCOTUS rules on a topic the ACLU should be compelled to defend that position, not decide if they like it or not!
Pathetic, really, really pathetic.
Maybe one day the ACLU will defend ALL rights, then maybe I will donate to your causes.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:15 am
So when the Second Amendment says “the people” it means something different than when the same words appear in other amendment which you would fight vigorously to defend (and rightly so)??
When Miller, as misinterpreted by would be gun banners and restricters, overturns 16 decades of public beliefs about gun ownership and the relative positions of citizens and their government that’s responsible jurisprudence, but when Heller supposedly overturns the seven decades of Miller precendent, THAT’s judicial activism?
How do you justify this stand as anything but standard liberal end-justifies-the-means intellectual dishonesty?
Not saying there’s never any intellectual dishonesty on the right, but that this particular flavor is definitely liberal.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams
Can you folks not read history? The founders wrote a lot about it being an individual right.
Or maybe, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” Thomas Paine
How can the ACLU maintain such a misguided policy?
“To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason
Is the ACLU trying to enslave us?
July 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I am so glad to see this decission and the ACLU don’t agree, and good Americans don’t want to give up their rights. I have told people for years the ACLU wants to take away your rights not protect them. They have done nothing to protect the true Constitution and the rights that were given to us by the blood of of fore fathers. The right for each individual to bear arms is a right that shall not be infringed. Owning a gun is not to protect yourself from the bad guys but it helps due to the fact it is not the police departments job to protect you only to arrest law breakers. The main reason is to protect us against a government gone bad. George Washington said every man between the ages of 18 45 should have a MILITARY STYLE WEAPON and ammunition. A military style weapon is a machine gun. Washington was smart enought that weapons would change and did not say a rifle or musket, he used the words Military knowing the weapons the military had would be far superiour to what the common man had. I am glad to live in a state where i have the right to own and carry a gun as welll as own a machine gun. It is time for people to wake up and leave the ACLU and put these loosers out of business. Happy 4th of July to all
Al
July 4th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Why in the hell do you think the use of “THE PEOPLE” in the Second Amendment means “collective”, when it means “INDIVIDUAL” in every other context?
You can’t have it both ways.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:21 am
As Scalia correctly points out Miller was so flawed as to be extremely poor president. It was a one sided argument. Miller having died there was no representation to oppose the government position. Not exactly what one would expect to drive the 22,000 Federal, state, and local gun laws currently in use.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
Stevens, bless his heart, almost gets it, only in reverse. Yes, Mr. Justice, that is exactly what the authors and founders intended. The sole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit government’s ability to control the people. No different than our First amendment rights to speak, worship, and protest freely.
Sad to see an organization I have always respected get it so wrong.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Is seen by the ACLU as
1st
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
The 7 Amendments
July 4th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Strange times we live in when justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy have more respect and better understanding of the BOR than the ACLU does.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Why is that the phrase “the right of the people”, is so hard to understand. Clearly it is an individual right, as every other such referrence eludes to individiual rights. Why would this be any different. Second point, why is it that when it comes to defending pedophiles, criminals or anyother fringe group the ACLU is all over it. Why not in this case. You have zero credibility amoungst the “normal” American public.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Gee, I wonder how the aclu would feel if the Supreme Court had voted 5 to 4 upholding Freedom of Speech?
The government may not take away a right.
Voting on all rights should be 9 to 0 in the affirmation of that right!
July 4th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Sadly, this is exactly why I USED to be a member of the ACLU, but no more–the hypocrisy just got to be too much when it came to their stance on the Second Amendment. You have lost my respect, and my membership.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I find it incredulous that my ACLU dues are spent in order to defend my individual rights. However, when the supreme court confirms that I have a individual right to own firearms that the ACLU has decides that I don’t have that right.
I will not be renewing my membership to an organization that only defends my rights that they agree with.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Now that the ACLU has identified itself as the 5th Column it’s time for all patriots to destroy the enemy. For those of you that think the ACLU is a bunch of liberal jackasses, the difference between liberals and communist is minimal.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I was a member in the 1970s until the position on the 2nd Amendment became clear. I dropped out. I am a card carrying Libertarian. Most of what the ACLU does has my support. However, this position post Heller, makes me aware that principle and the Constitution cannot be your motivating factors. When you come to the conclusion that all of the Bill of Rights must be defended, let me know and I will send in membership fees. Until then, you cannot be trusted.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:41 am
A.C.L.U = American Communist Liberal Union
I can’t wait until this organization, which harasses decent people of faith and those who abide by the an unmolested reading of the constitution, loses permanently!
good riddance!
July 4th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Your continued insistance that the Second Amendment is a collective right just proves that very intelligent people can be quite stupid.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:43 am
You people are a joke. You are all for child porn and late term abortion–things not allowed in the Constitution that the Founders would vomit over–yet a right God gave us, as was clearly, specifically mentioned in the 2d Amendment–you claim we don’t have, lol!
You make me ill, go away!
July 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Hurray..I have successfully gotten three people to cancel their ACLU membership. Two of them want to go shooting now and the last one is just bitter about it on principal and still doesn’t like guns.
Thank you ACLU for being silly hypocrites!!!
There are still several more ACLU card carrying commies in my office and I will work them slowly also.
Thank you ACLU for exposing your true agenda, best gift I’ve had to share with my liberal friends so far.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I have a suspicion that the refusal to both accept the Second Amendment for what it is and then to balk at the Supreme Court ruling because the ACLU doesn’t like it appear to point to an irrational and possibly a moral flaw that afflicts the ACLU leadership.
Could the irrational trait be cowardice – refusal to acknowledge that guns amongst the law-abiding have a morally redeeming role, both pragmatically and historically, an idea the ACLU is incapable of accepting on their own individual level?
Also, it is nonsense to claim that the Miller case established the 2nd Amendment to be a “collective right.” It merely ruled on a sawed-off shotgun being or not being a kind of weapon typically used in militia service.
Collective right – a right you cannot exercise on the individual level – is not a right at all; it’s a sham. Show me another “collective right;” this is fiction custom-tailored for the 2nd Amendment.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am
The intellectual dishonesty; preview of coming attractions?
The ACLU embarrasses itself.
Liars.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:55 am
The ACLU seems to forget that the Second Amendment was included because the fathers sought to preserve in the people a means to overthrow a tyranny. Without arms, the people’s right to freedom of assembly, speech, religion, freedom against unlawful search and seizure, freedom from self-incrimination means nothing. If the government can trample over all those rights at will and without repercussions, then the Bill of Rights becomes a footnote in history. This bit of shortsightedness is reprehensible for an organization that champions itself as a defender of our liberties.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:57 am
The ACLU started as a good idea and they have done some good in the past. However, for quite some time now it has been apparent that the ACLU no longer has a moral compass and has lost all common sense. I think it’s time to scratch the current ACLU and start over building an organization of people who understand that it is right of the individual to keep and bear arms that safeguards all of the other rights in our Constitution. Tyrants continue to seize power in countries all over the world; only a naive idiot would believe it could never happen here in the United States in this day and age. Just look at the corrupt liberal majority in our federal government that want to re-institute the “fairness doctrine”, which is nothing more than a gag on the free speech of those that oppose them. Imagine what they would be capable of if they were able to seize our guns. Because the only way anyone has a chance of being successful in seizing our government, is if we citizens don’t have the means, meaning guns, to stop them. And the ACLU is so stupid that they don’t realize that as soon as our guns are gone, they, the ACLU, are next. Because the one thing that a tyrant hates worse than an armed populace, it is an outspoken populace. It was not a bunch of wussy, liberal lawyers that founded this country, no it was a lot of tough men with guns that bought us the freedom that too many in this country take for granted, and it has been hundreds of thousands of more tough men with guns that have kept us free for close to two and a half centuries. ACLU, you are a bunch of disingenuous losers.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:59 am
It is difficult to understand the ACLU’s position given that the D.C. law, and most other gun control laws in this country, have one specific (if unstated) purpose – to keep African-Americans from owning guns.
Now the D.C. government, and its white masters, will decide how to go about allowing a few people in the District to own some guns while keeping most of its subjects unarmed.
Maybe a literacy test?
July 4th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
The ACLU, Started by literal Communists, in defense of Communists. During the cold war at that. A bunch of Anti-American zealots!!
The ACLU has done NOTHING to help the constitution. They are almost ALWAYS on the side of anybody who is “offended” instead of the person who has a God given right to “offend”! Speaking of God, by taking God out of the Constitution, your rights are “allowed” by your government, oh boy! The ACLU believes that GOVERNMENT is the highest authority, and that only Government can GRANT you your rights if they say so! That’s why they hate God. This is exactly what our founders anticipated, and is why they stated that our rights are given to us BY GOD, INALIENABLE! Government cannot remove what is considered God-given, get it? Now you know why they hate God!
The ACLU recognizes a ‘right’ to child porn though, to being naked in public and e3very other bizzare thing they have brought to court, but not to speak or do anything that is ‘offensive’ to the LEFT!
Now that we know that the ACLU believes that the RIGHT to bear arms is ONLY a right for “the government” to bear arms, we can see what the intention of the ACLU is. Creating a BIG, MARXIST GOVERNMENT!! How many of the 4 dissenters on the supreme court are ACLU members? (once a member always a member) ALL FOUR? Is it Constitutional to have a supreme court full of ACLU members deciding… ACLU cases?? Does anyone else see the problem here? Especially when “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE” is interpreted to mean “THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT” by 4 out of 5 “justices”?? Can they keep a straight face when they say this CRAP??
Make no mistake people, these jerks know damned well why they hate our bil of rights. They only defend behavior that is favored by the LEFT!
Who else would SUE to remove a cross shaped memorial, marking the death of 2 fallen Firemen, but not sue over school kids being ‘taught’ the Koran???
Like I said, An Organization started by Communists, to defend Communists.To destabilize us, to REMOVE every bit of Christian morality and heritage from our country! All in the name of “freedom”????
Just look at China’s government btw, where religion outside a government controlled ‘church’ is punishable by life in prison, and you will see the real goal of the ACLU!
The ACLU is a domestic enemy of the constitution. The fact that they purport to believe so dearly that our founding fathers (who all had guns in their houses, as every house did) were AGAINST Americans owning a gun unless they were cops, working for the government, is ASININE!
July 4th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Wake up ACLU! You are being led by liars and thieves. They want nothing to do with freedom, just furthering their anti American agenda. The defense of Flag burners, child rapists, KKK, and neo nazis proves this.
There is nothing for you to interpret regarding the 2nd amendment. Your personal opinions are moot. The highest court in the counrty has delivered their decision, and know we ALL have to live with it. PERIOD.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The ACLU has been an anti-American, liberal, ultra-leftist organization for a very long time. Which is their right. What a country!!!
The 2nd Amendment does not give or grant anything, certainly not a right to keep and bear arms. What it does, in very brief and clear wording, is prohibit the infringement upon a pre-existing right. A right that we possess with or without the existence of the 2nd Amendment. A repeal of the 2nd Amendment would NOT take away my right to keep and bear arms, it would ONLY remove the prohibition against the infringement on that right. That is all.
Of course the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. What else could it be? One of the problems with liberals is that they don’t believe in individual rights (unless it involves the murder of a baby or some sexual deviancy), but they do believe in group rights. Individual rights are not given by government so they can not rightly be taken away or restricted by government. But group rights are bestowed on various groups so as to promote dependency on government. That allows those in power to control the members of the group. Why do you think Clarence Thomas is so hated? He thinks of himself as an American and an individual and so does not allow himself to be controlled in the way that so many blacks do. If government gives a “right” then they can take it away and that threat allows control. An individual right rejects groupthink and does not allow control by the powers that be.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
What a disgrace. I am absolutely disgusted.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I have long been an advocate of the ACLU, even though I usually disagreed with your actions and positions. I have felt that we needed a balance and you provided that.
Now that the issue of firearms ownership has made it to the Supreme Court, you are no longer the voice of rights and liberty?
Were you the champions of the ‘little guy’ only as long as it supported your agenda?
The other posters are right. You are finished and we neither need nor want you around anymore. You have shown your hand and revealed your dirty secret. Please just go away quietly.
Bill.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
If this organization doesn’t step up and begin defending the individual’s right to self-defense as an innate human right, you might as well close up shop.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The ACLU has been attacking individual rights for years in the guise of defending them:
Gun rights
Freedom of religion (every attack on Christianity in the name of the 1st Am.)
Freedom of conscience (attacks on the Boy Scouts)
Freedom of association and contract (attacks under the anti-discrimination laws, disability laws, affordable housing laws, etc., etc., etc.)
Taxpayer rights (defending welfare and other government spending)
You could argue they’re morally right on every one of those issues, but that’s irrelevant. Their stated mission is to defend liberty.
We’ve known all along they’re really just a bunch of nihilistic sociopaths who are trying to tear this country down and transform it into yet another Marxist hellhole. Remember, the ACLU was created to defend activists pursuing that very agenda.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I checked your website’s position on the second amendment, and it still says: “We believe the 2nd amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns……”
CONFER??!! Don’t any of your brilliant, Harvard-trained lawyers realize that the Bill of Rights does not CONFER any rights at all, but rather LISTS and DEFENDS many unalienable human rights, warning the federal government not to dare trample on any of them?
Not only are you dead wrong about the bogus “collective rights” theory, you show you don’t even understand the bill of rights you claim to defend. Did your lawyers all fall asleep in their constitutional law classes? Your choice of the word “confer” speaks volumes about your attitude toward one of our major rights. It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people can’t see right through you and recognize your prejudice against the 2nd amendment.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
For those who EVER thought the ACLU was anything but a marxist, socialist organization you finally see what the rest of us have been shouting about them for years. The ACLU doesn’t care about you or your rights. They care only about how to enrich themselves through cherry picked litigation they know has the greatest chance of enriching themselves (i.e. Lawyers). Their ‘concern’ for civil rights only reaches as far as what they can successfully convince the sheeple is good and just. Why do they continue to cling to the specious “separation of church and state” crap? This nonsense doesn’t exist either. The Amendment is clear “Congress shall make no law…”, the plain reading is obvious to anyone with a brain stem and without an agenda. As only Congress can make law in this country, and only if Congress makes a law establishing an official state (federal) religion would there be a violation of this amendment. For too long the ACLU has used its twisted logic to support their agenda of turning the Unites States into a Socialist/Marxist serfdom where they are at the top with lots of money and the rest of us are at the bottom feeding from the state food troph.
Wake up people, stop funding this anti-American monstrosity. You should be pissed as hell that the ACLU gets your tax dollars to destroy your rights and freedoms. If this recent charade doesn’t wake you up to the truth nothing ever will.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
You are dead wrong — get A-CLUe! Thanks for showing your true colors!
July 4th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
As a card carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU, and a practicing attorney in the areas of criminal defense and civil rights, I suggest that you revisit your official position on the Second Amendment.
It was a given for the first 150 years of our nation’s history that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right rooted in the English right to do the same, established in the 17th Century. It was only revisionist legal thinking that made the unpersuasive case that the right was collective. The Heller decision establishes nothing new, it merely re-affirms what we have known all along.
Taken from another perspective, that of the anti-federalists (those responsible for the bill of rights being adopted at the same time as the Constitution), it is logical in keeping with their legal theories that all rights presented in the first ten amendments are individual rights. It would therefore be a logical absurdity to believe that “you have a right to be a soldier for the State” could be the operative premise behind the Second Amendment.
Come on ACLU, get with the program.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
My goodness, the ACLU finally has revealed itself. No one can look at the Bill of Rights and believe gun ownership is a collective (whatever that means) right while all the others are individual rights. You folks have tied yourself into a pretzel with your tortured logic. We Americans have had our rights stripped away small layer by small layer until, if you can believe it, an agency of the federal government actually tells us how much water to use to flush our toilets. I can visualize Thomas Jefferson debating the rights of man with Hamilton and then saying,”Oh, and by the way Americans can only use 1 and a half gallons of water to flush their toilets,” and Hamilton responding,”And no American can be allowed to smoke in a bar in New York, too. Let’s get that into this paper, Tom.”
July 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
“Blog of Rights” I guess that just means rights they believe in, not any and all rights. I still believe what the ACLU really stands for is the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union
July 4th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
ACLU’s osition PROVES that they are just another Marxist organization trying to take away rights of the law-abiding and control the average American with their Leftist policies. The ACLU should be declared a subversive organization and banned from the United States. ACLU and its paying members are enemies of this country and the cause of liberty!
July 4th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
ALL OF YOU GO TO HELL
July 4th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Used to be a legitimate organization, now show yourselves to be another liberal front group. For shame ACLU. I have defended you so many times and now you have chosen a position which can not be defended. You say I have the right to burn my countries flag but not defend myself and family. Your organization is over thanks to your hypocrisy.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Why don’t you interpret the 1st Amendment the way you do the 2nd? That way only a few would have the freedoms the 1st now gives to all.
Let’s not forget why the ACLU was formed. It was started by communists to protect the rights of communists. Everyone knows in communist nation police states, the people (sheep) are not allowed to own guns.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
This country was founded on the notion of natural rights. We are free to do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t impact the rights of others. We retain ALL rights unless taken away by our constitutions.
The ACLU just doesn’t want to defend this right, as well as MANY others that conflict with their “progressive” (left-wing fascist) ideology. It attacks more individual rights than it defends.
You loyal ACLU types should think long and hard about this. It’s time to make some changes.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I am actually encouraged by this. To see this much outrage by ACLU members means the MEMBERSHIP is not as blindly Anti-gun as I thought. Apparently it is the LEADERSHIP of the organization that is willfully ignorant. The NRA came late to the realization that it must defend ALL the Bill of Rights, when its Freedom of Speech was attacked. But at least they did come to the realization. The ACLU has not yet realized it is ONE Unified Bill of Rights. So I guess now the NRA is THE Civil Rights Organization.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
This statement is totally not what I expected from the ACLU. Whether one agrees with owning a firearm is irrelevent. This is about the rights of the individual not the politics of those in charge. What a disappointing statement.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
And this is why I quit being a member of and donating to the ACLU. Abit too hypocritical for me. David
July 4th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
It’s about time people start to realize the ACLU is nothing more than a front for Communists.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Wow…Talking about showing one’s true colors! I simply cannot believe I have been suckered for so long to believe ACLU is an organization defending INDIVIDUAL Civil Liberties!!!
As I am typing this, my ACLU member card goes through the paper shredder.
From now on, my ACLU membership dues will go either to NRA or JFPFO. Or both.
Screw you, ACLU.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
that contribution I was sending you? It’s just extended my NRA membership.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
So, the ACLU disagrees with SCOTUS and still interprets the 2A as supporting only a collective right. Big deal…I don’t care.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-protection – as with the rest of the Bill of Rights – is not subject to arbitrary interpretation based on political bias. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are all individual inalienable rights. They are not granted by governments; they are only recognized and protected.
The ACLU has lost any modicum of credibility that it may have had. Your interpretations and positions are irrelevant. But I’m sure that will not deter your prevarications.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
What a pathetic post. “Collective Right” is an oxymoron. Only individuals can have “rights.” But then, so what? The ACLU could still defend the historic right of self defense. Instead they despise it.
Look at their dishonesty. They say the decision is a “reinterpretation.” That’s a lie and they know it. Read the writings of the founders.
It’s interesting that the ACLU defended the Nazis in ‘77 – and the original Nazis used gun control to subdue the population and kill millions.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I have always known that the Anti- American ACLU was and is a socialist front organization. You guy’s don’t fool anyone.
Just remember there are three tiers of justice in this country, Federal,State and “the PEOPLE”. The later is what the Constitution is about. That is what the 2nd amendment is about. I’m glad organizations are so forward about their opinions, at least we have a face to the enemies within.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Civil Liberty
Noun
* S: (n) civil liberty, political liberty (one’s freedom to exercise one’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country)
* S: (n) civil liberty (fundamental individual right protected by law and expressed as immunity from unwarranted governmental interference)
Since our right to bear arms is now guaranteed as part of the American Constitution, you are bound by definition to uphold this liberty. Best get to work figuring out how you are going to do just that.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I find it sad because I like a lot of the ACLU does (not all) but not supporting the individual right to bear arms effectively negates all of the other civil rights that the ACLU defends.
How can any rights be defended if we don’t even have the right to defend our life, liberty and property?
I have never joined the ACLU specifically because of its bizarre stance on gun ownership.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Since realizing I was a libertarian, I was just warming up to the good things the ACLU does. But now this. Despicable.
Too bad, I would have liked to support the ACLU.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
After reading this, I am shocked. The ACLU’s was supposed to be established to protect the rights of the people. This means that all the material I have from them is pure FRAUD.
I think it is time to either press charges or call an attorney.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
This is exactly what we would expect from the bas tards who pretend to be for Constitutional rights. Once again you prove you are not for the Constitution but the destruction of the rights it guarantees.
Your attacks against the 10 Commandments have enjoyed moderate success, but more than religious people are going to oppose you on the 2nd amendment.
The first casuality of a cultural war is always truth. And the ACLU hates it when truth reveals their real agenda.
You reveal yourselves for the communists that you really are. Get rid of the guns and you can then move to disassemble the Constitution without fear of opposition.
Your assault on America is almost over comrads, enjoy what time you have left.
When the real Patriots arise, you will be among the first to go.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I’m an eleven-year member of the ACLU, and I’m extremely disappointed in the position that the organization has chosen to take.
I thought that perhaps, once SCOTUS explicitly said that the Second Amendment was an individual – not a collective – right, that the ACLU would do what I’ve always admired most about them. They’d take a stand in support of freedom; maybe that stand wouldn’t be popular everywhere, even among their own members, but they’d do the right thing.
Unfortunately that hasn’t turned out to be the case. The ACLU has taken (and I hate to use this phrase) a “leftist” view towards civil liberties, rather than an objective view which would support the Second, like other Amendments, as insuring *individual* rights.
This comes down to a very critical question: is the ACLU a civil liberties organization or a political organization? If the former, it must recognize the Second Amendment if it is to be consistent with its mission as guardian of civil liberties. If the latter – well, should I mail my membership card back or just shred it?
July 4th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
You idiots “protect and defend” the NAMBLA child molesters for their “free speech” in the commission of a felony, however, you would deny the parent or the child the ability to defend oneself from said CRIMINAL???
“Houston, we have a problem with the ACLU and it is terminal.”
I do not know how an association can be such a group of assholes and self righteous pricks to stand there and say that “free speech is guarnteed even if you do not like it”, YET when there is a RIGHT such as the 2A that “Shall not be infringed” the ARROGANT ACLU cannot follow their own creed and mission statment?
You are no longer (and have not been for quite a while) the protectors of the constitution, you have been the protectors of political agenda and partisianship.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
The 2nd Amendment was all about those citizens who believed themselves to be oppressed within the colonies, having the inalienable right to take up arms and defend themselves against tyranny. It was not about taxation. It was about the right to keep and bear arms to defend onesself against tyranny.
It is clear that the ACLU, like the Bolsheviks, and the Nazis do not want free thinking men and woman to have that right so that the oppression against citizens of America can continue unchecked. The American Constitution is the law of the land. Not the United States government and certainly not the ACLU’s interpretation of that law. The Supreme Court has ruled. That branch of the government has fulfilled its obligation under the law of the land. Live with, defend it or your next argument will be met and challenged most certainly by We The People.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
You no goods should be sent to where the “right to bear arms” is a COLLECTIVE right. How about china???
Come back again when you can’t stay so long if we don’t see you again, SWEELL!!!
BTW, we won’t hear you squealing in protest as there are NOT ANY HUMAN RIGHTS (e.g. speech) THERE!!!
July 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
The ACLU has gone to the dogs and should be on Saturday Night Live not in the criminal justice system.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“Collective right?”
We have the right to join the army?
July 4th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
The ACLU’s stated stance on this issue is not only philosophically inconsistent, it is directly contradictory to the spirit of your stated mission.
First, the very nature of the bill of rights provides for the embedding among the citizenry of the means to resist tyranny.
Freedom of speech acts as a check to misinformation, and provides at least a basis for arguing dissent. This has broad implications in the age of the internet.
Freedom from unlawful search and seizure prevents government intimidation and control of nascent ideas.
These are visionary ideas.
What seems to be lost on the ACLU is that limiting the government’s monopoly on force in this manner acts as a deep check on abuse. It is not that individuals can fight easily and effectively against the might of the organized military with modern weapons. Instead, it is the reverse: that the government cannot as easily and effectively coerce the citizenry… It provides a small measure of the ability to resist, spread thinly throughout the citizenry.
As committers of genocide have learned: If you can forbid speech, and forbid arms, then rounding up people for slaughter is so much easier.
Second, and more universal: There are human rights that are so basic as to transcend even the constitution. Self-defense and defense of one’s family are inalienable rights. A true commitment to this concept leads inexorably to some degree of commitment to the availability of personal weapons.
Third, the focus on historical interpretation is fraught with peril, as it is often performed selectively and self-servingly. Frankly, the ACLU’s articulated position on this seems wrong. The Miller decision specifically acknowledges that access to weapons of a military type was intended by the 2nd amendment. Ruling against Miller’s claim to a sawed-off shotgun was not a ruling for collective vs. individual rights. It was a decision about a specific claim to an acknowledged individual right.
I never thought I would say this, as I have often defended the ACLU against “cultural conservatives” (somewhat of a misnomer):
However, I will not support the ACLU as long as they maintain this immoral position. Instead, I will send that money to the NRA. Despite their odious manner in the past, they at least have this issue right.
Today, I will be joining that organization for the first time.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The ACLU has finally stripped away any semblance of supporting individual American Rights. The ACLU steps right out of the pages of George Orwell’s “1984″ to reveal itself as an organization that champions thought, speech and mind control by the collective might of Big Government, Big Brother and a Totalitarian Order. The ACLU finally declares what I have known for over 20 years: that its objective is the subjugation of American Civil Liberties to the will of the Collective. I look forward to the ACLU’s rapid demise.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
So now the true agenda of the ACLU comes out. Nice to see some of the membership waking up to the fact the ACLU has an agenda that has nothing to do with the constitution or protection of rights under it.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Greg M Said:
“The ACLU is correct. It’s mission is to protect civil liberties. To the extent that the US Constitution advances civil liberties, the ACLU should support the Constitution. To the extent that the Supreme Court advances civil liberties and the Constitution, the ACLU should support their decisions.”
This premise is OK, but here begin the typical illogical liberal line. Greg M continues:
“The Heller decision does not advance civil liberties, nor does it correctly interpret the Constitution. As such, the ACLU should not support it.”
How does the Heller decision NOT advance civil liberties if it (re)affirms that the 2nd Amendment is in fact a natural individual right? And how does it not correctly interpret the Constitution? Pray tell us, Greg?! What interpretation of the Constitution do you adhere to, what are your sources and how does it negate a natural right as it is enumerated in the other amendments? I predict silence on your part, somehow.
Greg M said:
“It should be noted that the Constitution originally allowed slavery, and that the Supreme Court has allowed segregation, the internment of Americans of Japanese descent, and other errors. They’re not perfect.”
Wrong both factually and logically. The constitution was silent on the issue of slavery, as it is still silent on countless specific institutions (such as homosexual marriage), without explicitly allowing them. Then, you are setting up a strawman, which is typical of liberal “reasoning.” Change the subject and attack. It’s both illogical and absurd.
Sure, the SCOTUS is not perfect. But a basic application of logic (if coupled with intellectual honesty and not blind partisanship) tells us that they got this one right. 9 out of 9 justices agreed on what (coincidentally) is the plain meaning of the amendment. Countless legal scholars (many of whom leftists) had to more or less grudgingly go along with the plain text of the amendment.
Now Mr. Greg M tells us that they are all wrong? Please. Argue logically, or there’s no value in your comments.
As for the ACLU, I have always suspected that they stand against most traditional American institutions. Now I got my confirmation.
I’ll go out and celebrate the 4th by exercising my 2nd. This is a good day for America, and a sad day for the ACLU, who lost yet another piece of cover for what I think they truly are: an outfit for leftists by leftists who, like a dead clock, happens to get it right once in a while but is wrong most of the time.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
The leading civil rights organization is REJECTING a civil right even after the US Supreme Court has approved it? Whatever happened to defending the most unpopular political positions because the right is more important? Apparently the ACLU really does play favorites. If you’re a nazi who wants to march through a Jewish neighborhood, the ACLU will back you 100%. But if you’re a gun owner, you can soak your head. What a joke.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
The ACLU has gone to the dogs and should be on Saturday Night Live not in the criminal justice system. Bad doggie!
July 4th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I am disappointed by the ACLU’s position on this. The Supreme Court has declared what the law is. The ACLU has no authority to “disagree” with that. A “disagreement” over a constitutional right is essentially a “disagreement” on whether a law applies or not so it can be disregarded with impunity. Such thoughts are the reason we have people who don’t obey speed limits, stop sign, or who drive after drinking. It’s a mindset that because a law is inconvenient, it shouldn’t apply or be followed.
The Heller decision is the LAW. There is no “disagreement” allowed.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
truly sad that an organization that was created to defend all of our guaranteed rights is now the one fighting for only the ones that they see fit to accept
July 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I’m baffled by the ACLU’s decision to oppose CIVIL LIBERTIES. To continue a claim that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a collective right, rather than an individual right, is not only aberrant, it is abhorrent.
I have supported the ACLU in the past, both monetarily and otherwise, but my disappointment in the organization is such that I will withhold support until such time as the organization supports all of our fundamental freedoms, including the right to keep and bear arms as individuals.
Who within the ACLU is responsible for this inexplicable position?
July 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
ACLU, why don’t you give rights to those who are short to be tall…because that’s not fair for short ppl to be short! They should be able to be tall if they want! We need equality!!!
July 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
That every citizen would take pride in the name of an American, and act as if he felt the importance of the character by considering that we ourselves are now a distinct Nation the dignity of which will be absorbed if not annihilated, if we enlist ourselves (further than our obligations may require) under the banners of any other Nation whatsoever. And moreover, that we would guard against the Intriegues of any and every foreign Nation who shall endeavor to intermingle (however covertly and indirectly) in the internal concerns of our country; or who shall attempt to prescribe rules for our policy with any other power, if there be no infraction of our engagements with themselves, as one of the greatest evils that can befal us as a people; for whatever may be their professions, be assured fellow Citizens and the event will (as it always has) invariably prove, that Nations as well as individuals, act for their own benefit, and not for the benefit of others, unless both interests happen to be assimilated (and when that is the case there requires no contract to bind them together). That all their interferences are calculated to promote the former; and in proportion as they succeed, will render us less independant. In a word, nothing is more certain than that, if we receive favors, we must grant favors; and it is not easy to decide beforehand under such circumstances as we are, on which side the balance will ultimately terminate; but easy indeed is it to foresee that it may involve us in disputes and finally in War, to fulfil political alliances. Whereas, if there be no engagements on our part, we shall be unembarrassed, and at liberty at all times, to act from circumstances, and the dictates of Justice, sound policy, and our essential Interests.
That we may be always prepared for War, but never unsheath the sword except in self defence so long as Justice and our essential rights, and national respectability can be preserved without it; for without the gift of prophecy, it may safely be pronounced, that if this country can remain in peace 20 years longer: and I devoutly pray that it may do so to the end of time; such in all probability will be its population, riches, and resources, when combined with its peculiarly happy and remote Situation from the other quarters of the globe, as to bid defiance, in a just cause, to any earthly power whatsoever.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
So, it would seem to me that by the ACLU’s interpretation od the 2nd amendment, if you had the power, you would choose to take away at least one of my civil liberties…… how can I continue to support the ACLU when they would choose to take away my abilities to defend and protect all other rights which have been gauranteed me by the constition.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
From the ACLU position on gun control:
“The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.”
We have no right to own or drive cars. We do have a right to keep and bear arms. I think there is a distinct difference here and it is a sad state of affairs that it is easier to practice the privilege of driving a car, than it is to practice the right to carry a gun.
I’ve supported almost all of the arguments made by the ACLU during my lifetime. This organization has done remarkable things in the name of freedom, and I hope it continues to do so. In the past, I have been a little put off by the Union’s stance on the Second Amendment, because it seems to take on the position that the rights protected by it are reserved to the States as a collective right. At the time, this position was mildly troubling, because the Union didn’t seem willing to fight for a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution to be applicable to all citizens. It was understandable, however, as the courts had made several decisions that favored the collective rights theory- understandable, but still troubling. Now that the Court has decided that the collective rights theory is invalid and that it is the People who are the beneficiaries of individual rights, it is truly appaling that the Union seems unwilling to correct its stance and support the rights of the People. Shame on you, ACLU. When have you ever taken a stance against the rights of the People before?
July 4th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
It was my understanding that the ACLU was “neutral” insofar as whether the Second Amendment was an individual or collective right. I must have been mistaken. Now that the Supreme Court has decided Heller, the ACLU says that it disagrees with the ruling of the Court. It appears that the ACLU was NOT neutral, and was just hoping that the Court would rule the other way.
If that was the position of the ACLU all along, it should have had the integrity and courage to say so. I get the sense that after Heller, the ACLU will move in a direction that will attempt to limit gun ownership. In light of the decision in Heller, the ACLU should suport gun ownership in the same manner and with the vigor that it has, in the past, supported other Constitutional rights. Anything else would be the heights of hypocracy, but I would be the first to recognize that the ACLU will do what it is told by its largest contributors, who are wealthy, left wing Liberals.
Having formerly been a member of and contributor to the ACLU, all I can say is that the ACLU has lost direction. If the ACLU can see fit to fight for the rights of Neo-Nazis to parade and spew their words of hatred and prejudice, it should, after Heller, at least fight for the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
The ACLU once again demonstrates its hatred for freedom.
Mark me down for supporting a ruling that would keep the ACLU from gaining financially from lawsuits they win. Maybe that would reign them in. Maybe.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I have, for many years, maintained that the single most destructive force eating away at the very fiber of America has been the ACLU. Thank you for stating your position on the Second Amendment and the Heller decision so that now the rest of the Country can see why I have held that belief.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
It really doesn’t matter what you bunch of monkeys think any more about this issue…you are the blind leading the blind…you are a JOKE
July 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Yup, I figured the ACLU would take this type of position. It is odd how an orgainization who claims to defend our civil liberties would pick and choose which liberty in the Bill of Rights they do or do not support.
Clearly, if you support the Bill of Rights, you should support all of them. Without the second, the rest are undefended! Remember that!
July 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I will no longer contribute to this outmoded and stale club of solicitors.
My considerable wealth and sweat will now go and continue to go to organizations which stand for real American values and those which will defend the ENTIRE BILL of RIGHTS, not just those which may serve to further a particular agenda. I call on others of the same mind as I to do away with the ACLU and start over, as it was in the beginning. Good bye and good riddance.
later…mr.t.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
You guys have the audacity to defend NAMBLA and the the Child molkestors, yet cannot get your pathetic little heads wrapped around something as simple as “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
I dare you to delete my post like you did for my 1:14 PM post.
Truth hurst, and the ACLU needs to get offit’s partisian political agenda driven “legal dererminations”.
The supremes ruled, you don’t like that is just too bad. I don’t like the NAMBLA speech, yet you make it so these criminals and child molesters can continue.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
your a bunch of godless,evil defending lawyers that can’t get real a gig.go move to another country since you hate ours.God bless the ACLJ!disgruntled alcu members check out the ACLJ website and step into the light!
July 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
The ACLU was founded by communists to defend communists who were being deported for advocating violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Why is anybody surprised that a bunch of collectivists still believing that communism works (and still lying through their teeth) holds to a collectivist idea of Rights, especially the one that keeps people free?
July 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
All the blogging and letter writing in the world won’t change what a select few have already mentioned:
The ACLU depends upon a relatively small number of large donors. These donors are limousine-liberals who are adamantly anti-gun. The ACLU can’t jeapordize that income stream.
To all of you regular folk who used to consider the ACLU a friend, send your money somewhere it matters. Or, better yet, buy a new gun or some more ammo. Regardless of what the Anti Civil Liberties Union says, you have the right.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Seems like you want to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you think are important. I have to agree with the rest of the posters above. You have proven you’re nothing more than a far left wing organization. At least you are holding true to your communist roots.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Guns helped this country free itself from tyranny so pieces of sh#t like the ACLU could have freedom of speech.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
What a great shame that this former “civil liberties” group has thrown away its principled opposition to attempts by the government to infringe upon our rights.
Shame on you, ACLU.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I have lost any respect I might of had for the ACLU.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I’m curious what happened to my *Civil Liberty* of defending myself? Is it somehow less applicable than my right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, or my right to freedom of speech and assembly?
This stance on this most basic of principles, regardless of what the Constitution says, shows the hypocrisy of this organization. Out of the 10 amendments that we call the Bill of Rights, why are only 9 worthy of commendably fierce, vehement, and loud defense, while the most important one should be taken away?
This is blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty on the part of this organization, which claims to be the champion of “civil liberties.” Shameful.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
This is not a “re-interpretation”. This is the first time the subject has been addressed in a direct fashion. The ACLU has done some good work in the past, but it seems that policy does not alter the facts of the law.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Your organization is a liberal communist, fascist piece of shit.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I just renewed my NRA membership
July 4th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
While Bill Rind SOUNDS like an uneducated person because he doesn’t know English as well as more educated folks, he’s right on the money with both his words and his outlook.
The ACLU has shown that it no longer stands for the common man. You folks think that you’re above us and that your opinion counts for something amongst us.
To enforce your viewpoint you’ll have to use force. We’re better at it than you are.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
How’s post 398 for freedom of speech? Will you defend that? I bet you don’t have the courage.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
So in a short list, each of which referrs to individual rights, the one clause that specifically states “The Right Of The People” is somehow “collective”?
Not only does this fly in the face of the English language, it directly contradicts every writing of every individual involved with the writing of the Bill of Rights, its ratification, or the first 100+ years afterwords.
I wonder if the ACLU is ready to treat books the same way they approve of having guns treated. Banned, licensed, limited to only a few authors and subjects, limited numbers of pages, waiting periods before allowed to read, reading only in specific approved areas?
No? Then there is only one word for the ACLU: Hypocrites.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
America better wake up to the Marxist’s running the ACLU. They have been working there agenda for years under the cover of protecting our rights. All of them should be tried for treason!
July 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I have been a member of the ACLU for as long as I can remember, but I will not be renewing my membership the next time it comes around. You can’t just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to defend, especially when it comes to my individual liberties.
The language in the Second Amendment has been argued for years, and now that it has finally come to a head it doesn’t matter whether the vote was 9 to 0 or 5 to 4. It’s decided, at least to the point of allowing a person to posses a firearm in there home for personal protection.
You can’t call yourself the American Civil Liberties Union and pick and choose which liberties you agree with.
You will fight to get a mass murderer off on a technicality, but you will not allow me to defend myself against a criminal who breaks into my home? Shame on you.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
“THE ACLU: WE DONT JUST HATE CHRISTIANS, WE HATE GUN OWNERS TOO!”
July 4th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Your take on the first amendment is becoming interesting as well. You deleted my post. I’m sure it was a mistake. I’ll give’er another shot:
All the blogging and letter writing in the world won’t change what a select few have already mentioned:
The ACLU depends upon a relatively small number of large donors. These donors are limousine-liberals who are adamantly anti-gun. The ACLU can’t jeapordize that income stream.
To all of you regular folk who used to consider the ACLU a friend, send your money somewhere it matters. Or, better yet, buy a new gun or some more ammo. Regardless of what the Anti Civil Liberties Union says, you have the right.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Wow. The “American Civil Liberties Union” believes that Article II of the Bill of Rights only protects a “collective right.”
What other “civil liberties” will the ACLU choose to ignore?
Perhaps you should, in the interest of fairness, change your name to the “Civil Liberties That We Agree With Union.”
BTW – the 2nd Amendment only recognizes a preexisting right, as do all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
For example, by amendment, the right not to be tortured cannot be usurped ba a valid government.
What really surprises me is that the ACLU apparently trusts the government more than it does the citizenry.
That being the case, there really no reason for the ACLU’s existence, is there? Complete trust in the government, and a position that only government actors can own guns. That complete trust pretty much eliminates your need to exist. Oh yeah – it’s for the money isn’t it?
July 4th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
There is no reason to “disagree” with the the 2A interpretation. But the ACLU should simply have a policy “We don’t do 2A issues. After all the NRA doesn’t do 1A cases. Nobody would expect them to jump on a freedom of expression case.
But, they don’t announce that they DISAGREE with the First Amendment.
That’s what the ACLU should do.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
In #326, Rangerthefirst cites a letter by John Adams.
I was watching a History Channel show on the Declaration of Independence, in which an actor playing Adams recites that letter.
He specifically left out the word “guns”. It was the only word left out.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
That’s right. I own AK-47s and as the ACLU you should be thinking:
“We don’t like that he has AK-47s but we’ll defend his right to keep them because the constitution protects HIS right to KEEP and bear arms”
And not:
“The constitution doesn’t apply to items we’re afraid of.”
For shame ACLU!
July 4th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
The ACLU’s refusal to recognize the civil liberty guaranteed by the Second Amendment and recently affirmed by the Supreme Court may be good in the long run. Rather than an unbiased defender of civil liberties, the ACLU is now unmasked as simply another agenda-driven political organization. Maybe now people will focus on questioning the ACLU’s agenda and determining who lurks in the shadows driving that agenda.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
An interesting feature of the D.C. v. Heller decision is that not one of the justices denies that there is an individual right to bear arms, the judges only disagree on its limits and the causes for which it may be restricted. The majority got it right; if you say the right is tied only to active service in a militia, you make the second amendment a meaningless tautology, “soldiers can have guns.” That is not a useful protection of freedom; a general right is. If we go too far to restrict this or that weapon because it is dangerous, we lose sight of the purpose of a weapon, which is, of course, to be dangerous.
Happy Fourth, everyone!
July 4th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
ACLU, You’re flat out liars for starters. Miller wasn’t about whether the 2nd amendment is an individual or collective right. It was simply whether a short barreled shotgun is a normal instrument usable by the militia. That dog doesn’t hunt. Nevermind Miller and his lawyer weren’t there to show shortbarreled shotguns indeed have been used by the militia(BTW read up on who is the militia, but I’m sure you already know who exactly the militia is and just want to ignore the fact).
You’ve simply confirmed now you don’t exist to defend our rights as many have known for years; you exists to further socialism, communism and anything alien to nationalism and real freedom.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
The REAL ORIGINAL INTENT behind the Second Amendment:
The Shay’s Insurrection, “These the Legislature could not infringe, without bringing upon themselves the detestation of mankind, and the frowns of Heaven”, Jan. 12, 1787
gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/ShaysInsurrection01121787.html
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “and shall obtain an order for the re-delivery of such arms”, Feb. 16, 1787
gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/CommonwealthOfMass02161787.html
Journals of the Continental Congress, “…impolitic and not to be reconciled with the genius of free Govts…”, Feb. 19. 1787
gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/ContCongress02191787.html
Letters of Delegates to Congress, “…An Act to disarm and Disfranchise for three years…”, Feb. 27th, 1787
gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/AnActToDisarm02271787.html
Letters of Delegates to Congress, “…this act has created more universal disgust than any other of Government…”, March 6, 1787
gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/IrvineToWilson03061787.html
Journals of the Continental Congress, “That a large body of armed insurgents, did make their appearance…”, March 13, 1787
gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/ContCongress03131787.html
James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, “a great proportion of the offenders chuse rather to risk the consequences of their treason, than submit to the conditions annexed to the amnesty”, March 19, 1787
gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/MadisonToJefferson03191787.html
A Proclamation, “and of being again renewed to the arms of their country, and once more enjoying the rights of free citizens of the Commonwealth”, June 15, 1787
gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AProclamation06151787.html
The Debates in the Federal Convention, “…let the citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed. . . . It would be regarded as a system of despotism.”, Aug. 23, 1787
gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/FedDebates08231787.html
James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, “A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights”, Oct. 24, 1787
gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/MadisonToJefferson10241787.html
“The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.
gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/JeffersonToSmith11131787.html
That’s RIGHT people, it was intended to SECURE the God-given, Natural, Inherent and Inalienable Right of those that HAD transgressed the law. ALL ‘gun control laws’ are REPUGNANT to the U.S. Constitution.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I’m copying someone else’s comment here, because I think it’s so very well written:
So, the ACLU disagrees with SCOTUS and still interprets the 2A as supporting only a collective right. Big deal…I don’t care.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-protection – as with the rest of the Bill of Rights – is not subject to arbitrary interpretation based on political bias. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are all individual inalienable rights. They are not granted by governments; they are only recognized and protected.
The ACLU has lost any modicum of credibility that it may have had. Your interpretations and positions are irrelevant. But I’m sure that will not deter your prevarications.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.”
It has been decided. There is no more room for interpretation. I have a feeling that you just lost most of the funding you get by your “re-interpretation”.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
The ACLU is without a doubt, some of the best educated folks in America. One has to wonder, how can these folks who are so well educated, be so ignorant, or so willing to trample and not defend ALL THE RIGHTS of all citizens. The 2nd Amendment is a consitutionally protected right. Come on ACLU, start defending it!
July 4th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The ACLU is and always will be a fraud organization. The concept is sound the way this is run is pathetic at best.
For the good of the country go away. As stated above you will defend free speech regardless of what is said. But you are anti gun rights, so the second amendment does not deserve defending in your view.
The only people that fear an armed public are criminals and Tyrants.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Please spend a few moments to reflect on the myriad of inconsistent stances and opinions published and supported by the ACLU, and you’ll see that the ACLU’s published opinion on the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, the status quo. EVERYONE should now know, even the most liberal amongst us, that the ACLU bases its legal opinions solely on its political agenda and not on rule of law or reasonable interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. I repeat, the bottom line of the ACLU is, and has always been its liberal political agenda. Nothing more. Nothing less.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Well, I see my earlier post was deleted. I simply pointed out that your website’s stance that the Bill of Rights didn’t CONFER an individual right to own firearms was bogus, because the B.O.R. doesn’t CONFER any rights; it PROTECTS the unalienable rights of citizens against the government’s tendency to “infringe” on such rights. I can only conclude you are threatened by the factual and historical truth of this statement. You are undermining any legitimacy you might have by suppressing this factual statement. You cherry-pick the rights you think are valid; the 2nd amendment is dogmeat because it doesn’t fit your leftist agenda. HYPOCRITES!
July 4th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Were it not for the 2a the ACLU could not exist because it is the exercise of this right that secures all the others.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
The ACLU is sickening and wrong on the 2nd Amendment. Every other article of the Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals, including even those accused of crimes.
The ACLU should be ashamed at their position against individual freedom when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Until you reconsider your position on this, you will never have my support.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I LOVE IT!
This ONE statement by the ACLU will do more damage to themselves than ANYTHING their enemies (count me as one) could do in 50 years!
You have to love the hypocrisy of this marxist organization!
LOL
July 4th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
When I get to my office on Monday, I’ll be able to dig out my old ACLU card and determine if I stopped contributing in 1990 or 1994. That will allow me to recall the year that I first learned of the ACLU’s anti-Second Amendment position. It’s the last year I sent them a cent.
I can find it because it’s right under my NRA Benefactor member card.
Hypocrites. There are no “civil liberties” if you can’t protect them without (or despite) government’s assistance.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Maybe now (post-Heller)is a great time for all of you contributors to this organization, past and present, to ask for a refund.
You’re clearly not getting your money’s worth…
July 4th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I will never donate a penny to your organization again….You make me sick….Goodbye ACLU….you are a waste of taxpayers money
July 4th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I would think that the policy makers, lawyers, et al of the ACLU would be smarter than to make statements (from your General page under Police Practices) like these: “We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. [Edit: totally false, it was established, by men who had just done so, to allow THE PEOPLE such assurances. gd] In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. [Edit: no more anachronistic than the printing press or Internet!; the second part is correct! gd] The ACLU therefore 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. [Edit: THE PEOPLE did own cannons and other such arms, both individually and collectively (the township)! gd]
I am truly amazed at such ignorance of American History.
I also can’t believe this organization would even try to use this aurgument: “If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.” First and foremost, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or other such documents enumerating any right to drive a car! Second, this would be like licensing and registering free speech! (And yes I do think “parade permits” for protests are unConstitutional!)
July 4th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
The ACLU’s support for illegal aliens, opposition to an individual citizen’s Right to keep and bear arms, and non-participation in the jury nullification issue [Sparf And Hansen v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, 1895], has resulted in my failure to renew my membership since around 2005!!! Perhaps those Ford Foundation dollars are being used to support socialism in the U.S.A.? Indeed, the founder of the ACLU was a Socialist or Communist!!
July 4th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
what do you think a militia is? it is a group of INDIVIDUALS!! maybe now the public will begin to see your organization for what it is.. a group that NEEDS to get ACLUE….
July 4th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I did not think you would leave my post up that said the ACLU is a liberal, communist, fascist, piece of shit.
Free speech is terrible when used against you isn’t it?
July 4th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“Compromise, hell! … If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?” Jesse Helms As true today as it was when he said it in 1959
July 4th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Gee, from all the comments so far, you’d think this was atypical behavior from this gang of left-leaning windbags with an anti-American agenda….other than wishing they’d just go the hell to a country they like better, I pay little attention to them. Not relevant.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Okay, so let’s focus now on keeping our hard earned tax dollars from funding these liberal freeloaders!
July 4th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
From the ACLU’s web page:
“Unless the Constitution protects the individual’s right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.”
So, as I understand it any restriction placed on a civil liberty therefore nullifies that right entirely?
In other words the oft-cited cliche about how the first amendment does not protect your right to shout “fire” in a crowded movie theater means that, in fact, all speech is subject to whatever regulation the government deems appropriate?
Seems like an odd thing for the ACLU to say.
Ben
July 4th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Also from their web page:
“If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.”
And this makes sense because nowhere in recent history has a lightly-armed insurgency ever caused even the slightest problem for a modern military, certainly not the US army.
Do these people even think before they write this stuff?
Ben
July 4th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
This is a despicable position for the ACLU to support. I’ve long disagreed with this organization’s selective reading of the Bill of Rights, but I’ve accepted the explanation that the ACLU is only acceding to the prevailing legal opinion of the time, which was of an ambiguity in the second amendment. SCOTUS just confirmed the individual right of all Americans to bear arms, which is what most of us already believe.
It was not even necessary to commit this organization to taking gun rights cases, but merely to acknowledge that the right to bear arms is indeed an individual right. This organization has now shamefully exposed itself as a purely partisan shill for the left wing. I’m sorely disappointed and will not be renewing my membership.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I am going prove to you that the right to bear arms is an individual right … AND a collective right:
Federalist Paper No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, states:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
Now, note that Hamilton says: “Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”
Hamilton could have very well said: “Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”
The same can be said for religion.
Where do you find delegated authority and restrictions? In the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does anyone read where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?
Hamilton was not really “anti-Bill of Rights.” His argument was that, if the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution, it would: “… furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. That they … “might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.”
If it is not restricted by the Constitution … nor delegated by the same … there is absolutely no power.
Now, I ask all of you in good faith, can you find anywhere in the Constitution where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?
Unfortunately, Hamilton’s worst fears concerning a Bill of Rights have come to light.
C. Cope
(Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, when no power is given by which infringement may be imposed?)
July 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.
- Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU
July 4th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I have given money to the ACLU, but I’ll never do that again.
If a person is prosecuted for merely possessing a gun, that is a civil rights violation. You should defend them, or at least state that the person has the right to own that gun.
Hypocrites.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I have given money to the ACLU.
Imagine my horror 20 some years ago, when that put me on the mailing list for letters with the passage written on the outside, “Here is your chance to tell the NRA to go to hell”.
The ultimate balance of power is the people having more weapons than the government. It will then ALWAYS be democratic.
I fear that the ACLU has been hijacked by liberals who would pick and choose rights to fit their political views. Rights be damned.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
So all of you are just now seeing what the ACLU is truly all about. It is about time that you all have seen the light.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
I just labeled all of my ACLU email notifications as “Junk Mail.”
July 4th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
uldn’t stand the truth could you ACLU?
Is this why you did not post my disareement with your position on this matter? Well the people of this country are not stupid, a little slow to act though. You socialists will wake up a sleeping giant some day. Then what? Get your friends over at the U.N. to help bail you out? Go ahead, nothing unites a country better than a good fight for freedom. Let’s get it over with for atleast another 250 years.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Ah! Our family has 4 CREDO cellular phones—CREDO supports the ACLU. Once our contract is up, damn sure we’ll have NO MORE CREDO PHONES!
July 4th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Unfortunately, it does not surprise me that the ACLU does not support the civil right of every legal, law abiding citizen, to own a gun. The ACLU has shown selective support depending on the person involved. When a police officer is charged, the ACLU has a long, sad history of not defending the officer, but they seem to always want to defend the criminal element. Since the 2nd amendment is for law abiding citizens, not criminals, it is a shame the ACLU wishes not to support it.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Your position is untenable.
Close your doors now, you bunch of palpitating frauds.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Why is it that you people (collectively) at the ACLU still can’t come to grips with the Constitution and the entire Bill of Rights. To view the 2nd Amendment as a collective right of the government to bear arms is absurd. The government by virtue of what it is is charged to provide for the common defense. The ACLU is a bunch of idiots.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Well you lost another member. The 2nd ammendment is an individual right, plain and simple. I’ll never support your organization again.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: “A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.” Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an “educational purpose” test? Would some States limit citizens to buying “one book a month”? Would inflammatory “assault books” be banned in California?
Emotion in Reading:
The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional “gun” issue. Let’s restate the 2nd in another context:
A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
July 4th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
American Civil Liberties Union my fucking ass. You don’t give a good goddam about civil liberties except the ones that are in line with your left wing agenda. The Bill of Rights is about individual rights. Always was, always will be. It is ludicrous to believe the founding fathers inserted the Second Amendment into the mix to protect states rights to maintain militias. States do not have rights. People do. States have powers. You fucking know this as well as I do. You just haven’t got the courage to stand up to your left wing contributors who are dead set against the Second Amendment, so you come up with this horseshit about collective rights. I am a Libertarian and care deeply about civil liberties. Unlike you worthless fucks, I care about all civil liberties, including the right to keep and bear arms. When it comes to defending civil liberties, the ACLU is AWOL.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Wow! My first comment was number 8. As I write this there are now 397 comments overwhelming critical of the ACLU. Here’s an idea: let’s lobby the ACLU membership to elect a new ACLU Board of Directors that supposrts all 10 amendments. A little revolution is what every institution needs every 50 years or so.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
As a former soldier and cop, I know how easy it is for government hacks to trample the civil rights of others. I have wanted to join the ACLU for years, but could not stomach its anti-2nd Amendment stance. Instead, I have donated thousands of dollars over the years to the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, GOA, and other 2nd Amendment supporters instead. I thought the Heller decision would cause the ACLU to rethink its willingness to support trampling the civil rights of gun owners; I was wrong. The ACLU needs to do some serious soul-searching to maintain its credibility…either support ALL God-given civil rights or be honest enough to admit you only support the ones you like. Without an armed citizenry, you are basically relying on the good graces of the government to continue “allowing” you to exercise your civil rights.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
“…While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms,…”
It is not a “reinterpretation” of the Right to keep and bear arms. It is a correct interpretation of that Right. The “reinterpretation” you suggest does not exist and is miselading and self-serving. It is not SCOTUS’s job to reinterpret the Constitution. It’s their job to “interpret” it.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
The ACLU is a fraud.. nothing more.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Full Disclosure, I am a card carrying member of the NRA, Retired Military, Licensed Concealed Weapon Carrying, Conservative. I have long since been disgusted by the ACLU, due to their Extremist Left Stances. But this thread has gone a long way toward restoring my faith that there are liberals that do believe in the Bill Of Rights. To apparently 99.9% of the posters on this thread, thank you for your individual support of our Individual Right to protect ourselves.
As far as the ACLU itself goes …………….. well you can probably fill that blank in.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Guess what, they also practice censorship here. All I said in my last post is that I have showed to some ACLU card carriers that they believe the 2nd is a collective right and not an individual.
They were not happy and 2 of them canceled.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Do you suppose your thinking is why they are the Supreme Court and you are not!
I wonder how long the ACLU would have lasted when our founding fathers were putting all they had on the line for independence?
July 4th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Maybe the ACLU should be sued for violating the Second Amendment….. whouldn’t that be a hoot.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
No man, who cannot provide a reasonable defense for his family, can rightly call himself a man, much less one that is a free individual.
“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.”
Not some of the people. Not the people in service of the United States Military. Not the people otherwise registered in some form of organized civil defense. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Putting that aside for the moment, I reserve the right to bear arms and this right is non-negotiable. From my cold, dead hands…
July 4th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
And with that interpretation, the ACLU affirms that it is just another well funded private lobbyist.
Nothing more, nothing less.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I used to believe the ACLU was a champion of the Bill of Rights. Picking and choosing which parts you will defend, as well as making up your own personal interpretation of the Constitution has reduced you to nothing more than a self-serving PAC.
I can only hope that there is some patriotic, level-headed organization in this nation that will step up to fill the void left by the death of the ACLU.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Well, I was a member of the ACLU, but now the ACLU seems to have been bought out by the commies.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
The ACLU likes kittie pron and child rapists. Guns can kill child rapists so the ACLU hates guns.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I think I’ve been misled for several years by the aclu. They dont defend ALL my rights.. just what suits them. I need a lawyer to file a class action suit for me. I’ve been had by the aclu!!
July 5th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Don’t write anything bad here. Seems the ACLU who is supposed to be ALL about free speech deletes any postings that are not to their liking!
LAME!
July 5th, 2008 at 12:16 am
So if I understand the ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment….
- The term ‘the people’ refers to the inalienable rights of individuals everywhere in the Bill of Rights *except in the Second Amendment*.
- Each clause in the Bill of Rights stands on its own and is undiminished by coincident clauses *except in the Second Amendment*.
- Every restriction on government listed in the Bill of Rights is as fresh and valid today as it was in 1791 *except in the Second Amendment*.
- Every clause in the Bill of Rights must be interpreted broadly to grant the greatest possible freedom to Americans *except in the Second Amendment*.
How the ACLU can even try to defend such a blatant, agenda-driven double standard is beyond me. Could we have a bit of intellectual honesty on this subject, please?
July 5th, 2008 at 12:40 am
I used to believe that the ACLU stood for the defense and preservation of all of our civil Liberties. I have never understood the arguments for gun control, just as I have never understood the arguments against gay marriage. Could it be fear of something one doesn’t understand?
Failure to protect the Second Amendment makes the ACLU worse that those who would destroy other Liberties to further their agenda.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Well now, isnt this interesting.
I gather from the postings here that someone has really stepped on themselves in a royal fasion…..maybe its time to pay attention to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the fact that the SCOTUS is the final authority on the interpretation of those documents, rather than a few elitists with a liberal agenda.
what say you, ACLU?
July 5th, 2008 at 1:26 am
I find it hypocritical of the ACLU to defend our our civil liberties, except our right to keep and bear arms. I can no longer hold any shred of respect for this organization and its leaders. For its many members i hope that the ACLU can see that it is in error and works to correct it.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Gee, I wonder how the aclu would feel if the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 in favor of Freedom of Speech.
A government may not take away a right.
The Supreme Court should vote 9 to 0 to affirm all rights.
The aclu are such hypocrites.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:01 am
The ACLU was formed to protect liberties of Americans!
Obviously the ACLU does not support every one of the 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
If the ACLU’s position is one of non support for the 2nd Amendment and other facets of the Constitution of the United States. The spokeshole for the ACLU needs to grow a set and say it! Dont try to hide behind double talk and catch phrases.
I also may suggest that the ACLU review the following definitions;
Liberalism;
1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4. a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.
Socialism;
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
I suggest everyone to decide for themselves which definition the ACLU is trying to emulate. From my point of view its not the first one!
July 5th, 2008 at 2:01 am
I believe their silence is due to their concern of how they can hide that GIANT TURD they laid.
We have been treated to the ugly underside of the ACLU skirt….
Most suspected that they were American Hating scum, they have now removed all doubt.
When will the ACLU get sued for their false advertisement and their fraud on the American public?
July 5th, 2008 at 2:04 am
The 2nd amendment does not give Americans the right to bear arms. It states that the HUMAN RIGHT of the PEOPLE as defined in ALL the amendments to defend ourselves from harm and tyranny SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
It was never about duck hunting you twats.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:06 am
The democratic party should also review the definitions and decide to say what they mean. Again the first definition does not fit the current stand I see from the democratic party. There stand seems to fit the second definition a little better.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Hey, you guys should trust the ACLU’s decision to go against DC v. Heller.
I mean, after all, only the government should be allowed to speak, and you should only have protection from search and seizure when you’re out in public, right?
Right?
July 5th, 2008 at 2:37 am
It was a 9-0 opinion that it was an individual right. Read it again.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:57 am
It’s always amazed me that the ACLU stands up for everyones rights but not the right to own firearms, a right guaranteed to us by the constitution. But you’ll be the first to uphold the rights of some degenerate who misuses a firearm to commit a crime. You bleeding-heart liberal communists make me want to PUKE! hopefully people will wake up and put you out of business
July 5th, 2008 at 3:11 am
It’s a good thing there are some other organizations out there, who are interested in protecting our constitutional rights from people like ACLU lawyers.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:40 am
I carry a firearm “because freedom can’t protect itself.”
I have no idea what the ACLU is for…
July 5th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I am very disappointed in the ACLU position on Heller, especially when the decision affirms a civil right. This affirms what the ACLU detractors have been saying all along – that the ACLU has a political agenda. There’s no excuse for your position.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I joined and supported the ACLU several years ago. Upon learning of your second Amendment stance, I chose to stop supporting you and now make my donations to the NRA-ILA. How can you logically suppose that the amendments in the “Bill of Rights” support individual rights except one, which is “collective”, the one right which guarantees all the others? That makes no sense.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Good! I just moved to NH and joining the ACLU was one my lists of things to do. I am glad I no longer need to join this oppressive organization. Because just like the 2nd amendment is a collective right I’m sure the 1st is too!
Shame on you ACLU! Shame on you for your double standards.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:36 am
I am disappointed and dismayed that the organization claiming to support and defend all of the civil liberties that are protected by our constitution would choose to cherry-pick.
One would assume that the leadership of the ACLU understands that compromise on civil liberties is a compromise on liberty itself. Statements regarding the “collective” basis of the second amendment would indicate that assumption to be incorrect and further indicate the ACLU leadership has not bothered to read the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers that explain – in the framer’s own words – the rationale behind and the basis for the Bill of Rights (hint – it’s not about “collective rights”)
I am a current ACLU member and have supported the organization based on a desire to defend liberty. It seems the ACLU is less interested in this than I am. Perhaps my donations are better spent elsewhere.
Tim
ACLU Member and NRA life member
July 5th, 2008 at 8:39 am
What a joke the ACLU has proven themselves to be. I used to think that the ACLU had a legitimate purpose, but obviously it is just another one of those special interest groups.
You’ll never see a penny of mine now.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Well, I’ve posted this before; let’s see if they censor me again.
The ACLU doesn’t care one whit about what us “taxpayers” have to say. They don’t need to care. They make more than enough money from the lawsuits they push.
They should lose their ability to gain financially from the cases they represent.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:46 am
[b]From the Opinion of the Court in District of Columbia v Heller:[/b]
————————————————————————–
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
————————————————————————–
Now, that’s scary! We all know that the Second Amendment didn’t confer any rights at all, but recognized an already existing right. The Supreme Court recognized this over a hundred years ago: “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” — US v Cruikshank, 1875
It’s amazing, sometimes, what the [b]POWERS[/b] will try to shove down our throats…
July 5th, 2008 at 8:48 am
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary[1] citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
* Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
* The entire able-bodied male (women are usually called to work in munitions factories) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
* A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
* A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
* A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:54 am
From WFTV Channel 9 Orlando
“Security Guard Plans To Challenge Disney By Bringing Gun To Work”
This violates the US Constitutions right to Self Defense, Florida Constitutions Right to self defense and specifically Edwin Sotomayer’s right to defend himself IAW Heller during his commute to and from work. This is not about having a Gun at your desk “Guns to Work”, it is about having a way to defend yourself when you go home at 2 in the morning in a high crime area.
My question is will you (ACLU Lawyers) be defending his right to self defense under the BOR or will you be defending Disney. I see 1 of three things happening:
1. You defend Disney and the Gun Banning Groups. (Expected)
2. Remain silent and not Defend in court a man that wants a way to defend himself from criminals during his work commute through a high crime area. (Possible).
3. ACLU Vigorously and Publically defends Edwin Sotomayer’s right to self defense (Unlikely, even with both Heller and Warren (Warren v DC 1981 which concludes that no individual has a right to individual protection by the police.))
? Do you stand for the Bill Of Rights or do you stand for Left Wing Anti Gun agendas ?
July 5th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I used to rationalize the hatred towards the ACLU because I bought the argument that “by the nature of liberty they must defend the unpopular cases. Civil liberties will never be denied to the majority, they will be eroded from the fringes.”
However, in this case, you are clearly standing against one of our primary constitutional rights. It makes me wonder about your motivations in all of the other cases. I cannot rationalize this in any manner. If you don’t stand for the 2nd ammendment, what other rights matter?
July 5th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Pretty much expected by this left wing advocacy group. Their all for civil liberties as long as those liberties push the liberal agenda.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:16 am
To Someone in Post #348
Clearly you haven’t read the decision because while the Court only overturned the DC law involved in the case presented, the Court clearly stated that this was not a complete and comprehensive examination of what laws are or are not Constitutional under the 2nd and that would be examined in more detail as such cases arose Further in no manner did they suggest that their analysis of the 2nd, nor the 2nd itself applied only to DC. They examined the 2nd Amendment and applied it as written to the case before them. A case that concerned DC gun control law. Not CA gun control law, not Chicago gun control law, but DC gun control law. That was the case before them. With this as a precident however, such laws should be considerably easier to overturn because the standard in this matter is established. Gun bans are Unconstitutional. Whether in DC, Chicago or anywhere else.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:19 am
It appears the “scholars” at the ACLU have decided that they themselves will protect Americans from future tyranny, therefore making the need for the 2nd unneccesary. So, what happens when the legal system upon which they’ve built their house of cards has a total collapse. Does the ACLU have a backup plan to defend our lives and liberties? Is the ACLU so powerful now that they can ward off the attacks of a rogue government with stacks of law books? Hey, ACLU…the individual right to keep and bear arms by American citizens IS the backup plan when all else fails!
Looks to me like the ACLU should abandon whatever secret agenda they’ve been following and fight to protect ALL of our constitutional rights. Or they can simply continue their current course and lose the support (funding) they have enjoyed for so long. My family only accounts for two memberships, but thats two less they’ll have from this day forward.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:20 am
“While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms …”
Reinterpretation? Nearly every city and state allows homeowners the RIGHT to defend themselves with a functional shotgun or handgun, and this has been the standard since these arms came into existence.
The SCOTUS didn’t reinterpret anything, they just reversed DC’s arcane and illegal infringing of the peoples’ rights.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:41 am
The ACLU has lost all credibility. There is no such thing as a “collective right” Rights are to the PEOPLE. Read history. The right is to prevent tyranny and the “militia” is defined as “any able bodied male” When called to defend this country they were expected to show up with arms. The ACLU is a liberal left wing group with ZERO credibility and their response is proof.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Just another social liberal disgusted by the ACLU’s position on the 2nd amendment weighing in….
I defend the ACLU’s actions as just any chance I get, always defering to the constitution. Most of their positions are easily supported when viewed logically and unemotionally with the Bill of Rights in the foreground. Why then, is the 2nd treated with reverse handling? Shameful.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:53 am
But, when it comes to abortion, which isn’t even IN the constitution, that’s a SOLID “right” which can’t be changed, ever….
Yeah,
ACLU
All Communists Looking for You.
When will this anti-American group ever go away??
July 5th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I like quite a few others here have given large donations to the ACLU in the past…
However with the stance the ACLU has taken on the Heller Vs. D.C. decision, I am taking the money earmarked for the ACLU and donating to the NRA.
Goodbye from a former loyal ACLU supporter.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:05 am
“the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation”… well, you people got that part right.
The SCOTUS just handed us the game ball and we’re taking it to Chicago, NYC, San Fran, etc.
Our goal… 14th amendment incorporation so that the RKBA will become applicable to the States.
In order to achieve that goal, it is vital that future judicial nominations be supportive of the 2nd amendment, and fully acknowledge the Heller decision.
If that means pressuring Congress to confirm another Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas… then so be it.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:11 am
So when are you going to tell us that our 1st ammendment rights are also only collective rights?
And when will you take away our familys farm because it also is a collective?
July 5th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Two questions for the ACLU legal staff.
1. What is the legal reasoning which arrives at the conclusion that the second amendment is a collective right?
2. What is the legal reasoning by which government is granted a right?
July 5th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I swore to uphold and defend the entire Constitution when I was 17 years old and a new enlistee in the U.S. Coast Guard. That oath has been with me for over 36 years and I will die with that oath in my heart. I believe our national Freedom stems from those that take and believe in that oath.
Live Free or Die!
July 5th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Anti Constitution
Anti Christian
Anti American
Lucifer Union,
WE know who you are.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am
ACLU, I’m still receiving membership renewal mailings from you. You’re still not receiving anything in return. Figure it out.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I am a very libertarian-leaning retired USAF officer, sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. You previous interpretation of Miller was the major problem that kept me from joining. Your current position is poison.
You would continue deny a basic human right to self defense? Congrats! You just went from “mostly an ally” to an OPPONENT.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am
So the ACLU is going to cling to a discredited notion and continue to deny constitutional protection to a class of people, despite explicit instructions to the contrary from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Just like Lester Maddox passing out ax handles in the Pickrick Cafeteria.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I agree with the ACLU on almost every stance they take, except this one. How can you not accept that the right to defend one’s own self and one’s family is an individual right? What right is more fundamental or important than self-defense? While I can understand personal aversion to violence, I can’t understand ignorance of the basic principle of a right to defend one’s self against the violence of others. It’s an unfortunate reality that that sometimes requires the use of violence by one’s self, but to deny that right to others simply because of one’s own personal lack of emotional ability to deal with that reality is the height of arrogance and adolescent utopian ignorance.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:45 am
So, the ACLU won’t be defending this individual right. What a surprise! I’ve been saying for years that you folks were more about political agendas then real support for civil liberties. Thanks for confirming this. You’ve actually made some money for me. I made bets with two of my friends that you would do exactly what you’ve done. You not only made me a few bucks but you’ve lost two rabid supporters. WAY TO GO!
With “friends” like you our Constitution doesn’t need any enemies.
Hitler, Stalin, et al would be proud.
Sieg heil, ACLU!
July 5th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I’m so happy to see all of you ACLU types finally get to eat the shit that you force down everyone else’s throat. Now just leave us alone. SCOTUS finally got it right, although the margin was too narrow for me. It should have been unanimous.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The ACLU has evolved into little more than another Marxist agitation organization, which champions abortion and “victim groups.” How much of your operation is run by Communist sympathizers and Socialist radicals, other than, of course the ACLU leadership, which would make the Frankfurt School proud?
Your efforts to protect free speech is limited to only that free speech which shows Political Correctness. See
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236&q=%
2BTHE+HISTORY+OF+POLITICAL+CORRECTNESS&total=189&
;start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
ACLU is no protector of civil rights (if it ever has been), other than left-wing, pro-abortion, anti-war, anti-capitalist protest rights.
Where are you protecting the rights of gun owners and the fundamental right to bear arms? Nowhere. Your organization is clearly against the Secoond Amendment because it is a Marxist operation.
When have you EVER promoted the individual rights we have through the 9th and 10th Amendments. The answer is NEVER. And the liberties of all Americans have suffered accordingly.
Your contribution to American culture is summed up in 3 words: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:52 am
So the ACLU is now actively working AGAINST the constitution and Bill of Rights, and working to undermine one of the basic constitutional rights we have as Americans. How long before they start working to undermine the other basic rights, such as the right to free speech and equality ??
I suppose it will depend on what the Major Money donors dictate…hmmm ??
July 5th, 2008 at 11:52 am
So the ACLU is now actively working AGAINST the constitution and Bill of Rights, and working to undermine one of the basic constitutional rights we have as Americans. How long before they start working to undermine the other basic rights, such as the right to free speech and equality ??
I suppose it will depend on what the Major Money donors dictate…hmmm ??
July 5th, 2008 at 11:55 am
A few years ago I searched the ACLU website to try and understand why you paid no attention to the 2nd Amendment. IIRC it all boiled down to the judgement of the Miller case, saying it only applied to the collective right. Well, now the issue has been thouroughly resolved, and yet the ACLU has updated its position to be more partisian and hypocritical. The 2nd amendment applies to the people, not the collective right!
I will donate to the ACLU once they finally realize ALL of our civil liberties, not just some of them!!!
July 5th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Anybody keeping count? How many people agree with the ACLU? Will this blog chang the position of the ACLU? Interesting?
Maybe the “colective” will agree with the ACLU?
July 5th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Your continued refusal to recognize the paramount right in the Bill of Rights makes your stated purpose to defend civil rights a sham and is most disgusting.
Having attended an ACLU meeting back in IL with the chapter’s legislative chair, an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment, it was a shame to see how other members treated his views, but how they gladly attacked the Boy Scouts of America and supported the idea of no restrictions on killing unborn babies.
That, with what I read in the news about the ACLU was more than enough to know I want nothing to do with such an organization. I do not wish you well.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
First, I thank the ACLU for helping minorities to gain civil rights years ago. With that said, I totally disagree with your “collective right” interpretatin of the 2nd Amendment. Here’s why: I grew up in the south during the KKK era. Had we not had guns in our homes, we would have been killed by these domestic terrorists. Perhaps, I cannot change your view, I know I would not be here today had my people held this collective or militia point of view.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.
Who gives a rat arse how the ACLU interprets the 2nd other than the Joyce Foundation? I really hate to break it to the ACLU but their interpretation isn’t worth squat versus SCOTUS.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
C. Cope Says: July 4th, 2008 at 7:19 pm, post 541 …
Folks,
As I have just proven to you in post 541 that the government has no power to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms … the Supreme Morons still got it wrong.
While the Supreme Morons may have affirmed your right to bears arms, they affirmed that right with restrictions.
You have the right to bear arms … but!
Read the 2nd amendment again.
It does not say, 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 … as long as they are registered.
… as long as they are kept in your home.
… as long as you do not carry them on your person, unless you have a CCW permit.
… as long as they are not “assault weapons”.
… but … and ad nauseam.
Once again: Federalist Paper No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, states:
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”
And once again, Hamilton could very well have said: “Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty keep and bear arms shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”
Keep this in mind people … while the Supreme Morons affirmed your individual “right” to keep and bears arms, they still applied restrictions on that individual right.
In otherwords, they said: Okay subjects and peons, we’ll affirm your individual right to keep and bear arms, but we reserve the right to place restrictions on that right.
What kind of individual right is that? Obviously, your individual right is still being infringed upon.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
This settles it. The ACLU cares nothing for the defense of people’s rights. The fact that they’re advocating against an individual right after the SCOTUS has found one tells me all that I need to know.
Murderers, rapists and child molesters shouldn’t be executed and I don’t have the right to defend my family. You people are sick.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
The ACLU is showing its true colors. They are not about defending civil liberties but promoting their left wing agenda. Most left wingers abhor the Second Amendment and many would cut of their funding of the ACLU if it were to take a principled stand to protect Second Amendment rights. By taking this approach, the ACLU reveals itself as just another special interest group, not the champions of civil liberties they claim to be.
Just one question for the ACLU? WTF is a “collective right”
July 5th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
We’re the ACLU. We are dedicated to defending 9/10 of the Bill or Rights.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
The following is clipped from the ACLU’s About Us web page:
“Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage), adopted in 1920.
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:”
Funny. I don’t see any mention of an exception for the Second Amendment. So why isn’t the ACLU joining the NRA in its challenges to unconstitutional gun bans in cities around the country?
July 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
re: post 506 Tank.
I assume your post is directed at the ACLU defending themselves against what I said and not me defending it.
Either way, my granps always told me the “proof was in the pudding”. I never really understood what the hell that meant until now, and it assuredly is.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Your position in this matter is exemplary of an attitude in ACLU that I find repugnant. That is, you will defend to the death civil liberties that are championed by liberals. And to hell with any that are championed by conservatives.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
What’s up with the censored and removed posts ACLU ?
July 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Communist bastards!
July 5th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
From the Pennsylvania Gazette
(Philadelphia)
(Tench Coxe, writing in support of the proposed
Constitution, under the pseudonym
“a Pennsylvanian”)
The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared to any possible army must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are these militia” Are they not our selves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. [Emphasis in original] February 20, 1788
“Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave.” – Andrew Fletcher, A Discourse of Government (1698), p. 47
NUFF SAID!
July 5th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I wonder what will happen when the ACLU decides to interpret the First Amendment to suit their own agenda, just as they do with the Second? In a single stroke you’ve gone from being defenders of the voiceless to irrelevant fascists. Tsk.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The ACLU acting like stubborn spoiled children, despite being told ‘NO’ and being slapped on the wrist?
Shocked I tell ‘ya. Shocked.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
7 years of George Bush and people still don’t understand why we need the 2nd Amendment? 7 years of the Patriot Act, rejecting Habeus Corpus, signing statements, fake elections, torture, and… so much more…
Just where the heck do you think this country is going?
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or target practice. It’s not even about self-defense from crime; it’s just a logical result that high gun ownership areas make low crime areas. It’s actually about protecting ourselves from tyranny.
7 years of George Bush should make it obvious. The ACLU needs to reconsider and CHANGE their conclusion before they’ll get any money from me. I agree on most everything else the ACLU stands for. Change on this and it’ll get my money.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
to 2A guy:
No, the ACLU was founded by Communists to defend Communists. Those are the facts
July 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
ACLU
American Civil Liberties Unlesswedisagree
July 5th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The SCOTUS recognized an individual right 9-0, where they differ is “the shall not infringe part” with 4 deciding any infringement sponsored by the government is just hunky dory. Where will we be if that same reasoning is applied to the 1st amendment? The letters and words of the founders of our country show they believed in an individual’s right to self defense against a tyrannical government and brigands. I find it amusing that the 2nd amendment link you provide shows over and over that throughout our history that it is an individual right like the rest of the BoR and that the Miller case was about whether or not a sawed off shotgun was a weapon suitable for use in the militia. It was not a determination of what the 2nd amendment meant or a decision in favor of a collective rights model and to cast it as such is intellectually dishonest.
Your analogy of cars and arms is flawed because driving is not an individual right enshrined in the constitution whereas the right to keep and bear arms is and has been upheld times many times throughout our history.
When one looks at the history of gun control, it is simple to see that it is used to oppress the minority. One only needs to look at the origins of our own gun laws to prove that, both Washington D.C. and Chicago, cities with large African American populations have the most draconian of gun law. Ironically those same gun laws appear to have had no effect on crime.
Worldwide the disarming of a nation’s citizens often leads to either genocide or democide. Depending on who’s statistics are used governments and their agents have killed between 120 and 200 million people in the 20th century with the worst offenders being those countries that embrace a collectivist ideology, i.e. the USSR, China, Nazi Germany and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge to name a few.
I can see no justification in your argument and as much as I respect your work in securing the broadest possible definitions of our rights to free speech, privacy and equal protection under the law I cannot support your stand on the 2nd and so will give my money to the NRA and JPFO.
July 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The Founders intent was clear when you read their writings. An individual’s right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed. How ridiculous would it be if a tyrannical government, that the Second Amendment gives you the ability to defend against, could dictate who could possess arms and also dictate what arms you could possess. If this were the case an out of control dictatorship could then dictate that only people over 90 could own arms and limit them to air guns only or whatever limits they saw fit to assure their hold on power. It would be totally ridiculous.
July 5th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
July 5th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
It is clear to me the ACLU lacks intellectual honesty.
I’d have more respect for their position for their analysis if they called for the repeal for the 2nd Amendment rather than ascribe to the “collect right” theory.
When, exactly, will the ACLU recognize our natural right to defend life, liberty, and property? A right pre-existing the Constitution and one that cannot be repealed no matter what government tries to do about it.
If you cannot recognized these inherent natural rights then you are not truly free.
July 5th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
– Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
July 5th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” – Benjamin Franklin
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” – Ben Franklin
July 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Why not make the 1st amendment a “collective right”, that the ACLU may only exercise in concert with the NRA and Dick Cheney. You like that? Didn’t think so.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
anti-american
The ACLU’s founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself… We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal.”
July 5th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
At last the light of truth shines on the ACLU.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
What happened to supporting rights…. what porns cool… but guns are a great detriment to society?..
July 5th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
It is a shame that an organization with a name that implies protection of our rights has once again displayed that the only rights they are interested in are ones that meet their political agenda.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/021072.php
July 5th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I respect the ACLU’s stance that the 1st Amendment is our primary tool for defending liberty. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I’d much rather spend countless hours typing and calling than take chances with my life.
But what, exactly, does the ACLU propose the People do in a situation where that has failed and the “brown shirts” are at the door?
Go along quietly?
Go along… but kicking a screaming?
Blog about it all the way to the ovens?
Does the ACLU not see the value of over 80 million Americans who currently own firearms?
Circuit Judge Kozinski – “The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees…” “However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake free people get to make only once.”
Embrace freedom. Ignore any theory or politician bent on depriving you of a natural right.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
You cannot invade the mainland United States; there would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Hmm, I thought the ACLU was supposed to fight tyranny. Guess not. As to the questions about the 2nd Amendment being unanswered, I guess you haven’t read any of the history of this country, legal rulings, Federalist Papers, and other such pertinent information. A first year law student should know all of that, at least if they went to a respectable school.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Also I forgot the Brady Center. Lets not let Sarah Brady off the hook for the toothless and pointless Assault Weapons Ban that did jack shit to prevent crime.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
The world would be a much better place without the ACLU in it!! Because you don’t have A CLUE, jerkoffs!!
July 5th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I have been on ACLU’s side for most issues. This is a bad idea to think that the 2nd amendment doesnt matter to them. All rights are created eqaul. Not one is more important. The founders realized that you can protest all you want if you cant physically do anything about it then it wont matter. I hope that one day and soon ACLU will decide that all the rights need defending as well. Its these reasons why ACLU looks so bad to so many people. It is truely sad to see an organization dedicated to saving our constitution to say that the second one dont really matter. Its just a thought on paper. Sorry but it matters alot and gives us the teeth needed to do the chewing.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
No,NO.The ACLU terribly misinterprets something that is very plain.The Second Ammendment has always meant,and is FINALLY recognised as meaning that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.As are all of the rights gauranteed by the Constitution that are refered to as the ‘right of the people’.One has to be a dumbass to believe otherwise or a tyrant bent on enslaving the populace to push the idea to the contrary.I would THINK that the American Civil Liberties Union would know what ‘liberties’ are.Apparently I would be wrong.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
As a former champion of the ACLU, I’m disappointed that you no longer champion ALL of our civil liberties.
My biggest disappointment is that it’s so clear from reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Federal Papers (especially #46), the anti-Federalist writings, and other opinions of our founders as they discussed this issue that they supported the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense, to fight off foreign and domestic enemie, and ultimately to fight against tyranny itself.
Instead, you choose to advocate what was essentially judicial activism in the Miller case, and your focus is that of an attorney relying on precedent, rather than a Supreme Court justice, who must examinine the words and history of the Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves to appropriately interpret it.
Shame on you for buying into the Brady hysteria and turning against implicit and explicit rights of the law-abiding citizens of the U.S. We should not allow traumatized victims of violent crime to convince us to abrogate our rights.
July 5th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
As a former champion of the ACLU, I’m disappointed that you no longer champion ALL of our civil liberties.
My biggest disappointment is that it’s so clear from reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers (especially #46), the anti-Federalist writings, and other opinions of our founders as they discussed this issue that they supported the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense, to fight off foreign and domestic enemie, and ultimately to fight against tyranny itself.
Instead, you choose to advocate what was essentially judicial activism in the Miller case, and your focus is that of an attorney relying on precedent, rather than a Supreme Court justice, who must examinine the words and history of the Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves to appropriately interpret it.
Shame on you for buying into the Brady hysteria and turning against implicit and explicit rights of the law-abiding citizens of the U.S. We should not allow traumatized victims of violent crime to convince us to abrogate our rights.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Still? You still cling to this b.s. stance on the constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms? So, you’re NOT really supporting the constitution, you’re promoting your own agenda after all, just as I’ve been told all this time. Well, shame on me for supporting you up till now: it won’t happen again. Ever.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
From the Declaration of Independence:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed…”
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
ACLU: IF you subscribe to the “collective rights” theory then…
Why don’t you file lawsuits against various States for their state constitutional anti-militia provisions? Wouldn’t this be a violation of 2nd and 14th Amendment rights?
Why don’t you advocate the existence of well regulated militias??? Aren’t they necessary for the security of a free State??? (I believe this is why the South refers to the Civil War as the “War of Northern Aggression.”)
Are you not concerned that the lack of well regulated militias could lead to Despotism? And if your organization is not concerned, why not?
July 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
If they had wanted a collective right they would have written a collective right – i.e. “… the right of the states to have militias shall not be infringed.”
The pre-existing right passed down to us through the English Bill of Rights was and is an individual right.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
The ACLU sounds like an upset white southener, upon hearing he’ll have to share the water founding with the “colored”.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
So the ACLU should change it’s name to ASCLU : American SELECTIVE civil liberties union.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“A Dawson Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
But what, exactly, does the ACLU propose the People do in a situation where that has failed and the “brown shirts” are at the door?
Go along quietly?
Go along… but kicking a screaming?
Blog about it all the way to the ovens?”
But, A Dawson, don’t you understand? The ACLU IS the Sturmabteilung.
July 6th, 2008 at 12:28 am
We all know the ACLU has always been rabidly anti-gun. The question is – WHY?
July 6th, 2008 at 12:40 am
This is strong evidence that the ACLU does not support all civil liberties, but only those that support a leftist agenda.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Can Any Leftist Who Believes In Gun Control Answer This Question?
When the first amendment says “the people” have a right to assemble it means all the people and not just government-sanctioned organizations. Right?
When the fourth amendment says “the people” are not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, that means all the people and not just whomever the government decides. Right?
When the fifth amendment says “no person” shall be put into double jeopardy or be forced to testify against himself, “person” means everyone and not just whomever the government decides. Right?
When the eighth amendment says cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted, that applies to everyone and not just whomever the government decides. Right?
So why, when the second amendment says “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms do some people (mostly on the left) think it’s meant to apply only to the people whom the government selects?
July 6th, 2008 at 4:41 am
So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
As always, we welcome your comments.
Frankly I dont give a RATS ASS what YOU think. YOU cant disagree with the Supreme court.
Protect 2 Second as you protect the rest. Assholes.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:47 am
there wouldnt be a first amendment without a second amendment
July 6th, 2008 at 6:28 am
“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.”
It is MY right, absolute.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Disarm the people in San Francisco, ACLU, then defend your beloved new “rights” there.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:49 am
I am certain the ACLU is exercising its right to be wrong. Unfortunately it is trying to inflict that error on all of us.
Go the way of Enron.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:54 am
I find it funny that the ACLU supports US V Miller. Here’s why. Remember that US V. Miller started with a bootlegging investigation that fell through because the moonshine stil was unused…so the US Gov grasped for straws and went with a firearms violation. in the text of US V. Miller, the one thing that sticks out most to me is the Gov argument (which was affirmed by the court.) that the 2nd protected ownership of firearms of the type in common use by the military…and thus, the short barreled shotgun was unprotected, but military weapons were. (Which was errounous anyway, as short barreled shotguns were common in the trenches of WWI.) This said, The ACLU should have been against any assault weapons legislation based on the concept of “in common use by the military.” But they weren’t.
Now you have a second ruling. Supporting the individual rights (”The People”). which the ACLU doesn’t support…even though part of their mission is to protect rights. The difference in support of the two different rulings shows either a political agenda, or a total disregard for the facts.
The Constitution is a all or nothing proposition. Either all of the rights apply, or all of them are void. Here’s the rub that most don’t understand…just because a person has the RIGHT to own a firearm, does not mean they are REQUIRED to own and use one. They have the CHOICE.
It’s like abortion (which the ACLU supports) While a person has the RIGHT to have an abortion, it does not mean thye are REQUIRED to excercise the right. They have the CHOICE.
Why the disparity and double standard from the ACLU? I know many people, who considered the 2nd individual right, but choose not to excercise it and own a weapon. This ruling will make no difference to those ho chhose not to own a weapon…they still won’t own one unless they so CHOOSE.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Amazing how a “Civil Liberties” union can honestly believe that 9 of the original 10 Bills of Rights protected individuals against state intrusion and that 1 Bill protects the right of the state to have the means to defend against individual dissent.
But then, what can one expect from an organization that sends legions of lawyers to a school that permits saying a Christian/Jewish prayer at lunch but is silent about giving a room to school children of muslim faith to say prayers or, for that matter, allowing tax dollars to pay for muslim foot-washing stations at international airports.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Check out # 323…That one says it all..
July 6th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Having come of age in the Sixties, my initial impression of the ACLU was that it stood on the ramparts, defending freedom from the forces of ignorance and oppression.
When I passed the bar and considered joining it, I read its asinine assertion that the Second Amendment somehow constituted a “collective right,” enshrined in a documment created with the specific purpose of enumerating individual rights.
Note that the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments ALL use the same term, “the people,” and do so in a manner which even the ACLU realized that the ACLU acknowledges as referring to individual citizens.
It was at that point I realized the ACLU was nothing more than a coterie of “cafeteria Constitutionalists,” cherry-picking those rights which promoted a particular social agenda and NOT defending the Constitution as a whole. This wag summed up its position concisely and precisely:
“Q: How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . .”
I therefore did not join the ACLU and have no intention of doing so.
KGL
Admitted:
MA bar
MA Federal District Court
RI Bar
RI Federal District Court
July 6th, 2008 at 8:49 am
The 2nd Amendment is ONLY about states’ rights. Personal ownership of arms is a ‘given’. Since I cannot defend myself against all comers without arms, AND I certainly may defend myself, I may be armed – and need no iterated right to do so. People who do not arm themselves because of some stupid man-made law, are foolish.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:07 am
This falls in line with what the ACLU founding father, Roger Baldwin, said of the aim of his organization: “We are for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself… We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” Yes, he really did say it. ACLU is about collectivists ideas, and collective rights. Make no mistake, regardless of the mask the organization may wear, the ACLU is not out to protect your individual rights and liberties, nor the American ideal. Their goal is, court case by court case, to change the political and legal atmosphere in this country into one that more closely accommodates their collective / communist ideas. This organization needs to be widely exposed for what it is, and then abandoned, and shut down.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:15 am
The ACLU is free to believe in whatever interpretations of any of the Bill of Rights that you choose.
However.
The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land charged most specifically with interpretation of the Constitution (which includes any and all Amendments), says that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. That puts the charge of defending the individual civil right in your camp, doesn’t it?
Or does the ACLU also pick and choose which civil liberties it likes, and to hell with the rest?
tweaker
July 6th, 2008 at 10:15 am
This exerpt from Jeffrey R Snyders,A Nation Of Cowards,sums it up for me.
Those who call for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people.
At one time this was even understood by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment “is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern.
This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning that America’s gun owners will not go gently into that good, utopian night: “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.” While liberals take this statement as evidence of the retrograde, violent nature of gun owners, we gun owners hope that liberals hold equally strong sentiments about their printing presses, word processors, and television cameras. The republic depends upon fervent devotion to all our fundamental rights.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Have you people lost your mind? You liberals just can’t cherry pick the Supreme Court decisions you like. All decisions apply! Your organization is a disgrace. You defend terrorists, attack religion and do anything you can to make this country less safe but you will not stand up for the 2nd amendment rights of American citizens. I am ashamed that an organization such as yours even exists in this great country of ours.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:39 am
As the car analogy has been mentioned several times, I think it would be a good idea to finally put this to rest as a valid analogy.
While it is correct that the Constitution says nothing about cars, this is not really relevant as the analogy fails without even referencing the Constitution.
You can own a car without a license. You can drive a car on private property without a license. The government regulates operation of motor vehicles on public roads, not ownership.
The only valid analogy you would have is licenseeing citizens to use arms in public places, but this analogy still fails without an equal basis for protection under the Bill or Rights.
But congratulations! Via analogy you have successfully defended at a minimum our right to own firearms and to bear them on our own property or the property of anyone who consents.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am
“ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns”
The Bill of Rights does not CONFER any rights. A man or group of men cannot confer a right upon another man. Our rights are ours by the nature of our humanity. The Bill of Rights GUARANTEES our pre-existing rights.
Get it right ACLU.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I’m still waiting for the day that the ACLU says something that actually makes sense. Seems today isn’t that day. Keep trying, you’ll eventually get it.
(on a side, anyone want to join me on the range today?)
July 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am
The ACLU is dead wrong on this issue. If my life is threatened there is never time to get the militia to help, it is up to me. Call for a pizza and the police and see who gets to you first. I guess that is what you get when you rely on a bunch of lawyers to give you help.
July 6th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
OK ACLU, defend your position.
Tell us what twisted logic you used to
conclude that the Second amendment protects the right of gov’t. militias to be armed.
Bring out your best arguement.
Unless you are scared we will shoot it full of holes…(pun intended)
July 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I actually thought the ACLU was an honorable protector of our constitutional liberties, even to the point of bucking political correctness, ie, supporting the right of the KKK to rally. I think it´s important to protect the Bill of Rights. This stance on the Second Amendment seems conveniently in line with liberal views, and not what I would expect from the ACLU that I thought I admired. Shame on you.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Tried to post a comment about the Second Amendment, and all I got was an error message saying “wrong anti-spam word”.
“Wrong anti-spam word”? Looks like you’ve got problems with the First Amendment toom huh? Lame.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Saying that the 2nd Amd. is a “collective right” is like saying the 1st Amd. only applies to newspapers. Please get back in touch with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
July 6th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
ACLU continues to lobby against the people and the bill of rights, why is everyone surprised?
July 6th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
The A.C.L.U. mraning the American Civil liberties Union (for future generation referance) laid bare like tyhe four justices in said case .Laid bare for the Traitorous Dogs they are!. Take the chains of the Constituion and wrapp them around there necks!.
July 6th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The A.C.L.U. meaning the American Civil liberties Union (for future generation referance) laid bare like the four justices in said case .Laid bare for the Traitorous Dogs they are!. Take the chains of the Constitution and wrap them around there necks!. They waited playing their cards carefully but the public didnt fall for it hook ,line and sinker as they had hoped. Now the wolf in sheeps clothing is revealed yellowed fangs and mange covered hide drooling at the prey for its death bite!. Out step the sons and daughters of liberty with 10/22 , 30-30 and mini 14,s a Blazin! Had the leftists al gore won the prize in Florida in 2000 the miscreets would have had their Follie. But a patriot was on watch that eventfull November day he had seen the threat ahead. Rallyed a army and set a ambush at Broward slowly they crept inch by inch , step by step until the prize was theirs. And many a mile to go before I sleep!.
July 6th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
One needs only remove his/her head from the sand to see that VPC, Brady and the rest of the people control, err…”gun control” crowd are the masters pulling the strings of the ACLU on this deal. So much for the noble fighters standing up for the rights of the downtrodden. Your transparency is laughable; what kind of fools do you take people for?
The Emperor has no clothes.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Well…..668 responses, and the “Best of Show” was:
“We’re the ACLU….defenders of 9 out of 10 of the Bill of Rights”.
That says it in a nutshell, you hypocrites.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Support an organization the defends ALL of our constitutionally-protected liberties. Support the Institute of Justices. Check them out at ij.org
July 6th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
So, when the ACLU finds a right inconvenient they can write out of the constitution on flimsy legal precedent?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that you have accused the Bush Administration of doing? Or do you have some way of distinguishing the right to have a gun, and the right to due process?
July 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I am surprised that so many people were under the impression that the ACLU actually protected freedoms. If they protect anybody’s freedoms, it’s not those of Americans! They’re more likely to take cases involving illegals’ rights and cases AGAINST the Constitution. There is NO WAY I would support these elitists! (They are similar to the Supreme Court in carefully selecting elite cases.)
There are a myriad of civil liberties they SHOULD be defending which would benefit ALL Americans rather than the chosen few. These include:
(1) support for homeschooling
(2) suing the Fed govt for illegal surveillance and wiretapping
(3) suing the Dept of Education for its failure to educate our children in relation to other countries’ accomplishments. Something is wrong when the dropout rate is 50%.
(4) suing CONGRESS for failure to perform it’s oversight duties on the Federal Reserve and failure to uphold the Constitution by passing laws which erode its provisions. The new banking law allowed creditors to raise interest rates on loans paid on time if another loan payment was late once.
(5) protecting fathers’ rights equally in divorce cases.
(6) suing the Fed Govt for failure to seal our borders; thus costing TAXPAYERS $383.3 billion per year to support illegals, build more schools and prisons (30% are illegals), free legal defense for rapes (1 million), robbery, murder, DUI’s on our highways, gangs. We pay their welfare, food stamps, medicaid, hospitalization, HUD housing, more policemen, all to subsidize the “cheap labor” and H1-B visas of big corporations. Bill Gates has been living off taxpayers backs for 30 years. If he were really the great philanthropist he claims to be, he’d have built a school 30 years ago to channel American labor into his jobs. All these tax payments while Americans are losing their jobs, health insurance, and homes to foreclosure.
(7) Suing the corporations hiring H1-B visa workers and “cheap illegal labor” for reimbursement of all those tax expenditures already paid by Taxpayers.
(8) Sue the Social Security Administration for COMPLICITY in DOCUMENT FRAUD and FAILURE TO CARRY OUT IT’S RESPONSIBILITIES TO PROTECT SSN ACCOUNTS. They know explicitly which SSNs are being used fraudulently and where the person works. Yet the dollars turned in are NOT deposited to OUR accounts. HOMELAND SECURITY SHOULD BE A CO-DEFENDENT FOR FAILING TO ARREST THE FRAUDULENT WORKERS.
(9) Suing CONGRESS for failure to perform oversight on the IRS and at least sixteen 3-letter spy agencies. There are plenty of books out there detailing illegal acts by the spy agencies; yet no action is taken by Congress to reign them in.
(10) Suing CONGRESS for failure to carry out its fiduciary responsibility to U.S. Taxpayers in accounting for or even following up on the billions of “missing” dollars going to Iraq and Halliburton. Also, for its failure to account for “black project” funds and accomplishments.
(11) Suing CONGRESS for its failure to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, in effect driving up the National Debt to 40% of taxpayer collections each year. By the U.S. printing its own money we could pay the entire debt in 1 year.
Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to do this. It’s WAY past time.
I have no respect for an organization calling itself “Civil Liberties” when they take NO CASES which would protect the RIGHTS of the MAJORITY of Americans
July 6th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Hey, #668, “A Free American”, quite a broad brush for us white southerners, no?
Alright friends, forget the ACLU for a moment and realize one thing: The Constitution is safe for now, but only if we the people actually arm ourselves!
Buy a gun and get training in how to protect yourself with it. Buy your spouse a gun, teach your children respect for but not fear of firearms and when they are old enough, teach them the joy of shooting (there are instances when children have used guns to protect their lives!).
A right is useless and will be lost unless it is exercised! I’m not afraid of any of my fellow citizens who are law abiding and respect the rights of all others owning a firearm.
So get out there and get armed!
July 6th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
You say, and I quote: “The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.”
Here’s a clue:
Your interpretation is *WRONG*. Completely, totally, irretrievably *WRONG* in every way it can be judged.
Why, you ask?
Because the SCOTUS, which is the absolute end-of-the-line, no-possible-appeal arbiter of what the constitution means has spoken.
And what, exactly, did they say?
They very clearly, very specifically, with no room of any kind for any sort of “wiggling”, stated that the right to keep and bear arms is an *INDIVIDUAL* right, not a collective right.
Which means that until such time as the ACLU and SCOTUS are one and the same, your interpretation is absolutely irrelevant.
As in garbage – Not worth the electrons to carry the message, or the paper it’s printed on.
In other words, it’s time for you to face the music: Your stance on the constitutionally guaranteed right of the individual to keep and bear arms needs to be changed to match the reality that exists.
Needless to say, This is one citizen who WILL NOT be supporting the ACLU in any way, shape, or form unti such time as the organization recognizes what the government itself already does: I have a creator-endowed right to own and carry a firearm, and no amount of hand-wringing and whining can change that fact.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
It seems the ACLU believes in itself, not civil liberty. ACLU supports NAZI marches which lead to violence. ACLU supports the right of “smoking gun” killers to have confessions tossed out on technicalities, but doesn’t want innocent victims to have guns for self defense. The ACLU values theories (almost “religiously”) more than humans I think.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
ACLU
Enemy of the State
July 6th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I wish I could post pictures to this blog. I’ve got a great one called “EPIC FAILURE.”
Pretty much sums up this position by the ACLU.
Do you really think the Heller decision is a “reinterpretation”?
Pathetic. Simply, utterly, pathetic.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
The fact that there are so many of you surprised that a POS liberal organization would have this position is absolutely stunning. That fact that a majority of you would actually give money to these monkeys in the first place….well I guess proof to me that many liberals really have no idea what they stand for or are talking about.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
They should change their motto as follows:
“Working in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend our personal interpretation of the constitution with regards to individual rights and liberties” They will never receive another dime from me..
July 6th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Collective right? COLLECTIVE right? I challenge the ACLU to define one single right that “two or more” people have that a single individual does not have. Collectively we may have power but NO collective has ANY rights that an individual does not have.
It appears to me that the ACLU does, indeed support “collectivism,” which goes by various legitimate names as well.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
So, the “People” in the 2nd Amendment is a collective phrase, while the “People” in the 1st Amendment is an individual phrase? That’s an interesting take on the English language. Once again the ACLU is showing their true colors, they don’t actually care about individual rights, the care about pushing their liberal agenda. Tell ya what ACLU, you think your big enough you come take my guns.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Once or twice a year I receive, in the mail, a solicitation to join the ACLU. Once or twice a year I return, in the enclosed envelope, a polite letter explaining that I will be happy to join the ACLU when it demonstrates its enthusiasm for all of our liberties, specifically, the clearly enumerated liberty outlined in the Second Amendment. Once or twice a year, I get no reply to my polite letter(s), nor do I see any demonstration of enthusiasm for the most fundamental of all human rights–the right to self defense–and the means to secure that right.
So how about it ACLU? Do you support and defend the Constitution–all of the Constitution–or, as usual, merely the agenda of the far left? After all, if we have no right to self defense, if we have no right to the means to defend ourselves, does any other liberty really matter? At long last, have you no shame?
July 6th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I Hope the ACLU doesn’t change its position regarding the 2nd amendment. Any support you offer now will be weak and suspect.
The following is my wish for you:
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
- Samuel Adams
July 6th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort Against Corrupt Government Officials.
The teeth of the Second Amendment:
jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm
July 6th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Let me add my thoughts on this.
From what I understand, the second amendment supports an individual right to bear arms. Period. The founding fathers feared that a government that could control individual ownership of guns could run roughshod over the people. Hence, the second amendment.
Now comes George W Bush. If there were ever a case for individual, unregistered, unrestricted right to own firearms it is the bush administrations dismantling of the constitution by fiat.
I just hope that the jerk allows elections the fall and that he is evicted from the white house. I also hope that the new administration packs his ass off to The Hague for crimes against humanity.
I was once a member of the ACLU. I’m pro choice, for the individual, against big government, in favor of single-payer national health care. I dropped my membership over the issue of gun control.
Gun Control means hitting what you aim at.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
A quote which liberal journalist Michael Kinsley attributed to colleague Mickey Kaus sums up my view of the ACLU’s stance on the Heller decision. “If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the
Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory”
Historically the ACLU has pushed the envelope in defending the Bill of Rights, all of the Amendments save the 2nd ,which you, the ACLU, claim does not protect an individual right but a collective one. Amazingly the same phrase, “right of the people”, contained in the First Amendment applying to the individual’s right to freedom of speech and again used in the Fourth Amendment to underscore the individual’s right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, is transformed in the ACLU’s view of the Second Amendment, to be only related to a collective right linked to the idea of militias. The hypocrisy of this line of reasoning is amazing and leads one to wonder why?
Many of us look to the words of the Founding Fathers as further evidence of that already clear intent to the Second Amendment. Writings of both Jefferson and James Madison confirm the idea that the Founders considered armed freemen essential to the preservation of liberty against the possibility of tyrannical form of government. It is surprising then to see the self appointed watch dogs of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be so opposed to the idea of an armed citizenry and its deterrence to would be tyrants.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
We can thank the Heller justices for not only exposing the tyranny of Walter Washington, Marion Barry, and Adrian Fenty, but for finally exposing the hypocrisy and treason at the heart of the national ACLU.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Yeah, keep deleting everyones damaging comments ACLU! There you go…nothing but a bunch of freaking hyprocrites!
The ACLU will fight for your free speech, but if its not in their favor, they will delete and block you!
LOSERS!
July 6th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Why am I not surprised that the ACLU has taken this stance?
Really…If the ACLU wants to be taken at all seriously, then they need to not take a stance that is NOT supported by the SC.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
This reminds me of the famous headline in the satirical paper The Onion:
“ACLU Defends Right of Neo-Nazis to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters”
July 6th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
THIS is why this legal begal will not join the ACLU. While you are right on the 4th amendment, and right most of the time on the 1st, ALL of our rights are important.
At the top, the site says “Freedom can’t blog itself.” Unlike your organization, I DO support freedom, and you all showed that you don’t. ALL of the constitution is important, not just the rights that are “cool” to support at the Washington DC Cocktail parties.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Can I get the ACLU’s help in a law suit?
It seems that an organization will not follow its own mission statement. The best argument they can come up with is, “we don’t agree.”
So can I get the ACLU to sue the ACLU?
July 6th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
It’s obvious that the revenue lost from memberships and contributions of all these people doesn’t amount to a hill of beans compared to the funding from the anti-gun group pulling your strings. “Send us enough money and we’ll believe in anything you want, SCOTUS be damned!”
What a bunch of hypocrites.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
The problem with the ACLU, again, is its Marxist, anti-American agenda. They work with the NEA to undermine our educational system and to ensure that our children DO NOT understand their constitutional rights. They actively work with the NEA to suppress knowledge of our historical past, and especially knowledge of the American Revolution, and how armed civilians formed a multitude of small armies, guerrilla units, and other kinds of disparate fighting forces and defeated the greatest military on earth at places such as Concorde Bridge, Bennington, Oriskany, Saratoga, King’s Mountain, Cowpens, and a host of other places.
The ACLU opposes home schooling, because being Marxists, they believe that children should be wards of the state, and that their education should be state controlled, exactly as was the case in their ideal state, the Soviet Union. The ACLU wants rights for terrorists, and illegal aliens who commit crimes on American soil, giving productive and law-abiding Latinos a bad name, in order to undermine the basic American social order. The ACLU is fundamentally against Latino culture, which is based on strong, heterosexually-oriented families. I could go on.
The one thing the ACLU does oppose is civil liberties for law abiding citizens. When was the last time the ACLU stepped up to the plate to challenge these leftist speech codes being promulgated on our universities? In all probability they never opposed such codes, but helped draft them instead. Each of their positions is carefully crafted to advance the powers of the liberal state over and against the citizenry.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
And one more thing: the ACLU’s support for the teacers’ unions is indirectly responsible for the fact that boys are being driven out of our public schools in droves by the 90% white feminist women teaching staffs. In some communities, the carnage is well above 50%. In one rather middle class city of note, the dropout rates for boys are 85% for Blacks, 76% for Hispanics, and 50% for whites.
The ACLU wants and needs a criminal, illiterate underclass to help drive their Marxist policies through.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I will be canceling my ACLU membership. I’d say more but you’re such smug jackasses you couldn’t hear anything I might say.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
The ACLU’s position on the 2nd Amendment is the sole reason I have generally ignored the organization all of my life.
I was excited when I first learned of the ACLU as we need an organization that will help fight for the rights enumerated in the amendments to the Constitution. But when I learned that the ACLU had decided to take the position that every amendment except the 2nd amendment spelled out rights of individuals and that while States are clearly granted powers and individuals have rights, that the second amendment gave a right to a state – I felt that the dishonesty of the ACLU prohibited me from being a part of it.
It is very difficult to honestly argue that the second amendment is not an individual right.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Join the NRA-only *$35.00* a year. . . more *bang for your buck* so to speak!
July 7th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Can’t believe I was such so gullible to buy into your lies and send you a check every year. Just visited stoptheaclu.org and man… what an eye opener that website is! From now on, my donations will go to the NRA.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:44 am
From a child, I have always been an ACLU hundred-percenter, based on the fact that it is the only organization that is truly devoted to principle. I will continue to support it financially and otherwise. HOWEVER, the stated ACLU position on the Second Amendment has always been painful to read, due to the embarrassingly bad reasoning it contains. It is clearly a political, rather than principled, position. I had hoped that this recent Supreme Court opinion would cause them to have a special board meeting to reevaluate their position, and that they would correct it. I, like others here, am especially shocked that they have gone from neutrality to outright opposition. Please wake up, ACLU, and read the constitution.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:46 am
FWIW, up until a few years ago I was an ACLU member. It is unfortunate in many ways since ACLU President Nadine Strossen made statements previously in support of a person’s ability to own a gun stating they had a Second Amendment right to do so.
Like the NRA, its obvious the ACLU wants to have its cake and eat it too.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:11 am
I came to this thread via a discussion at FreeRepublic.com
freerepublic.com/focus/news/2040648/posts
I’m surprised at some of the comments that I’ve seen and that have then been deleted from this thread.
What’s the ACLU afraid of?
Free Speech?
July 7th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Well it comes as no surprise to me that the ACLU still refuses to defend the Second Amendment. Ignoring everything our Founding Fathers wrote and said regarding an armed citizen. I urge everyone to read up on who founded the ACLU and you will realize that it was the brainchild of a marxist. They show their true colors when they refuse to defend the second amendment, parental rights, property rights and on and on. The only thing they defend is their view of the Constitution. Considering who it was founded by, that is a very scary thought.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:53 am
The problem with the ACLU, again, is its Marxist, anti-American agenda. They work with the NEA to undermine our educational system and to ensure that our children DO NOT understand their constitutional rights. They actively work with the NEA to suppress knowledge of our historical past, and especially knowledge of t he American Revolution, and how armed civilians formed a multitude of small armies, guerrilla units, and other kinds of disparate fighting forces and defeated the greatest military on earth at places such as Concorde Bridge, Bennington, Oriskany, Saratoga, King’s Mountain, Cowpens, and a host of other places.
The ACLU opposes home schooling, because being Marxists, they believe that children should be wards of the state, and that their education should be state controlled, exactly as was the case in their ideal state, the Soviet Union. The ACLU wants rights for terrorists, and illegal aliens who commit crimes on American soil, giving productive and law-abiding Latinos a bad name, in order to undermine the basic American social order. The ACLU is fundamentally against Latino culture, which is based on strong, heterosexually-oriented families. I could go on.
The one thing the ACLU does oppose is civil liberties for law abiding citizens. When was the last time the ACLU stepped up to the plate to challenge these leftist speech codes being promulgated on our universities? In fct, they have never opposed such codes, but helped draft them instead. Each of their positions is carefully crafted to advance the powers of the liberal state over and against the citizenry.
This message as originally posted was dropped by the “moderator”. Some commitment to freedom of speech!
July 7th, 2008 at 6:46 am
ACLU just lost my respect!!
July 7th, 2008 at 7:17 am
While I agree with the rest of you on the ACLU’s stance on the second amendment, the ACLU isn’t going around taking people’s guns away either. On a principle stance you could argue that they should be supporting 2nd amendment rights, in a more practical sense all organizations prioritize. The fact that the ACLU will not fight for 2nd amendment rights is not a reason to not support it. They do fight for many other rights. If disagreement on a single issue was cause for not supporting a group I do not think I could support any group.
I will continue to support the ACLU. Personally I think an organization that will allow 700+ comments disagreeing with it to be posted on its site is worthy of my support and money.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:56 am
From the top of your own web site – you MIGHT recognize these words.
“it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Yet you support disarming us so that we cannot do that?
July 7th, 2008 at 8:20 am
From the top of this page, “As always, we welcome your comments.” yet you’ve deleted my comments. No profanity was used.
Looks like one way to limit criticism of your anti Second Amendment “RULING” is to censor your readers.
Way to go American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Hey ACLU…get the picture? There’s approximately potential 700 new members who posted above if you really want to defend the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd! How many more of the 3 million NRA members could you add? $$$
July 7th, 2008 at 9:13 am
It’s really a shame that there isn’t one organization that I can count on to come to my defense for any and all of my rights. The ACLU could have been that organization. Had they changed their position I would gladly join them and become a regular contributor. But until they recognize my right to own a gun and to defend myself with equal force that will never happen. I’m positive that there are others like me out there, seeing the poll results as a reaction to the case it’s undeniable and I don’t see why the ACLU would wish to defy the will of the people as reflected in the SCOTUS decision other than for a subjective political agenda.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:16 am
As many here have said before me, how truly sad. An organization that holds itself up to protecting the rights of individuals so clearly states they don’t agree with all INDIVIDUAL rights.
I certainly have no intention of supporting an organization (ACLU) that refuses to protect all of an individual’s rights.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:17 am
So you are not the ACLU, you’re the A-SOME-CLU, right!?
July 7th, 2008 at 9:36 am
ACLU doesn’t really give a tinker’s damn about Civil Liberties. They turn a blind eye to gun owners being told which seat they can have on the bus — yup gun owners get to sit at the very back. Got a separate drinking fountain too.
The ACLU would not know a civil liberty if swam up and bit them in the ass.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:03 am
The 2nd amendment (in my interpretation) gives the God fearing and other Americans the right to bear any legally obtainable arms to defend oneself from harm due to another individual, government(foriegn or domestic) or organization that tries to suppress our rights, freedoms, and way of life. An armed society keeps dictators away. The aclu reminds me alot of Hitler. GOD I repeat GOD bless this country and all that it stands for (which does include practice your own religion freely just don’t try to take away our Christian foundings.)
July 7th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Ten years ago, if someone had suggested I might give money to the NRA instead of the ACLU, I would have laughed heartily.
No longer laughing.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:12 am
The views of the ACLU have always boggled my mind. They’re completely illogical and have no common sense.
~”It’s the camel’s nose in the tent. Look at Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Idi Amin–every one of these monsters, on seizing power, their first act was to confiscate all firearms in private hands…” ~Charlton Heston
July 7th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I will not be renewing my membership to the ACLU until they recognise the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
You cannot pick and choose which rights you “like” and which you “don’t”
The right to own a gun is just as important as free speech and protections from incrimination, etc.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Congrats, you just destroyed any shred of legitimacy and dignity that you had.
You know it is dishonest to say that you can’t advocate the second amendment because certain things are left ambiguous. That is exactly what legal advocacy is about: flushing out things that are ambiguous.
For instance, you sued local municipalities based on quasi-religious displays, even when those displays were donated by private organizations. Previously, all the precedent was contingent on the State actually spending money on the display, but you filed suit despite that ambiguity. To suggest that you cannot advocate for the Second Amendment because certain things are ambiguous is a complete lie, and you know it.
You really ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You people act holier-than-thou about protecting racial minorities and illegal immigrants. Check the history books, gun control has strong ties to racism in America. The very first gun control law in this country was interpreted to prohibit black men from being armed, thus making them easier to enslave.
The fact that you pick and choose what civil liberties and constitutional rights to advocate shows exactly what kind of people you are: closed minded, elitist militant-liberals who are simply trying to impose their way of life on others. If you gave a damn about the civil liberties of Americans, you would support all of them.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Until the mid 90’s I was an ardent supporter of the ACLU, with the exception of their odd take on the second, it felt like my political “home”. (I bought a page in the Seattle Calendar in memory of my mom.)
But after one two many arguments from other ACLU members who completely tortured the grammar of the second amendment I decided enough was enough. So, color me “homeless” in the political sense. I’ll be glad to re join once ACLU accepts simple logic on this one.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Based on the names of your directors I knew where the “American Commie Union” stood on this issue.
It’s funny how you guys consider the 1st,3rd,4th,5th ammendments to be individual rights but the 2nd is not.
Gun control isn’t about guns,it’s about control
July 7th, 2008 at 10:46 am
So the American Civil Liberties Union disagrees with the Supreme Court when they affirm a Civil Liberty that the vast majority of all Americans believe in and support, is that about right?
So if you aren’t siding with Americans, and you aren’t siding with Civil Liberties even when expressley adopted by the Supreme Court, should you change your name?
How about: Anti-American Communist and Liberal-militants Union? That way you can still keep the acronym.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Let’s not forget,the second ammendment is the only ammendment that can guarantee and enforce all the rest.
All others is just a bunch of words and print.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Nothing new I could say that hasn’t already been said dozens of time in this thread. To paraphrase in concise bullet points:
* Libertarian not liberal
* Personally, in Cook County, IL 2nd Amendment most under attack on a direct, monthly basis
*My pervious defense of ACLU and its policies and actions regarding the other parts of the BOR has perhaps been overstated as to purity of ACLU motivation
* However, have always thought previous position on 2nd was just an excuse – disturbing, but benefit of the doubt
* Have always been willing to financially support ACLU IF they ever supported 2nd. Doesn’t look like I’ll be writing a check to ACLU any time soon — CATO, yes.
* Obviously as a responsible, citizen gun owner my rights are more distasteful to ACLU leadership than NAMBLA, Nazis, KKK…
WTFG! The emperor wears no clothes.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Nobody is fooled any longer by your phony stance on rights.
Your stance on the 2nd ammendment verifies this.
You folks are a front for tyrants and collectivists.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I’ve defended the ACLU against those who simplistically point out the horrible people you have defended. I wanted to support the ACLU, but couldn’t, as I felt the pre-Heller 2A opinion was silly. I will never support you while you maintain a anti-Constitutional stance like the one you currently have against the 2A. Shame on you all.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:10 am
The American Communist Lawyers’ Union has a strange way of interpreting the clear language of the Bill of Rights. In every other amendment, “the People” refers to the rights of individuals. Collective states’ rights are clearly labeled, “the right of the states… .” For the ACLU to pretend that the 2nd Amendment is somehow different is to betray the clear meaning of this amendment and of the Constitution of which it’s a part.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:11 am
In an emergency,calling 911 is government sponsored “dial a prayer”.
A gun in your hand is better than a cop on the phone.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:13 am
ACLU = American Commie-Lib Underground.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:18 am
“S” said: “The fact that the ACLU will not fight for 2nd amendment rights is not a reason to not support it.”
The fact that the ACLU will spend your donations and their time assisting people who want to unconstitutionally REMOVE your second amendment rights gives us EVERY reason not to support them.
Thanks, ACLU. You’ve done more to paint yourselves as an unconstitional anti-American group than I could ever do on random blog postings. You will hold a prominent position in the annals of stupidity forevermore.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:23 am
“…the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I guess I fail to read that statement with the clouded vision that afflicts so many in this country. What it says and what it means are plain as day.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Interesting that several posters suggest the possible repeal of the Second Amendment, when in fact, and pursuant to Heller, et. al., the right is not at all dependent on the Second:
“. . . it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ”
A repeal of the Second Amendment would not negate the inherent, pre-existing right – and any attempt at such would surely endanger every other constitutional guarantee and limit on government power.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am
My liberal friend Eric, not a gun owner but a Second Amendment supporter, ACLU member, and JPFO member, asked me awhile ago why I (an NRA member, and a GOAL member) do not support the ACLU since I stand so strongly on the side of the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. He thought it was curious that I would give so much money to organizations that only fight for one Amendment, when the ACLU supposedly fights for them all.
THIS is why I don’t support the ACLU, and I told him so, and unless they change their position, I never will. The single most important Amendment in the Bill of Rights and the ACLU continually thumbs its nose up at it. I cannot in good conscience give my money to such a hypocritical organization. At least the NRA and GOAL don’t claim to fight for anything other than the 2nd Amendment… ACLU claims to fight for ALL of our Civil Rights but they are LIARS.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I’m a practicing civil rights attorney and I am not a member of the ACLU because of their hypocritical stance on this issue.
The Supreme Court has held (in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez) that “the people” is a term of art, and has the same meaning in the first, second, fourth, ninth, and tenth Amendments.
By maintaining that the right of “the people” defended by the 2nd amendment is a collective right, the ACLU is severely undermining its argument that the rights of “the people” protected elsewhere in the consitution are individual and not collective rights as well.
If the ACLU reversed its stance on this issue — even if it stated it would not take gun rights cases — I would join. As it stands I will not.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
That the ACLU–a group that claims the defense of civil liberties as its core mission–argues against the prohibition of a government monopoly on force is direct proof of the ACLU’s disingenuous hypocrisy.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
That the ACLU–a group that claims the defense of civil liberties as its core mission–argues against the prohibition of a government monopoly on force is direct proof of the ACLU’s disingenuous hypocrisy.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
So just what part of “…shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
July 7th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
This just shows what a fraud the ACLU is.Hopefully this will be your downfall.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Regarding your second amendment position, please add the following to your statement:
“The ACLU will gladly refund dues, or previous contributions, to any member who thinks ACLU should support the ENTIRE Bill of Rights.”
July 7th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
EXCUSE ME but the SUPREME COURT trumps your liberal philosophy and everywhere else in the bill of rights “people” is referring to an individual right. What gives you the right to re-write the Constitution OR the Bill of Rights?
July 7th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I guess when the NRA starts worrying about the rest of the Constitution, these guys will have a valid complaint.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
The ACLU considers the Second Amendment a “collective” right as they want us all living in a collective with dictated rights.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
This is so unfortunate. As a former donor to the ACLU and a big believer in what they do, it pains me greatly to hear this is their stance on this civil liberty. I for one will not be able to further support the ACLU financially or otherwise until they reevaluate their stance on this issue.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
So, the ACLU supports and defends Americans’ civil and individual Constitutional rights against an over-bearing and hostile government…RIGHT.
Enemy combatants/terrorists, you bet; unborn, near-term babies, nope; urine-soaked “art,” fer sure; sodomy, public nudity, pedofiles, nazis…yup yup yup; prayer in public schools, not if they’re Cristians; SCOTUS rules 2nd Amendment protects individual right to own and use a handgun in Washington, D.C. and the ACLU screams, “we disagree.”
You are no longer fit to call yourselves a civil liberties organization and I am deeply disappointed, offended and no longer respectful of your organization.
Not a consistant record, I’d say
July 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
whoa! this was a bit of a wake-up call for me. i always thought the aclu was “the good guys”. i’m curious to know which other civil liberties are “collective”, in your opinion.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Members and contributors to the ACLU, and I’ll bet quite a few ACLU Staffers are appalled by this stance. I suggest donors consider tax exempt contibutions to a Civil Rights Defense fund that helps average hard working people abused by overzealous bureaucrats. Staffers in the D.C. area may consider sending a resume. Here are some recent civil rights cases.
nradefensefund.org/litigation.aspx
July 7th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
ACLU, get with the picture. The majority of American’s want you to stand up for our rights. All of our rights enumerated under the Bill of Rights, not just those that you agree with. Either step up to the plate or lose any and all credibility and respect that you may have earned over the years. To fail to stand up for this very basic, individual right, is to admit your own leftist, liberal leanings.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
The reason the ACLU disagrees with the individual right of a person, born free, to defend him or herself is that gun control is a liberal pet issue. There is no “logical” defense of the ACLU’s stance on second amendment rights. Now, if you want to kill an innocent unborn baby or take a dump on the Bible while buring the American flag, the ACLU will be right there for you.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
If it is true (quoting Edward Bulwer-Lytton) that “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Sword,” then how can you justify defending the First Amendment?
July 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Matt, (770) NRA stands for National RIFLE Association. ACLU supposedly stands for American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union. See the difference ? The NRA started as specialists in the 2nd . The ACLU CLAIMS to stand for Civil Liberties in general. Now we see that claim is false. Meanwhile the NRA IS defending the 1st Amendment and the 5th. (McCain Feingold and Katrina )
July 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Many organizations would like to remain in denial and pretend the SCOTUS ruling really didn’t happen. They know they can’t, but one continues to do so: ACLU.
The verdict has been announced: It’s an individual right. Nothing more to say as the highest opinion of the nation was unanimous about it. As a result, D.C. politicians admitted defeat and set to work rewriting the district gun-control laws. The Brady Campaign and all other anti-gun groups are now modifying their gun-control efforts so as to still respect the SCOTUS ruling.
Only the ACLU continues to remain in denial, refusing to accept reality. The ACLU is an organization, nothing more. It doesn’t matter if they disagree with the SCOTUS ruling, we all have to live by it. If they want to throw a temper-tantrum and refuse to accept the decision made by the highest authority in the country…well, that’s their decision. However, it is childish to behave like this. It’s time to grow up.
Until you, ACLU, can behave more maturely I can’t help but question if you will use my money responsibly. I’ll hold on to it until you can prove you’re worthy of using it wisely.
Now, go to your room and think about what you have done. You can come out when you are ready to apologize for your behavior and respect what your superior authorities.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I find it very curious indeed that the so-called liberals running the ACLU and claiming to believe in the concept of power to the people cannot fathom the right of the people to possess the actual tools of power, that is to say, guns. The history of the so-called civilized governmental monopoly on the possession of arms during the Twentieth Century alone is tainted by the stench of the mass graves containing the remains of a quarter of a billon officially exterminated innocent victims.
Perhaps the following two essays may cast the light of reason upon their collectivism and PC addled psyches:
catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html
jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp
July 7th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Anyone who wants be informed can read the Framers essays, arguments,etc. Mason, Jefferson, Adams, Henry, and many others all held forth on this idea. None of them indicated it to be a collective right. To the contrary the debates in various state legislatures, the debates concerning the Virginia bill of rights,etc. all make this utterly clear. There have been modern Law Review monographs on this issue, reproducing the original arguments, and discussing the intent: all are clear on this being an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Those at the ACLU are scholarly enough to know this, they just do not want it to be so. This is elitist hypocrisy and nothing else. Perhaps these folks would be more at home in Europe, where rights are given by governments, as they were by monarchs, and not recognized as natural rights as our founders believed.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
A lot of the comments above presuppose that the ACLU was actually in favor of civil liberties in principle…it was founded by communists and socialists as a means of using creative interpretations of valid civil liberties wherever possible as a means to hamper the government and people of the United States…anyone who thought otherwise was deceived from the start. See Snopes:
message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=21474
July 7th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
To all the pro-gunner’s posting here, I would like to make a couple suggestions on how we can become better advocates for liberty.
1) The Heller decision was close. 5-4. Had it gone the other way we would be criticizing the Court for its ruling. My point it is, it is reasonable and in fact necessary to think and judge about what the Court says. Not all decisions are good ones. See Kelo v. New London.
2) I’m an “endowment” member of the NRA. The NRA was not behind the Heller lawsuit. In fact, the NRA tried to derail it because the mix of the Court was probably not in our favor. (Roberts and Alito had not be confirmed.) Bob Levy, Alan Gura, and the plaintiffs are the ones that get the credit for this effort.
3) The board of the NRA needs significant change. Wayne La Pierre gets $950K / yr to run the 501(c)(3) non profit corporation. He and others are more rhetoric than action. The NRA has fallen away from its true purpose (training) to its modern purpose (lobbying). We also need members on the board who promote 2nd Amendment causes that don’t run afoul other liberties such as private property rights and federalism at large. The NRA has become more about revenue scaremongering than actual action.
3) Lastly, the Heller decision is not a great decision for the 2nd Amendment. While they did hold that there was an individual right, they set no standard for review. Furthermore, the Court said that so called “reasonable restrictions” could be legitimate. Futhermore, it stated that Class III weapons (like machineguns) could be continue to be banned because they are not in common use and that they could be construed to be “dangerous and unusual.” This poor circular logic probably inserted to get a majority of 5 votes. The reason these arms are not in common possession is because the Federal Government has been infringing on the 2nd Amendment for some time now.
4) Lastly, the ACLU *is* right in that the line will have be drawn somewhere as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. I would say that the 2nd Amendment protects the ownership of small arms. The difficultly of establishing this line is that it is determined by an unelected group of 9 (thank John C. Marshall et al in Marbury v. Madison) or it is established by constitutional amendment.
In any case… I like insult the ACLU too but it serves little purpose. It is better to present them with damning questions of their position and demand an answer that we are likely to believe.
To the ACLU: Either get on board with our natural right to self defense OR get out of the kitchen.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I keep getting “wrong anti-spam word”.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
If so many members are upset with your out of touch leadership, why don’t you replace them. What is the process for replacing the directors of the ACLU?
July 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
well, I’m not planning on renewing my ACLU membership if the organization continues to selectively protect parts of the Bill of Rights and ignore others.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Ever notice that when liberals are proven wrong, they suddenly say they disagree, but when you disagree with a liberal you are intolerant or a racist for not supporting affirmative action, abortion or higher taxes?
gunmap.org
see where guns even protect liberals,
July 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Great work folks, you’ve lost another supporter. I’m a liberal who is also a gun owner (yes, we really exist). I’m done trying to reconcile my support for the ACLU with it’s lack of support for the ENTIRE Bill of Rights.
The ACLU has just proven to me that it has become a hollow shell of its former self. You are hypocrites and will no longer be getting any donations from me.
Good luck and good riddance.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
The ACLU’s fight for civil liberties is really very simple.
1st Amdmt RELIGION-they fight for any religion except Christianity or Judaism, so long as it involves the breakdown of traditional American religions.
SPEECH- only speech which is politically correct.
PRESS-only leftwing press and media.
PETITION- only if the redress leads to disruption of free American institutions.
ASSEMBLY- only if the meetings will allow for disruption of free instittions. Any left-wing, queer, pro-abortion or anti religious, anti-war meeting is encouraged and protected.
2nd Amdmt RIGHT TO KEEP & BEAR ARMS Forget it. No totalitarian likes it when the rabbit has the gun.
3rd Amdmt QUARTERING OF SOLDIERS Would strongly protect this and anything anti-military.
4th Amdmt SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, WARRANTS Selectively dealt with, so long as there is a pro-Marxist outcome.
5th Amdmt DUE PROCESS, SELF INCRIMINATION, DOUBLE JEOPARY Selectively dealt with, so long as there is a pro-Marxist outcome and pletty of legal confusion.
6th Amdmt RIGHTS OF ACCUSED Selectively dealt with, so long as there is a pro-Marxist outcome, or real disruption by runaway criminal elements…remember what Marcuse said, “breakdown of society/culture is the NEW road to Marxist Revolution.
7th Amdmt TRIAL BY JURY Selectively dealt with, so long as there is a pro-Marxist outcome.
8th Amdmt EXCESSIVE BAIL, CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT Depends on who you are, and whether you’re protesting for the right cause.
9th Amdmt ENUMERATED RIGHTS Forget it!
10th Amdm OTHER ENUMERATED RIGHTS Challege to these would would weaken the power of the central government. Forget it!
July 7th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10?
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10…
Seriously its time for the ACLU to start defending the 2nd amendment or change its name.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
A couple of cute efforts to deflect criticism of the ACLU by turning the discussion into a critique of the NRA.? Is the NRA perfect? No. But which organization has actively attacked what has been called the Palladium of Liberty?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
The ACLU’s belief of a collective right on the 2nd amendment is absolutely wrong.
I will never give aid to this (now)socialist leaning group again, unless all rights are observed AND fought for in the Bill Of Rights.
How dare you to presume to pick and choose the rights of the people. Who do you think you are??
July 7th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The Supreme Court was crystal clear; the 2nd amendment is an individual right that includes self defense.
So why is the ACLU sitting on the sidelines like a church mouse waiting for the courts and others to define what that means? Why isn’t the ACLU out there agressively defending this right like they do the rest of our rights?
If the ACLU lacks the courage to fight for all the rights of Americans, even the ones some liberals find offensive, the the leadership needs to realize this organization has become a political shill for political correctness/the democrat party and not the lion of liberty it once was.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
The relatively recent sophistry that is the “collective right” theory of the Second Amendment has never been credible by anyone who takes the Constitution seriously.
Now, if you’re interested in manipulating that document to serve selfish ends, why sure, it’s a fine idea.
I believe that there should be an ACLU, but I would be much happier with the organization if it was to drop this pretense.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
The Marxist roots of the ACLU are clearly exposed in this stance. The first thing any socialist, fascist movement wants to do is disarm the opposition.
Seig Heil, ACLU!
July 7th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
If you wonderful defenders of truth and justice should need another job, I don’t think Monster posts jobs for Kapo’s.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
The ACLU has once again proven that intelligence is not needed for membership. They can kiss my religion and gun clinging ass.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.
You know, that might explain why the ACLU’s got half a million members and the NRA is somewhere around 4 million.
I don’t care if the ACLU wants to duck 2nd amendment issues. That’s fine if they don’t want to pick those fights. That’s what the NRA is for, but for the love of God, stop repeating this collective right BS. Even the dissent in the case admitted that there’s an individual right.
ACLU Member: 67106351
July 7th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
My post was not vulgar, did not violate any of the rules of this site, and was still deleted.
I guess you worthless people have given up on the first amendment as well.
I’ll briefly re-state what I said in my first post: I am a Liberal as well as a gun owner, and I will no longer support you.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Gura’s Choice for President? Bob Barr.
http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/07/02/guras-choice-for-president-bob-barr/
July 7th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
How very disappointing that such a noble organization would ever take a view that would narrow individual rights vis a vis the State
July 7th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Since when has the ACLU actually been anything other than a front group for socialism in this country?
I’m surprised at the amount of people here that are just now realizing this.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
I was speaking with a friend when the news came down regarding the Supreme Court ruling; I bet him $100 dollars that the ACLU would not, could not, change its stance and as a result, would show itself to be the long standing “hypocritical sham” most of us knew it to be.
Needless to say, I’m up $100 dollars.
Thanks for showing your true colors ACLU!
July 7th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
You still don’t get it. Your opposition to the individual rights theory is rooted in your urban, elitist view that the common folk don’t need firearms. The right to own firearms for self defense is rooted in English common law and is the right of any free people. Your fear is blinding you to the reality that all governments eventually become too powerful and turn citizens into subjects, then slaves.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Just for the hell of I read all replies and found NOT ONE in favor of aclu position and frankly, I am not surprised. The writing is on the wall. Get a job and get out of your mother’s basement. Oh, and lose the grey ponytail and the sandles.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
All freedom is important, only some freedoms aren’t really as important, and aren’t really freedoms at all.
Especially when the muckety-mucks at the ACLU think those freedoms are like icky and stuff.
You people are a freakin’ joke.
And the funniest part is that you don’t even know what a freakin’ joke you smarmy, smarter-than-thou pseudo-freedom crusaders are.
Freedom is freedom only when the ACLU agrees it is.
Jokes….total and absolute jokes and clowns.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I’ve been an ACLU member and supporter for decades but I’m very disappointed over ACLU’s refusal to recognize the Heller decision that the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) for self-defense is an individual right as PA (1776), VT (1777), and other states clearly stated in their respective declarations of rights.
The dissenting opinions written by Stevens/Breyer for the four dissenting justices recognized that RKBA is an individual right although they play word games to show the Second Amendment protects a militia (collective) right and not an individual right.
The original question framed by the court focused on the Second Amendment and neither Stevens nor Breyer discuss whether an individual RKBA would have been protected as an un-enumerated right by the Ninth Amendment if as Stevens/Breyer contend an individual RKBA is not protected by the Second.
ACLU can either recognize RKBA is an individual right or lose my support in the future.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Since you have now decided that the 2nd amendment is a collective right while all the others are individual, you completely lost ALL of my support. I am a Gun owning, liberal Gay man.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:21 am
‘Did you really think we want those laws observed? We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against … We’re after power and we mean it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them.’ – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:14 am
When the government (in this case, WashDC) fails to defend its law-abiding citizens, it cannot thereafter ask the law-abiding to hand over its guns. People have a right to defend themselves. And the idea that the founders meant a collective right to keep and bear arms….puhleeze! You’re becoming a joke. Now go support some school speech code or something.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:12 am
Hey you Socialist hypocrits, Either defend ALL TEN amendments or shut up.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:45 am
I’d like to thank the Anti-American Criminal Liberties Union for once again proving that I am correct in not supporting them. They’re nothing but a marxist organization trying to destroy our liberties. The ACLU would never argue that the 1st, 5th or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights was a collective instead of individual right. By applying that facetious argument to the 2nd amendment they merely expose their true intentions.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:01 am
When the ACLU cherry picks which rights they choose to support then they have become the same as the government they are supposed to help defend against. Thus they have become pointless.
I propose a new name for this organization:The ACLBOTWAOU, The American Civil Liberties But Only Those WE Approve Of Union.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Move along people, nothing to see here at the ACLU…… it’s just a gang of rabid marxists-leftists conducting their business as ususal.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:47 am
I am confused as to which part of “will not be infringed” you don’t understand! Oh well, guess I’ll just cling to my guns and religion…and my Constitution.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Congratulations, your organization is now out in the open as the morally bankrupt and ideologically moribund group we have known it to be for quite some time.
As a fan of civil liberties and individual freedom I couldn’t be happier. Happy for Heller and happy this also gives “The People”, that means all of us in case the meaning is unclear in some incomprehensible way, a clear view of what is in store for our nation if and when the view point of your organization becomes the majority view. Civil liberties then become subject to prejudices and fears. The rule of law becomes moot. The Supreme Court become irrelevant. The Bill of Rights then carries the weight of toilet paper.
Is there a more fundamental right than the right to preserve your own life?
July 8th, 2008 at 8:27 am
“The ACLU has received funding from the Open Society Institute, the Arca Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation, the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Columbia Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the JEHT Foundation,THE JOYCE FOUNDATION, the Lear Family Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Woods Fund of Chicago.”
discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145
I couldn’t understand or comprehend how the ACLU could support their “collective rights” position regarding the 2A, especially after the individual rights argument was upheld 9-0 in SCOTUS. But when I looked at the list of left leaning donors; epiphany.
Just follow the cash.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:28 am
What ever made any of you think the ACLU was for Amrican values?
ACLU Stated Goals
The ACLU’s founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: “We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself… We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal.” (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)
July 8th, 2008 at 8:59 am
“”The ACLU has received funding from the Open Society Institute, the Arca Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation, the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Columbia Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the JEHT Foundation,THE JOYCE FOUNDATION, the Lear Family Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Woods Fund of Chicago.”
discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145
Not really a surprising position taken by the ACLU when you consider where the money is coming from.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Forget the American Criminal Liberties Union. They get no more of my money.
Henceforth, my contributions go to the Second Amendment Foundation.
The ACLU should be ashamed.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Why will the ACLU defend NAMBLA but not teh Second Amendment?
Becasue the ACLU shares tastes with NAMBLA.
Why does this surprise anyone?
July 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Why do the moderators keep blocking my post?
“The ACLU has received funding from the Open Society Institute, the Arca Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation, the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Columbia Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the JEHT Foundation,THE JOYCE FOUNDATION, the Lear Family Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Woods Fund of Chicago.”
discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145
I’m simply trying to find ANY plausible excuse for the ACLU’s ridiculous support of the collective rights argument. I figure that showing where the money comes from is logical, no?
July 8th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I’ve been a long time member of the ACLU. After seeing this blog, I will be canceling my membership.
To argue that the Second Amendment is referring to a collective right to arm state militias is as absurd as saying that the right to free speech is a collective right to state run newspapers. In every other amendment, the words “the people” refer to individual citizens. To argue that the the Second Amendment refers only to a collective makes absolutely no sense when taken in context with the rest of the amendments. The Bill of Rights refers to individual rights, and the ACLU needs to respect the intent of our Founding Fathers.
The ACLU does a lot of good work promoting civil rights, but when the ACLU starts advocating taking away some of my rights, it’s time to cancel my membership, withdraw my support, and move on. I will be donating the dues I would have paid to the ACLU to the NRA.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:23 am
I think it’s more an issue with slow moderation than blocking, but I could be wrong.
However, it’s interesting that an organization that supposedly is pro free speech would pre-moderate at all.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:28 am
On my real point, however, is if on your “About us” page you list the that the Bill of Rights which you support is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, then it does appear that you are violating your stated mission statement by not also supporting the 2nd amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, as enumerated in the Constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court.
If you are going to continue with this ridiculous stance, then you need to change your mission statement.
Once one makes a commitment, one keeps it. Not merely when it’s convenient to do so.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I’ve blindly defended the ACLU in the past but my eyes are now wide open. You are the wolf pretending to be the sheep dog.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I wonder what the Pink Pistols, a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender self defense group says about your position on Heller. They actually filed o brief on behalf of Heller so they can protect themselves.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:21 am
If you look way at the top of the blog there actually is a statement as to why the ACLU moderates and some of the things that will get a comment blocked immediately that have nothing to do with its content.
I would also comment that the anti-spam filter on this site is horrible as the anti-spam word is sometimes illegible and thus impossible to reproduce properly.
My comment at this point is that after a week of getting over a hundred comments a day without any sort of response, it seems obvious that the ACLU is not listening.
Which is sad since they are doing good work in other areas but are willing to let an unprincipled stance poison all of their work by bringing their motives on every issue into question.
Having declared that having a right is not adequate grounds for that right to be valued, we can no longer take as given that the ACLU defends a right because it is a right.
I simply cannot understand how the ACLU can say, we think one of your rights should not exist. How can that be your stance?
I don’t expect the ACLU to divert funds to 2nd amendment cases, the NRA can cover that end, but a simple acknowledgement that we have a right seems like it should be what the ACLU would want to do.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I am truly saddened, ACLU.
I can no longer defend you against those that try to malign you by taking cases out of context.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
It’s long been known that the ACLU is just a leftist organization that supports it’s “OWN” agenda, not the rights of the people. If you don’t consider the SCOTUS ruling to be true, you need to close up shop and never speak again.
The only time the ACLU agrees with anything, is if it fit’s it’s own agenda. I’m not surprised by this at all.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Bill of Rights. Hummmmm. Now, to whom does the Bill of Right apply to? Also, have you ever heard of the Federalist’s Letters? Our founding Fathers told us what the second amendment is. Did people forget how to read?
July 8th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
The supreme court is a little more important than the ACLU is. Saying “no” and stamping your feet into the groung just makes you look like my 5 year old
July 8th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
So, you are going to hide the only active blog you have ? Don’t like what you hear ? Like a kid covering his ears.
dlyn454
July 8th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
If this is the pronouncement of the leadership of the ACLU, then the Directors of the ACLU should be replaced.
From Wikipedia:
–
Currently, the leadership of the ACLU includes Executive Director Anthony Romero and President Nadine Strossen. The national board of directors consists of representatives elected by each state affiliate as well as at-large delegates elected by boards of each affiliate. Each state affiliate has an Executive Director and Board of Directors.
–
Work toward removing from the board of your state ACLU affiliate any director who doesn’t understand the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
So, how does this work? How can the ACLU come out with a position in opposition to to individual rights. This is a blatant admission that the ACLU is just another leftist organization with an agenda completely separate from protecting the rights of Americans. We need to rise up together and depose our oppressors, namely the ACLU.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
This is why i have never given a cent to the ACLU. its sad that its come to this for the members and contributors of this site to open there eyes to the true Far left agenda of the ACLU. I wouldnt be suprised if the ACLU flipped there opinion on this issue in an attempt to save there members and $ contributers from leaving. F**kin posers
July 8th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
When will the ACLU start defending all of our Civil Liberties? Can anybody answer that question?? I find it amazingly irrational that the 2nd Amendment does not warrant the ACLU’s attention and defense.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
So I’ve seen that you’ve recanted your position somewhat:
“The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.”
Sorry, that’s not good enough. All NINE justices said that the 2nd is an individual right. To say that you disagree with settled law regarding basic civil rights is contrary to the ideal of an organization that I joined, thinking that you would protect ALL civil rights. What other civil rights are negotiable to the ACLU, to whom I have given so much money to? Free speech? Right to privacy? Right to a jury trial, perhaps?
I can’t take that risk.
Expect my shredded ACLU membership card in the mail soon. This liberal Democrat is calling it quits.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Dear ACLU
You should be fighting for the rights of the American people. Not the repression of the American people.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I am an open-minded person with a fairly libertarian political view. Because of your blatant hypocrisy regarding the 2nd Amendment I will instead send my money to the NRA. This organization should know better than most not to trust the government completely and absolutely. What do you propose to do in the event of a tyrannical government…throw law books at them? The Founders established a system of checks and balances. The gun owners of America are THE “check” on fascism and tyranny. Please stand up for my rights, I stand up for yours.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I have tried to give the ACLU the benefit of the doubt over the years that despite their liberal bias, they really were trying to protect civil liberties. With their position on the second amendment, they have shown that they are enemies of freedom and liberty.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
My two cents on why the ACLU should support the 2nd amendment and the reason I have a concealed carry permit:
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.
Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society.
A mugger – even an armed one – can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would “only” result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways.
Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker.
If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of octogenarians it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn’t work as well as force equalizer if it weren’t both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I’m looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.
I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I am a member of the NRA. I have been disappointed over the years that the ACLU has not supported the 2nd Amendment. I was even more disappointed that the ACLU still does not support the 2nd Amendment. I think that if the ACLU was to publically change their position, and support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you may be able to get some of us NRA folks to donate to the ACLU.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
The ACLU has never been about rights…it’s always been about controversy to keep itself in the news. Nothing but a bunch of socialist dirtbags who would rather see the Taliban have the right to wear C4 vests than have an American protect him or herself.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
“The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.”
But, it doesn’t matter if you agree or don’t agree, since the SCOTUS ruled, it is, in fact, an individual right. If you decide to disregard any rights with which you don’t agree, you should change your name. ”American Civil Liberties Union“ is a misrepresentation since you don’t recognize some civil liberties.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Your position is inconsistent, ACLU. You say the right to keep and bear arms isn’t a civil-liberties issue, yet you take a position on it. You don’t take positions on any other non-civil-liberties issues, so why the need to do so here? Perhaps you believe “the people” have the right to have their guns confiscated by the government? A VERY peculiar position from an organization that talks so much of freedom! SHAME!
July 9th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Wow. It seems that maybe people realize that ACLU is full of crap.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Why doesn’t the ACLU support all of the civil liberties enumerated in the U.S. Constitution?
July 9th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I have been saying for years that the American Criminal Liberation Union was a bunch of hypocrites pushing a Marxist agenda through a very selective interpretation of the Bill of Rights. My liberal friends thought that couldn’t possibly be so. Thanks for proving me right.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Oooops! Now ACLU has shown its real face!
July 9th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I stopped giving money to the ACLU when I received a ballot to elect the president of our state chapter. The candidates discussed how they were involved in “liberal causes,” and how supporting the ACLU fit into that mold. Now we see that the ACLU isn’t an impartial organisation defending liberty, it’s another useless crew of partisan hacks.
Don’t expect any money from me.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:16 am
The ACLU is just a front for NAMBLA. THey hate America more than anyone.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:22 am
On speech and voting rights the ACLu is correct, but on the right to protect yourself the ACLU is wrong, and sucking at the Joyce foundation teet.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:23 am
The ACLU reveals it’s communist, anti-USA roots again.
Despite all the fluff about Civil rights, the truth is that the ACLU is the American Criminal Lovers Union.
Any ruling or action that decreases the number of criminals is opposed by the ACLU lawyers.
Heller does it two ways:
1. by allowing law abiding citizens to stay that way through reasonable governance, and
2. by citizens reducing the number of goblin crimes through deterrence and goblin elimination.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Just can’t get off the Joyce Foundation’s teet, can you ACLU?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:17 am
One less supporter here. Stop the aclu.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I think it’s great the ACLU has taken this position. It exposes the organization as nothing more than a phony front for aging hippy commies and their hate-America agenda.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:33 am
The ACLU clearly demonstrates its collectivist (Marxist) basis by insisting on it’s own collectivist interpretation of the Second Amendment. Marxists such as the ACLU have always been hostile to the idea of an armed populace, because armed people are difficult to enslave.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Besides guns then, which of the other rights in the Bill of Rights is COLLECTIVE?
hmmmmmmmm……………..
Oh ok, the ACLU is on the Gun-Ban Wagon.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:41 am
We can complain all we want, the only opinion that counts here is the Joyce foundation’s. The ACLU is owned in fee simple by a handful of liberal foundations and wealthy donors, and will never do anything they’d disapprove of, no matter the cost in membership and credibility.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Why exactly would there be only one “collective right” in the Bill of Rights? And why would it be the second? Obviously if it were “collective” the amendment wouldn’t be necessary. Obviously all the Bill of Rights are individual rights. But not to you morons.
The ten amendments stand together. This was a chance to reach out to America at large. Are you politically tone deaf? Or are you purposely politically tone deaf? Can’t have too many people jumping on that civil liberties bandwagon, can we.
I always wondered why your public defenses were so incompetent over the years. I guess that’s what your masters wanted. Left gatekeepers aren’t you?
July 9th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Communists!!!!!!!!!
July 9th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Wow ACLU,
856 posts and counting.
Hey Nadine, have you got your head up your ass still?
856 and from what I have read, not one in favor of the ACLU stance.
STILL?
Unbelievable.
Give me a call when you decide to join the 21st century.
Brooklyn Dave
July 9th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Funny, how this organization bent over backwards to find a consitutional right to an abortion (not in the constitution!) or to use birthcontrol (this isn’t mentioned either) or burn a flag, all rights deriving from “penumbras” and other such tortured extensions of logic, but the 2nd Amendment is to be narrowly interpreted?
Funny, you oh so smart lawyers figured out that the founding fathers meant to protect a woman’s means of protection from impregnation from a microscopic zygote, but didn’t mean for her to be able to protect herself from a 180lb assailant?
July 9th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Wow, the court has spoken and looking at the comments above the people are speaking. You-all come on down here to Texas and learn how to safely shoot guns and defend your-all-selves, you hear me, just you do it. The court has spoken and it is time to exercise your individual right.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Fist off these jackasses contend the 2nd amd is not an individual right.
Thus they refuse to take a stand against a collective ban, which is a violation of our civil rights.
I guess they get more money from the shit-bag Niggers and illegal Mexicans and poor white trash that break into our homes and are shot by individuals exercising their right to bear arms and self defense.
Oops, I wonder if the ACLU will protect my right against free speech.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
The ACLU position is intellectual dishonest pure and simple… everyone realizes it is dishonest… even the liberal members of the SCOUS recognized the individual right…
Shame on the ACLU… I was going to renew my membership… but I spent the money to become a member of the NRA… they are at least intellectualy honest…
July 9th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
OldTexan,
Not sure they’d be allowed. After all, the Supreme Court deliberately mentioned that felons and the MENTALLY INCOMPETENT could be constitutionally prevented from possessing a firearm.
Considering the stance they published at the top of this page, if they’re not the former, they pretty much HAVE to be the latter.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The Bill of Rights describes individual rights. More specifically, it describes MY RIGHTS as a citizen of the United States. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t create that right, it CONFIRMS that the right shall not be infringed by the government. I find it perverse that an organization ostensibly dedicated to protecting the civil rights and liberties of individuals is actually telling me that I personally have no 2nd Amendment right.
Congratulations, you have proven your detractors correct. The ACLU really is apparently nothing more than another far-left lobbying group. It’s the only explanation that negates the dissonance created by the American Civil Liberties Union arguing for LESS American civil liberties (unless, of course, they advance some liberal agenda like an obedient, unarmed socialist population).
July 9th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I, as many others have and will be canceling our Guardian of Liberty memberships. The monthly payments you take directly from my account will now be used for more range fees and ammo. Thanks!
July 9th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Well, I guess you guys are getting slapped today.
It seems that you showed your true face to the country. Not that it matters – I am sure your funding will suffer very little.
However, we will all remember this little fiasco whenever an ACLU lawyer shows up: you’re just a bunch of Commies with briefcases
July 9th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
The comments alone here are worth an hour of my day.
Thank You, so many of you, who “get it”.
And to the attorneys at the ACLU, go ask your Sephardic friends in Israel (the real Jews), if they’re ready to give up their guns.
L’Chaim!
July 9th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Sincerely, if your organization wishes to be a true defender of American liberties, then you must embrace the “individual” right to keep and bear arms. There were about 869 responses (which I did not read every one of them), but it would appear that you have lost or could have gained another 869 members. However, your ignorance and total hypocrisy of “defending the Bill of Rights” has failed to gain the respect of millions of law abiding citizens, including myself. Like some individuals indicated, the NRA is at least honest about defending one civil liberty and not claiming to defend all of them.
Shame on your organization. I will never support your organization unless you support the entire “Bill of Rights.”
July 9th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Glad to see the ACLU is willing to defend white supremacists and pedophiles on the 1st, but is willing to stab law-abiding Americans in the back on the 2nd. Shows their priorities are in the right place.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Excellent position on [I]Heller[/I], ACLU.
I suppose now you will be fervently supporting a new round of “Jim Crow” laws aimed at those who disagree with the decision and seek to undermine a new protected class and guaranteed individual freedom right. Bring on the literacy test, poll tax and property ownership equivalents! Good thing you weren’t around to help after [I]Brown[/I]. Oh, what’s that? … you were?
July 9th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I am not making any allegations here, just suggesting what the ACLU’s employees and donors should research. Any suggestion or statements I make are just my opinion and are not representing any facts.
I think the ACLU is going to have big problems with this Supreme Court in regard to “Separation of Church and State”; read Justice Scalia’s opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller and you should see it. ACLU employees and donors should research the history of the ACLU back to it’s founder; they should do the same on Anthony D. Romero. They should learn about his childhood experiences and how they are influencing his hate for this country. They should find out about him buying is position with the ACLU with $3,000,000 of Ford Motor’s money.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
user@darkstar:~$ links -dump law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html | grep “the people”
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
or to the people.
Why is it that one of these “the peoples” isn’t considered to be The People?
July 9th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
No intellectually honest person can think the framers did not intend the Second Amendment to protect an individual right. The original source documents are unanimous about this. The leftist dissent even went so far as to dishonestly insist that George Mason of all people, who was the most strenuous in insisting that the militia referred to ALL of the people, in favor of their position. The attempt to deny people this most fundamental right is nothing short of high treason and the ACLU should be prosecuted accordingly.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I’ve always said the ACLU cherry picks its positions with no consistency other than what some would call a left wing agenda. The Bill of Rights is inherently concerned with the rights of the individual and the limitations of government. Why would the framers have written 9 about the individual and 1 about collective rights? Absurd!
You as a group are either intellectually dishonest or inept. I don’t know which is worse for a supposed paragon of freedom.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Everything that needs to be said about the amazingly hypocritical stance the ACLU is taking on the Heller decision has been said.
This removes the veil of “well, we think it’s a COLLECTIVE right, so we don’t fight THOSE lawsuits”.
It’s an individual right. Always has been. Now it’s confirmed by the 9 folks in black.
Think about the lies and B.S. your organization is involved in the next time you defend the “first amendment free speech rights” of a NAMBLA member posting hundreds of photoshopped images of himself having sex with children.
He’s not REALLY having sex with kids, it’s just a freedom of expresson and speech issue.
Also, how about a little help on no-knock warrants and the like.
The whole “jack booted thugs” comment about the BATFE has a solid basis in reality.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
We have finally seen the error of our ways and can no longer hide from the very obvious truth. We will immediately be changing our official stance on the newly verified meaning of the Second Ammendment. It has taken quite a bit of time for us to come to this conclusion, after all, we are just a bunch of dumb a$$ liberals with an anti gun agenda.
In other news, we have also accepted Jesus Christ as the one true Savior, believe that he died on the cross for our sins, then rose again on the third day. We have repented of our sins and changed our evil ways. We will now fervently support prayer in schools and the right to life…….
July 9th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Let me see if I understand this: The NRA, which vigorously defends a portion of the Bill of Rights(id est, the 2nd), is evil incarnate, while the ACLU, which vigorously defends a portion of the Bill of Rights (id est, the 1st), is the definition of goodness and purity.
However,this is not unusual thinking for an organization that was born of the American Communist Party back in the bad old days when people actually believed in that sort of crap.
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of credibility the ACLU has for people in this country. We ought to know better than to pay attention to these wackos.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
873 comments (and who knows how many more moderated into oblivion) and only a few agree with the ACLU.
Maybe you should reconsider your errant, anti-American ways.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
How about this for a headline?
“ACLU Finds US Constitution Unconstitutional”
July 9th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
If and when the ACLU ceases this hypocrisy, I’ll join. Until then, your organization may as well just call to repeal 2A. At least that would be more honest than ‘reading’ of a ‘collective’ interpretation.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
This is crazy.
I always believed in the ACLU because they were willing to defend the worst in society because it was a noble cause to do so. They truly believed in the Constitution…most of it.
The Bill of Rights are a set of INDIVIDUAL rights. The phrase “the people” mean individuals for the 1st and 3rd-10th amendments, so why does it not mean that for the 2nd? If the ACLU was not biased, they would support the 2nd Amendment despite criticism, as they have endured for their other decisions. Not supporting the entire Constitution shows bias, and you have lost my respect.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
If the ACLU was actualy the ACLU instead of a puppet outfit the would spend as much time studing the constitution to see what it truly says as they do trying to tear it down.
I am 70 years old and I have never seen the ACLU ever defend anything to do with the constitution, instead they always try to tear this country apart.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
The Bill of Rights are like a roman arch…. the rights like the stones hold each other in place. When you remove one it falls. So can the ACLU give a good reason why they fail to understand the words, “Shall not be infringed” ? I can supply a copy of Webster’s dictionary to assist them.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
ACLU, please defend my right to keep and bear arms just like you defend the rest of my rights.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I have long been a supporter of the ACLU, as it is extremely important to stand up to the constant attempts by the US government to infringe on our constitutional rights. However, your position on the 2nd Amendment does not make good legal sense, and strikes me as sheer pandering to the segment of your liberal base who simply hate guns. The anti-gun groups might be a significant source of funding, but I can speak from experience that they don’t constitute the majority even among liberals. There is a great deal of disagreement as to how much regulation of gun ownership is or should be acceptable under our constitution, but those who support an outright ban on all guns, which is effectively what the District of Columbia had enacted, are a small minority. The ACLU should not turn away from its usual standards of intelligent defense of the Bill of Rights just to appease this radical fringe.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Think about this, an organization that defends the dregs of society. Terrorists, NAMBLA members, the KKK.
But when it comes to defending Americans right to keep and bear arms they don’t way in on one of the most important civil rights issues of our times the ACLU is AWOL and then thinks the ruling is bogus when it goes in favor of the constitution.
Anyone who contributes to this bunch needs to have their head examined. They promote totalitarian gov’t run by the left wing.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
An Open Letter to the HBoard Members of the ACLU:
Whereas your actions and position on the 2nd Amendment are irreconcilable with the concepts of Liberty and Freedom and pose a clear and imminent danger to the Right of the People.
As a citizen, a former financial contributor and a representative of the People of the United States of America, We the People do hereby demand the immediate resignation of the ACLU members or members who authored the aforementioned position.
In addition, Whereas the ACLU has consistently and blatantly worked to undermine the 2nd Amendment, We the People do hereby demand the immediate resignation of all parties within the ACLU in agreeance with said position.
Should such demands go unheeded, you will establish yourselves and your position to be that of enemies of the Constitution of the United States, and as such, will no longer enjoy the financial or moral support of myself and other Patriots who have sworn to defend the Constitution.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
You really shot yourselves in the foot on this one – oops, sorry, you don’t have a gun…
July 9th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I wasn’t “reinterpreted” it was affirmed.
Either you have been blinded by your own prejudices’, or the cash cows have been chewing cud in your ear… likely both. When was it you first began to sell us out? You have always defended those that didn’t have the means to defend themselves. Isn’t it ironic you want to take away our right to defend ourselves
July 10th, 2008 at 12:02 am
First from miller:
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. ”
This is a Weapon specific finding.
Second From miller:
“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. ”
What part of “supplied by themselves” implies a “collective right”?
There is no way to support the idiotic concept of a “collective” right anywhere within this finding. PEriod end of story.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:02 am
What “collective” are you referring to? In order for a collective to exist, isn’t it made up of individuals? By specifying a preference for a collective, doesn’t that make the ACLU prejudice? You send a confusing message when throughtout your history, you’ve always fought for civil liberties even if it was only for one INDIVIDUAL.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:13 am
I am in disbelief of you’re position on the 2nd amendment.Even after the Highest court of the land clearly defines what it means, to the “People”. That you are against a part of the bill of rights is horrific to me and a large part of this Country. The ACLU has lost all credibility as defenders of our rights with it elitist Cherry picking of Our Bill of Rights. As of You’re positon on all future cases will be suspect that it is tainted by you’re bias and we know best attitude.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:49 am
I’d say they were ignoring this thread, but I notice that about a hundred comments were deleted overnight, so that’s obviously not true.
On the “wrong anti-spam word” front, most sites that use that technology recognize that the test is difficult enough that even humans frequently fail it, and provide posters with the opportunity to try again. Wonder why the ACLU didn’t?
July 10th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I hope any of you don’t have to defend your life or property. Maybe the “Bill of Rights” is a form of freedom that you don’t believe in just “Socialism”. Set up a branch office in China and see how far you will remain in business!
July 10th, 2008 at 8:39 am
sound like that ACLU is not giving 2A right. funny what if 1A is being revoked. I am sure ACLU will be furious.
all of amendment is consider everyone’s right.
if 2A is revoked. then the politician CAN revoke the 1A.
Big mistake that ACLU does not give anyone an right to any of Amendments.
ACLU, You have destroyed your own reputation for people’s right.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I don’t get it. Why don’t they just say that it is an individual right, but is satisfied by the district’s allowance of shotguns and rifles? (ala Breyer) and leave it at that?
July 10th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I am now proud to say that I am a former card carrying member of the ACLU. When the ACLU defended pedophiles (NAMBLA), I didn’t like it but a stayed with the ACLU considering that I believed that was a defense of the constitution and the BOR. I now see the true colors of the ACLU. It is not an organization to defend the constitution of the United States and the rights of the people given us by our founding fathers, it is a Liberal agenda masquerading as a defender of freedom.
I will never again donate one dime to your organization. I had previously continued to donate, knowing your stance on the 2nd amendment and I had really hoped that this SCOTUS decision would have gotten you to defend the 2nd as it was originally intended. Being that you have disregarded the constitution and the BOR and abandoned all of the 2nd amendment supporters of this country, I shall now cast you aside as just another extreme left wing organization fighting for a socialist agenda that does not consider freedom to be worthwhile.
I am utterly disgusted by all of the anti-rights propaganda that has been floating around this country and this world for more years than I can remember. ACLU is simply another one of the anti-rights organizations that pretend to be something their not, just like the Violence Policy Center. Great name and you would almost think they would provide unbiased, non-partisan statistical information relating to violent crime. You would think that, but they are backed by the same organization that funds the Brady Bunch. The ACLU has been found out.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:15 am
On all other topics on the first 2 pages of blogs, I count a TOTAL of 116 comments.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Thats an average of 6 comments per blog on all other current topics. Does that tell you what people care about ?
July 10th, 2008 at 10:29 am
This organization has become a joke. And by the way, you have gotten the cent from me you will EVER get. Looks like My normal donation will be headed to the IL State Rifle Association this year.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:33 am
And after 904 Responses, I think its time teh ACLU addressed these concerns. I would think a response at this point would be appropriate.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:33 am
“Why don’t they just say that it is an individual right, but is satisfied by the district’s allowance of shotguns and rifles? (ala Breyer) and leave it at that?”
Because they’re a lot more anti-gun than Breyer. And, anyway, Breyer has a guaranteed income, he doesn’t have to worry about the Joyce foundation cutting him off if he annoys them.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:41 am
In #890, Cal says: “The ACLU should not turn away from its usual standards of intelligent defense of the Bill of Rights just to appease this radical fringe.”
Cal, you have to be joking! (See #702) The elistists ACLU only defends illegals, NAMBLA, and other weird and strange causes. They do NOT stand up for the rights of mainstream Americans when CONGRESS passes all those banking and surveillance laws AGAINST us. They do not stand up for our rights NOT TO BE TAXED to SUBSIDIZE illegal “cheap labor” for big corporations at $383.3 billion per year by paying for their childrens’ free education at $15K per child per year, welfare, medicaid, hospitals which are going broke, free HUD housing, free college tuition, free legal defense for rape (1 million), murder, robbery, highway deaths due to illegals’ DUI’s, and gang violence. They do not sue Congress for failure to close the border and for charging TAXPAYERS to surveill an extra 30 to 40 million illegals.
Their “usual standards of ‘INTELLIGENT’ defense” do not encompass defense of of everyday Americans from encroachment and erosion of ALL our rights by continuous INVASIVE Congressional legislation.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:49 am
The ACLU’s position is just purely absurd. Most of us have been familiar with the true colors of the ACLU for many years – their stance on this decision just reemphasizes that. The ACLU is about rights when it serves their own selfish, politically motivated agenda. Americans legitimately owning firearms does not serve this agenda. Does the ACLU understand that the origins of gun control were early attempts to keep firearms out of the hands of blacks???? Wow! You’d think they’d be all over that. No, the ACLU does not want to invest time or energy into actually studying the origins of the second amendment that predate the Bill of Rights by some time. Despicable organization that can’t and shouldn’t be trusted on most counts.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I have read many official policy positions of the ACLU. All but one have the appearance of having been thoughtfully drafted by highly qualified lawyers. The long-standing position on the Second Amendment, though, (not to mention the latest pronouncement) read as if written in total ignorance, not only of legal reasoning, but of history, linguistics, and elementary logic as well. There is something very odd going on with respect to the ACLU and the Second Amendment.
I have never particularly minded that the ACLU did not accept the right to keep and bear arms as being a legitimate civil liberty. I am proud of all the good things it does. But I am sorry to say that continuing, even post-Heller, to have such an intellectually dishonest and poorly reasoned policy purporting to interpret the Second Amendment simply makes the organization look ridiculous.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:04 am
The ACLU has always fought to create equality be bringing others down to create an equal outcome for all. I’m all for equal opportunity, but the outcome is up to the individual. Giving special privileges to the “repressed” only serves to separate people into groups, not unite or equalize them. Gun rights don’t fit that template. Guns are a great opportunity equalizer. They give the opportunity to defend yourself.
“The Constitution only gives people
the right to pursue happiness,
You have to catch it yourself.”
—Benjamin Franklin
July 10th, 2008 at 11:14 am
ACLU, I have a new slogan for you:
“We defend only those that choose not to defend themselves”
So, what are you going to do if you need to defend yourselves? Throw membership cards at your attackers?
July 10th, 2008 at 11:31 am
As always the ACLU is against what is moral and right with this country, and any way they can find to go against what is right they will, if it were up to them they would change our constitution completely to suit their liberal way of thinking, What is wrong with America? Start with the ACLU and their followers.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:38 am
The ACLU, brought to you by Michael (”never let the facts get in the way of a good story”) Moore.
If you cannot bring your head out of the cloud of denial you’re in then you have no business presupposing that you actually represent Americans. You are a sham tool of the ultra-left if you pick & choose which civil liberties you wish to champion. Someone needs to step up and do the work you should be doing because you’re not qualified to call yourselves what your own name should signify.
Nowadays the only thing worse than “I’m from the Government here to help you” is “…the ACLU has weighed in on this and…”
July 10th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“There is something very odd going on with respect to the ACLU and the Second Amendment.”
There’s nothing odd about it, it’s hypocrisy, motivated in part by financial considerations, (Donors who’d cut the org off if it defends THIS civil right.) in part by distaste for the sort of people who might join the ACLU if it were to defend this amendment.
I mean, the NRA is about 10 times the size of the ACLU, if even a fraction of NRA members responded to the ACLU embracing the 2nd amendment by joining, it would totally change the character of the organization.
For the better, I think, but that’s not the way an extreme left-wing elitist would view it. “Attack of the Killer Bubbas” is how they look at it.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Had I ever been stupid enough to send the ACLU a dime, I would be upset right now. As it is, I read the posts here with some amusement as the fools who have been supporting this farce are now forced to see the orgnaization in its true light. Leftist liberal elites who have always thought they know better than the rest of the country. Maybe there is some use for you in France.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Whoa, the ACLU has revealed it’s abject hypocrisy with this decision. To cram your fingers in your ears and scream in order to deny a fundamental right of self-defense and a SCOTUS acknowledged Constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear arms is hilarious! How does it feel to be in the hip pocket of the Joyce Foundation? Don’t let honor, integrity, or being correct stand in the way of that cash flow. As a counter-balance, I’ve just written a check to the NRA. A little intestinal fortitude would have served you well here. To bad you opted for the other road.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Another in a long line of liberal stances that exposes your organization for what it is…you are hypocrites.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Apparently the ACLU is not aware of writings such as this:
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”
-Thomas Jefferson.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Whatever the ACLU might have been in the past, it is now nothing but a shill for the mental illness known as liberalism.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Is the ACLU’s position unexpected? Hardly.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Who better than the founding fathers themselves can resolve this issue once and for all?
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
– James Madison
“To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.”
– George Mason
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
– George Mason
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“The constitutions of most of our states [and of the United States] assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“..the peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned, while they neglect the means of self defense.”
– Thomas Paine
“Those who beat swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who don’t.”
– Benjamin Franklin
“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?”
– Patrick Henry
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry
I can’t remain an ACLU member if the ACLU will continue to ignore the importance of civilian gun ownership and our 2nd amendment!
July 10th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I have struggled with the ACLU interpretation of the 2nd amendment for some time but I still supported you. The decision in Heller made me believe you would change your stance on the 2nd amendment as logic would dictate following your previous record on such matters. When someone told me the stance you took following that decision I did not believe them. To my despair I just found out they were correct. Though it pains me I can no longer support the ACLU in any capacity. Your hypocrisy on the 2nd amendment makes it impossible for me to respect you as an organization of principle.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I was an ACLU “Guardian Of Liberty” member by donating automatically every month.
No more.
I sincerely hope the ACLU will reconsider their lack of support for our basic human right to keep and bear arms for self defense.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Gun control makes dictatorships and genocide much easier.
Don’t believe me?
Here are some of the folks who say individual civilians don’t have a right to bear arms……
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered races to have arms; history teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
– Adolf Hitler
“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA – ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
- Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s SS leader
“All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately…The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every responsible opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon…must be regarded as an enemy of the national government.”
- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933
“On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
- Benito Mussolini
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”
– Lenin
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
– Joseph Stalin
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
- Mao
July 10th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I want to be a dues paying member of the ACLU. Instead I proudly buy memberships from the NRA, the GOA and the Illinois State Rifle Association.
Many times I’ve seen these gun rights organizations defend the poorest of gun owners (African/Americans and so-called hillbillies too). Everytime they defend one of these lower class looking types it just adds more glue to the bond I have made with them. I will always be a member of the National Rifle Association – always; I promise.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
The ACLU’s View of “America”:
reformedgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/07/obsolete-man.html
July 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
From the US Constitution: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court,…”
From the ACLU (about us) statement: “…the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights…Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments…”
You should update your, “about us”, page to more properly reflect your clear hypocrisy.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Liberals are idiots; conservatives are idiots. In this matter, I agree more with the conservative idiots.
Of course, I might need guns to help fend off the deranged, stupid lynch mob banging on my door, but I guess that’s a topic for another page somewhere.
So, from my cold, dead hands.
You damn dirty apes.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The ACLU has lost every last drop of credibility they had. What a disgrace!!!!
July 10th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
A few months ago I was anti-gun. 5 attempts on my life and a police force that told me they couldn’t and wouldn’t protect me 24/7 woke me up. I didn’t want to harm anyone but didn’t want to be a victim more. Finally I decided to purchase an ugly intimidating black semi-automatic death spitting pistol and spend thousands getting trained in using it for self defense.
I cried when SCOTUS gave the Heller decision because my individual right to defend myself couldn’t be taken away by some mentally ill politician with armed body guards of his own.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
The ACLU position is simply unfathomable. Really disappointing!
July 10th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Let’s look at a practical implication of Heller.
Right now, a number of states discriminate against visiting residents of other states on issues of self defense.
Two examples: Colorado mutually recognizes gun carry permits from certain states, including Utah, and not others such as Washington state. Utah will issue a Utah carry permit to out-of-state residents as long as they complete a Utah-approved background check and training.
If a WA resident obtains a Utah permit, you would think that person could be legally armed in Colorado. You’d be wrong: CO attempts to punish residents of states without permit reciprocity even when they hold permits (such as UT) recognized in CO.
Another example: California bans all open-carry of loaded weapons, and issues concealed carry permits only to residents of it’s own state, while not recognizing any other permit. In this fashion, only a California resident may be armed for self defense in California, period.
Both these examples are unconstitutional under current case law, if a basic civil right is being infringed against a non-resident of the state doing the infringing. See also Ward v. Maryland (sometimes known as Ward v. State) 79 US 418 (1870), Slaughter-house Cases 83 US 36 (1873) and Saenz v. Roe 526 US 489 (1999).
The instant the Heller decision came down, it became possible to sue over this cross-state discrimination in Federal court because a personal right to self defense was recognized as a Federally protected civil right.
Note that this doesn’t even get into the issue of whether or not a state can discriminate against it’s own citizens. Due to some truly hideous (not to mention racist) case law such as US v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875) the Bill Of Rights doesn’t fully apply to the states yet. The Heller court warned in at least two spots that the Cruikshank precedent cannot be relied on, but since state-level violations of a civil right weren’t at play in Heller, that court didn’t finally put a stake through Cruikshank’s dark heart.
The question for the ACLU is: do you support discrimination of any sort by a state against visiting residents of another state?
If not, have you really pondered the practical implications of Heller?
Jim March
July 10th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I use to think the ACLU was a protector of our rights, the peoples champion.. about 6months ago i was informed of your stance on 2A, i did’nt want to believe it..
Now SCOTUS has stated it’s a individual right.. and still you hold on to your old stance.
i might also add that popular opinion has always been that it’s a individual right (about 80+% of the population).. even people i’ve talked to who do not own or even like guns understood it was a individual right.
ACLU is dead to me.. i will never support them in anything they do, i dont want people who will only pick and choose what rights they think are worthy to protect.
as far as im concerned you are untrustworthy.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Shame on you!
From the ACLU (about us) statement: “…the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights…Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments…”
The Supreme Court has affirmed my right to own a handgun. Wether you dissagree with the dicion or not, it is the law of our land.
Shame on you!
July 11th, 2008 at 4:31 am
The fundamental law of nature: self-preservation. Remember, the Bill of Rights does not grant liberty; it merely acknowledges some liberties by listing the more prominent, salient ‘rights’. The Bill of Rights was never intended to be inclusive. Moreover, inconspicuous rights are no less important, and if the government abided the Constitution they would be no less protected than the rights actually outlined in the Bill of Rights. If the Federal government isn’t specifically granted a power, then the power doesn’t exist. Note: government wields authority; individuals wield rights. The notion of “collective rights” is most certainly absurd, disingenuous, and illogical. The fallacious attempt by the ACLU to assert their interpretation of the Second Amendment, even after DC v. Heller, is evidence of agenda void of logic. The sole agenda of the ACLU ought to be for the protection of liberties. If their decision is to only protect the liberties acknowledged by their own equivocal interpretation, then I conclude that they’ve become what they hate.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:38 am
I have seen your true colors for decades.
It will be a pleasure to watch the ACLU self-immolate and fade into irrelavancy.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:22 am
After reading these comments I came away very saddened.
Sad because it took the Heller decision to awaken some gun owners from their stupor and let them see the ACLU for what it is.
How could anyone possibly be pro gun and still be a member of the ACLU?
July 11th, 2008 at 6:46 am
From the “about us” page on the ACLU website:
“The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.
Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage), adopted in 1920.”
So, if the Second Amendment is a limit on the majority (collective) rights, does that not make it an INDIVIDUAL right? Please get your story straight!
July 11th, 2008 at 6:48 am
“Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.
The cause of liberty, the cause of American, cannot succeed with any lesser effort.”
- President John F. Kennedy(NRA Member), January 29, 1961
“The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi…”
– Martin Luther King, Jr
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
- The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001
“Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.”
– Congressman Ron Paul, June 26, 2006
July 11th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Here is Adolf Hitler’s racist gun control law of Nov. 11, 1938(right at the beginning of the Holocaust)…….
“Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons.
Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions…will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.
Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick”
In other words Jews found with weapons of any kind were immediately sent to concentration camps(if they survived being discovered).
Hitler knew the Jews had to be defenseless in order to easily butcher millions of them.
Shame on you ALCU!
July 11th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Here is Adolf Hitler’s racist gun control law of Nov. 11, 1938(right at the beginning of the Holocaust)…….
“Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons.
Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions…will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.
Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick”
In other words Jews found with weapons of any kind were immediately sent to concentration camps(if they survived being discovered).
Hitler knew the Jews had to be defenseless in order to easily butcher millions of them.
Shame on you ACLU!
July 11th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Front Page Headline of “The New York Times” on the start of the Holocaust, November 11, 1938 – The same day all Jews were banned from owning weapons:
“NAZIS SMASH, LOOT AND BURN JEWISH SHOPS AND TEMPLES UNTIL GOEBBELS CALLS HALT”
July 11th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Join JPFO(Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)….
This great group will actually defend ALL of the Bill Of Rights!
Gun Owners of America is another good one!
July 11th, 2008 at 7:41 am
When is the ACLU going to slow down on Prisoner, Immigrant, and Gay Rights, and start focusing on law abiding average citizens? Is seems that no one want to stand up for a regular guy like me.
I’m a threat to no-one, don’t regulate my right to defend myself. So much for the USA being a ‘free’ country. It’s becoming a joke, with all the laws we have (which only affect the good guys).
July 11th, 2008 at 8:24 am
ACLU, you’re a bunch of hypocrites. Up yours!
July 11th, 2008 at 8:42 am
It’s so disappointing that the ACLU fails to understand the clearly stated right to individual firearms ownership by citizens.
This implies they fail to understand the critical nature of the armed citizen as the fourth check and balance on the Constitution.
If the ACLU could farily evaluate all the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they would have far more support among the populace. This disingenuous approach to a critical individual right that the ACLU leadership doesn’t care for undermines their credibility and integrity.
Please dismiss those who can’t grasp the right of the individual to bear arms.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:48 am
As a mouthpiece for the left, the ACLU incredibly has buried reference to the landmark decision by the Supremes on the 2nd Amendment. Other than a court summary and the blog, this issue is buried on the website. Clearly, ACLU is ashamed of the decision as it clearly removes power from those that “rule” us on the left.
I’d love to see where the ACLU is at with respect to Chicago… the MOST paternalistic city in the country or does consumption of fois gras represent violation of the “collective” rights of ducks?
As with 99.9% of the bloggers here, the ACLU has lost me forever. I’m guessing the executives of the ACLU have their own security detail.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:59 am
This is one area of the law where the ACLU simply can’t win.
Stating the obvious, that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, would infuriate your supporters and dry up the money supply.
Stating the asinine, that the 2nd Amendment somehow, by some convoluted logic, doesn’t protect an individual right, simply makes you look like a bunch of hypocrites.
Seriously? Your best move would be to just stay out of this discussion. Seriously. Let the GOA and JPFO run the show here.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Small Armz all firearm owners are welcome.
smallarmz.info
July 11th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I have always wondered why an organization supposedly founded to guerentee our freedoms would reject THE most fundamental one. This right is not about hunting or sporting. It is about “necessary for the security of a free state” WHo in this world can take my freedoms away as an American? Only the government thats who. This right alone gives every person in america the last say… even against a tyrinical government. Look at all these little despotic countries where major human rights violations are perpetrated. Imagine if the people all had the means to fight against such tyrany.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:20 am
This is all very upsetting to me. Please excuse me while I go down to my range and run a couple of hundred rounds through my M1911. That should make feel better! By the way do you have any ACLU targets, er, posters available?
July 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am
If only the militia can be armed, will the government pick the loyalists or the patriots? King George would have liked it this way.
It is and must be an individual right.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Time for a regime change at ACLU?
July 11th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I’m a long time supporter of the ACLU and never liked its stance on the 2nd amendment. The ACLU position is wrong, its time to swallow your pride and accept Heller.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:57 am
What other rights are “collective”? I am really disappointed in the ACLU right now.
– James
July 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
It appears the ACLU is not completely for civil liberties after all. If you don’t believe I have the right to defend my own life and must die or be maimed in favor of collective rights, I believe that is a lack of morality.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
The NV ACLU should get a promotion to run the national organization:
The Nevada ACLU has declared its support for an individual’s right to bear arms, apparently making it the first state affiliate in the nation to buck the national organization’s position on the Second Amendment.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
HEEELLLO, McFly – you either support the Bill of Right or you do not.
With some of the ways your pitiful organization has grand standed some pretty off the wall interpritations of the 10 rights, I am not surprised you really only have your own agenda in mind.
I have a gun and it is MY RIGHT to use it legally.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
This is a fundamental civil-rights issue, and it’s tragic that the ACLU, which really does have a tremendous track record on defending the Bill of Rights, doesn’t see it that way. I have been a member for several years, but have been delaying my renewal until the ACLU responded to Heller.
I have seen the ACLU’s response to Heller, and my silence in the face of your renewal letters is my response to you.
It’s truly sad that the same group that justly defended the constitutional rights of Neo-Nazis and the KKK refuses to stand up and be counted as a friend of law-abiding gun owners.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Amazing that an Organiation who’s sole purpose is to defend the Constitution of the United States, Would Say ” We will only Defend it if it is POLITICALLY to OUR advantage” I Don’t recall Anywhere in the Constitution it spelling Out what weapons were OK, there fore Why are you creating an issue that isn’t there. Time to get the ACLU off it’s highhorse and put somebody in that is will to do the job of defending the Constitution.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
The NRA will continue to receive my donations (rather than ACLU) as the organization that best represents my civil liberties views and interests.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
What civil liberty does the ACLU protect when it attempts to remove guns from law-abiding citizens.
Guns help save lives. That’s why they protect our Judges, Airline Pilots, Military, Celebrities, and Law Enforcement. Why is any one of their lives anymore valuable than mine? I am a free man in a free society. Explain why I should be denied any right to defend the life God has given me. Simply preposterous.
Gun control doesn’t work: youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA
July 11th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I’m not surprised at the anti 2nd stance the ACLU takes. Given the ACLU was founded by known Communists. Run by Communists. This pesky bill of rights and the Second in particular get in the way of their goals.
Funny how they stand behind the 1st so strongly. To rip the 2nd. Not to mention the ACLU’s support of pedophiles and child molesters.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Nevada ACLU supports an individual’s right to bear arms.
State affiliate bucks national stance, supporting the right to bear arms.
At least they have it right
July 11th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Once a communist organization, always a communist organization:
Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, was quoted by his biographer as saying, “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolishment of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
“Elizabeth Gurley Flynn (August 7, 1890 – September 5, 1964) was a labor leader, activist, and feminist who played a leading role in the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Flynn was a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union and a visible proponent of women’s rights, birth control, and women’s suffrage. Late in life, she became chairperson of the American Communist Party. Flynn died in the course of a visit to the Soviet Union, where she was accorded a state funeral.”
I’ll bet you 95% of dues-paying ACLU members do not know the above.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The ACLU is as big a joke as the rest of the alphabet societies. If the jack socks were not soooo busy trying to decide what is best for all. We would still have OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. The Constitution also guarantees happiness and with the current state of affairs, I AM PISSED>
July 11th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
The reason the ACLU doesn’t support the Second amendment is simple. In their eyes it endangers the people they are sworn to protect. When someone gets killed or injured commiting a crime by the Police or their intended victom it is they ACLU who helps them or their family sue. How often in the last 10-15 years has the ACLU been in the news trying to help an innocent victom? I normally hear about the ACLU when a drug dealer, child molester, rapist or thief can roughed up by the cops. Yes in some of those cases the cops went to far but, when the same thing happens to a average person the ACLU is less vocal.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
isn’t it *funny/strange* how the right to free speech never gets creatively interpreted??
why does a defense lawyer mourn wistfully “for the good old days when we actually had an amendment against search and seizure”??
I’ll tell you why, it gets creatively interpreted over the years. Except for this situation, except for that situation… next thing you know, ANY halfwit can find an excuse, on paper for trial, why the guy actually pulled someone over at random, and de-facto detained him, searched him, at random but for his looks, and finds an excuse later for anythign he finds thats interesting…
well, THATS how i feel when you start adding stuff to the 2nd amendment.
what restrictions? the word “ARMS” is a generic term, meaning any gun.
“shall not be infringed” is an interesting point too, isnt it??
Hello… restrictions are “infringed”
the 2nd amendment is very clear. anti 2nd amendment people really go grasping for straws.
WHy dont we “re-interpret” the right to free speech, eh?
July 11th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Based on the ACLU’s interpetation of the 2nd Amendment as a “collective” right, I suggest that the ACLU now interpret the 1st amendment as a collective right, and as individuals, they should just STFU.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
It’s absurd that the ACLU picks and chooses which civil liberties it will defend, based on an seemingly personal agenda.
Or, are you implying that all the liberties outlined on the Bill Of Rights are not individual rights?
This is more evidence that the ACLU is a rogue special-interest organization, and NOT an earnest supporter of civil liberties.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
While I have not always agreed with the ACLU’s positions on issues, many times I have. I believe it is absolutely necessary that we challenge overbroad or unconstitutional laws. The ACLU has been successful in “Making Law” (case law) on many issues. Why is it that they cannot accept the new and controlling case law that confirms an individual right to keep and bear arms?
July 11th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Stalin, and Hitler were for gun control also, way to go ACLU, YOU SUCK!
July 11th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
FYI:
lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=8663427
lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/11/aclu-backs-gun-rights/
July 11th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Is it April Fools?
Next up: NAACP argues that the Fourteenth Amendment only defends the rights of properly verified citizens (you know, through poll taxes and literacy tests) to participate in the political process.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I admired the ACLU’s courage in the face of it’s widespread unpopularity because of the integrity it demonstrated. But, apparently, only some rights are worth defending. You have handed over your integrity like an addict selling his sister for a fix.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Some of the earliest gun control laws in America were used by the South to disarm freed slaves who had guns to feed themselves and to protect themselves from LYNCH MOBS and the KKK.
As a matter of fact the most murderous dictators in history – Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Mugabe, (just to name a few)
have all banned individual civilians from owning weapons – rendering their victims defenseless before butchering countless millions of them just because of their race, religion, or political affiliation.
Even the famous “SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD” at Lexington and Concord which began the AMERICAN REVOLUTION was fired in order to prevent a gun ban from being enforced by the British soldiers.
The “Redcoats” had direct orders from King George of England to confiscate guns and gun powder from the Americans!
RESPONSIBLE CIVILIAN GUN OWNERSHIP MAKES LIBERTY POSSIBLE.
Never forget it ACLU!
July 11th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
LOL, I see the “defenders of free speech” blew away my posts telling the TRUTH of the communists founders (Roger Baldwin and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn) and stating that 90% of ACLU members didn’t know it was founded by communists.
Some “civil rights” group!!! LOL!
July 12th, 2008 at 12:58 am
It’s interesting that everywhere else in the Constitution where the word “people” is used, it means every citizen. But in the case of the 2nd Ammendment, the ACLU thinks the word “people” means the Government (the collective). I am sorry, but I absolutely disagree. We are allowed to individually own firearms to ensure that our constitutional form of government is not overthrown by foreign or domestic enemies – the PEOPLE form the last line of defense.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am
The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.
Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage), adopted in 1920.
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections.
While the decision to abdicate preservation of the individual right to keep and bear arms is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the ACLU mission, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered.
Though perhaps it is not a reinterpretation, merely a clarification that the ACLU does not have a noble mission to protect individual rights… merely the ACLU’s own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
It’s very dangerous for the ACLU to pick and choose which amendments are “more equal than others”. You can’t have it both ways without lowering yourself to exactly the misanthropic logic that the Bush administration has used to justify FISA, Gitmo and the Iraq war. Just don’t go there.
July 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
The ACLU’s leadership apparently either doesn’t get it with respect to concept of an armed people being citizens, rather than mere subjects living at the mercy of common criminals as well as both internal and external political hostilities, or views the general public as livestock in need of superior beings to herd them away from trouble. Either situation is most disturbing; as such people have no business running a prestigious organization whose manifest purpose is to protect the constitutional rights of Americans.
Civilian disarmament has always led to increased crime rates, tyranny, and genocide. Those who think that the prospect of armed American civilians ending a repressive regime within our borders in modern times is absurd should read the following article on the Battle of Athens, Tennessee (1946):
constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
In view of the sordid history of so-called gun control (actually, people control) and its empirically proven counterproductive effects on crime rates (see More Guns, Less Crime, by Dr. John R. Lott) maybe it’s time to examine and question the motives of those who would see the American people disarmed “for their own good”. The following articles shed some light on their motives and mental health:
jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/jp_seven.htm
July 12th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
The ACLU is clearly worried ti will loose the backing of wealthy left wing donations from people like the Brady’s
If they truly wanted to fight for the American people they would join with the NRA and push this Katrina lawsuit down the throats of the government officials who left thousands of people undefended after this tragedy.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Still not ONE response from anyone speaking for the ACLU….
(sound of crickets chirping…
coyote howls in distance…
static on the radio
wind blows through the pine trees)
July 13th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Until the ACLU recognizes the 2nd Amendment for what it is, an individual right, and works to defend it as vigorously as they have worked to defend other civil liberties, they will never see a penny in donations from me.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:33 am
It’s not a “reinterpretation”, nor is it “historical”. It’s simply a unanimous affirmation (all justices agreed that it’s an individual right) of the historical reality.
It’s sad that the ACLU insists on following liberal/left-wing orthodoxy instead of the simple, direct language of the Constitution. The right of self-defense is as fundamental as any right.
July 13th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I have given money to the ACLU in the past based on their excellent work in the War on Terror, as well as 1st and 4th Amendment issues.
However, the sophist, back bending, laughable logic they employ in their refusal to support the 2nd Amending and the fundamental right for people to bear arms in self protection borders on disgusting.
These days, my money goes to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Institute for Justice, JPFO and the NRA. While none of these groups are perfect either, I haven’t seen this kind of blatant hypocrisy since the National Organization of Women came out in support of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Sincerely,
Brian Trdina
July 13th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Hrm…I was interested in joining the ACLU before I read this.
Now I’m a bit concerned that they “cherry pick” issues based on who finances them (which appears to be a very liberal left group).
I was hoping for a group of folks who weren’t swayed by the mighty $$$ and stood on principles: defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights (all of em!)
July 13th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
The ACLU’s mission from the beginning of it’s founding to the present day has been to destroy the United States and it’s Constitution. No matter how the ACLU tries to couch it’s efforts with civil liberties issues the main purpose of the ACLU is their first mission always,— destroy the US and the Constitution,and that aim will never change. Once Communist,always Communist!
July 13th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Don’t quite the ACLU. Go to your local meetings and tell the leadership how wrong they are on the 2nd Amendment.
Find meetings here: http://www.aclu.org/affiliates/.
Go to the meetings and speak up!
Let’s yank on their grassroots!
July 13th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Yes, as Dennis says, “people” means individuals. And this isn’t a surprise to the ACLU. While the SCOTUS hasn’t “RULED” on the 2nd before, they have referred to it in previous rulings on other issues.
And guess what? They’ve said all along that the 2nd like so many of the other amendments applies to individuals!
Duh.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I sent this over to the Drudge report.
I hope he picks up this story
HEADLINE
ACLU writes it’s own Constitution!
If all of us will post this over on Drudge he may run it
July 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Wow– 974 of 979 comments so far letting the national ACLU know that we don’t agree with them and their selective support of our civil rights. To bad the ACLU doesn’t seem to listen to the members. I just did, as one other commenter posted, use the membership dues I had to renew my membership and donated them to the NRA. I really hope the ACLU wakes up and goes back to defending my civil rights again soon. I have been a card carrier for a long time and am very, very disappointed to no longer be.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:48 am
“wtf Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The ACLU is as big a joke as the rest of the alphabet societies. If the jack socks were not soooo busy trying to decide what is best for all. We would still have OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. The Constitution also guarantees happiness and with the current state of affairs, I AM PISSED>”
Actually, the quote is “the pursuit of happiness”. The Constitution never guarantees that you will catch it.
Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that the ACLU has been found to be, except perhaps for a few of the local state affiliates, a bunch of hypocrites.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Breaking news!
The Nevada chapter of the ACLU has broken with headquarters and declared they will defend the 2nd just as they do all other rights.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I would rather send the $35.00 membership renewal fee to someone that WILL defend our rights; The NRA or CATO institute.
They dont pick and choose which Constitutional rights “worth defending”
July 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
If you have ever witnessed a court trial, you will notice that everyone that speaks is sworn in, except the lawyers. An attorney is free, even obligated to say almost anything, to twist words and foster vaguely plausible alternate scenarios if that will advance a clients position. The real limit is only reached at the point where the attorney loses credibility with the judge and jury. The problem in relation to the ACLU and the Second Ammendment is that the case is no longer in court. It is now now settled. The ACLU of course has the right to move argument to the “Court of Public Opinion”. The ACLU can stick to the same story line and continue to shed crediblity if it wants to. The enlightening thing here is that the ACLU shows that its client is not the Constitution, the country, nor the people. The client of the ACLU is an elitist minority, or maybe just itself.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
It is nice to see that the ACLU “The protectors of our libery and freedoms” The pargons of virtue and all that should be right in the world feel that they can disagree with the SCOTUS decision and therefore just ignore it. Nice to know that we can count on this organization to abandon any and all principals that it says it has. Civil Liberty is our rights. Just because you do not agree with them you cannot ignore them.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.”
– Congressman Ron Paul, June 27, 2006
July 14th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Its nice to see ones postings dissapear from the righteous web site
of the magnanimous ACLU who stands behind the 1st Amendment to further their Marxist/Communist Agenda. But speech they don’t like, disappear like
educated and opposing thinkers in a Communist regime.
Free Speech for thee? But not for Me?
ACLU = The enemy of the free.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
You guys do good work sometimes, but I’m glad to see you’re getting an earful over this bone-headed stance.
“Collective right” really is an incredibly creepy piece of doublespeak, you know that?
July 14th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Paraphrasing Judge Kozinski in Silveira v. Locker (Dissent)
“[ACLU ATTORNEYS] know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. [ACLU ATTORNEYS HAVE SUPPORTED COURTS WHO] have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases — or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). But, as the [THE ACLU] amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there. It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions.”
The ACLU swims against a the tidal waive of legal scholarship contrary to its collective right view. This position, especially after the Heller decisions, proves one thing: The ACLU is nothing more than a springboard for its own political agenda – freedom being the single most important issue which is not even close to being on the agenda. The ACLU has now shown its true colors.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Paraphrasing Judge Kozinski in Silveira v. Locker (Dissent)
“[ACLU ATTORNEYS] know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. [ACLU ATTORNEYS HAVE SUPPORTED COURTS WHO] have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases — or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). But, as the [THE ACLU] amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there. It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions.”
The ACLU swims against A tidal waive of legal scholarship contrary to its collective right view. This position, especially after the Heller decision, proves one thing: The ACLU is nothing more than a springboard for its own political agenda – freedom being the single most important issue which is not even close to being on the agenda. The ACLU has now shown its true colors.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Quote from ALCU WEBSITE:
“To defend the Constitution and keep America safe and free, the ACLU needs the support of every American who cares about protecting our precious civil liberties.
You can help defend the traditional American values enshrined in the Bill of Rights”
I have never seen anything more despicable and turncoat in all my days. You say you stand for American’s Civil Liberties but than pick and choose which constitutional rights you fight for. Since when did the 2nd become any less important then the other 9 in our Bill Of Rights. That’s right “Our” the American Peoples, not your’s as an individual organizations ideologies. Our founding fathers would turn in their graves to see such a hypocritical organization take the American people on such a shame of a ride.
You have proven your organization is cannot be trusted by not supporting all American’s under the entire Bill Of Rights. All American’s SHOULD discontinue funding this false organization.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
As a member of the armed forces, I have watched overseas as you fought to protect those who try to kill me.
Now redeployed stateside, I watch as you try to take away my right to defend myself from killers.
When will you stand up for Americans?
July 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
But wait, 7.62×51 mm selective fire arms meet Miller. Why not organize gay men and lesbian women to confront the ATF on every Patriots Day keeping and bearing standard NATO battle rifles? Meet at Lexington VT and prove your 2nd amendment chops.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Are you crazy? You can’t decide which parts of the Bill of Rights to agree or disagree with. They are all written to protect an INDIVIDUALS rights from organizations or groups who may wish to strip an INDIVIDUAL of their rights,with out the Bill of Rights no one would be garanteed any rights what so ever — it is not the ACLU’s,mine, or anybodys job besides the SCOTUS to interpret those rights — IT’S OUR DUTY TO DEFEND THEM EVEN IF WE DISAGREE or don’t personally feel a need for any particular right —
IF I chose to “not agree with” the 13th and the 19th amendments and tried to purchase slaves or deny women the right to vote -you surely would be up in ARMS against me — as you rightly should!If the Government should try to remove our rights– we all should TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST IT!
Personal feelings aside we all must defend the Bill of Rights whether we agree with all of it or not – IT IS OUR DUTY AS AMERICANS!
July 15th, 2008 at 8:04 am
The ACLU does not really stand for protecting civil liberties. They stand for protecting those civil liberties that the ACLU agrees with. Like protecting the rights of child molestors in NAMBLA. The ACLU seems to agree that NAMBLA has the individual right to molest kids but we the people do not have the individual right to own guns.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I’ve long held a membership in the ACLU (Maryland/National Capital Chapter) and the NRA. If the ACLU will not recognize the civil liberty of gun ownership as recognized by the Constitution and the Supreme Court of the United States, I will not renew my membership.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:06 am
For some time, the ACLU has been shunned by denizens of the right, too often for the wrong reason. This has left the ACLU an organization dominated by so-called “liberal” precepts which renders it at some variance from its descriptive name and which is selective in its defense of citizens against government power.
The Bill of Rights was included at the insistence of the “anti-federalists” for the purpose of restraining government power over the citizens of the American states.
An interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the collective sense is not a restraint of that power, but rather an enhancement of government power, giving it the power to control Americans via government organized militias.
In the spirit of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, an individual rights interpretation must prevail.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
well the case is appropriately named, because this is becoming the ACLU’s catch-2[2]. I had hoped that heller would give the ACLU impetus to get the clue that it so desperately needs to become relevant again, but they blew it again. Miller was won by forfeit, and now the only significant case law in over 100 years on the 2A reaffirms that the ACLU has been wrong for years on this. Wake up, guys, there are others that recognize the WHOLE BoR, and now they are “drinking your milkshake” to coin a phrase. Your backs are against the proverbial wall now, it’s time to decide if you really want to keep your flawed interpretation of the @a, of if you want to join the 20th century. Pity the rest of us are in century #21
July 15th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
“For some time, the ACLU has been shunned by denizens of the right, too often for the wrong reason. This has left the ACLU an organization dominated by so-called “liberal” precepts”
Got the causality backwards there, Sam. For many, many years, the ACLU has made clear that denizens of the right are entirely unwelcome, that “There is no enemy to the Left.” The ACLU started out a left-wing organization, and has been at some pains to stay that way, even at the cost of stunting it’s own growth.
July 15th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
My wife and I used to be ACLU members, and you still keep sending us renewal apps. We originally left the ACLU not over gun rights but over the ACLU’s opposition to AIDS-testing of newborns to allow them to be treated and potentially saved. Your concern for the “privacy right” of the mother to not know her HIV status trumped the right of the child to LIVE! You lost Nat Hentoff on this one also, you may recall. But until Heller I didn’t begrudge you your deliberately wrong stance on the 2nd Amendment because Miller WAS confusing and unclear. Yes, the vast majority of constitutional scholars (Levinson, Amar, Cotrell, Kates, even Dershowitz and Tribe) have been on-board (to varying degrees) with the individual rights view of the 2A for some time, but you could hide behind Miller and avoid seeing the truth. You can’t do that any more. The money that I used to send to the ACLU now goes proudly to the NRA-ILA. Get a clue, folks. Even your Nevada chapter is bucking your intransigence here.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
How you can somehow perceive “the people” to mean “the state” in this one amendment I will never understand.
The NRA-ILA will get the donations that I will NEVER give to the ACLU as long as it brings its political bias and agenda to protecting rights.
Maybe you should try protecting ALL rights instead of just the ones you agree with.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
SCOTUS reaffirming 2A as an individual right does not infringe on the so-called collective right. It is only when you argue 2A to be exclusively a collective right, that you infringe on individual liberties.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
ACLU=American Communist Leftist Union.
Now confirmed for all to see.
The ultimate in hypocritical cognative dissonance.
The great men that founded this mountain of human dignity planted a seed that you can’t kill.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
So there’s a right to abortion, when the word “abortion” nowhere appears in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. But there’s no individual right to arms, when the plain language of the second amendment states that the right exists, and shall not be infringed.
You people have intellects too subtle and rareified to need my contributions any more.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
How does one join the Nevada ACLU?
July 15th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Wow, 1011 responses thus far and everyone has come to the conclusion that the ACLU is essentially standing in a room with it’s collective fingers in it’s ears saying NA NA NA NA. You need to get your grey ponytail heads out of your asses, clear the THC out of your systems, and try REAL hard to not be hypocrites for a day. Just one day. If you can do that you will find that intellectual honesty comes easier and easier as time goes by. In fact, if you try super duper hard kids, you will find that you can actually support and maintain the WHOLE Bill of Rights. Even the ones you find to be icky. Imagine what that would be like. An organization dedicated to the freedoms, rights, and liberties ennumerated for us in the Consitution, EVEN THE AMMENDMENTS! Wow!! Could such a thing ever exist? Will we ever find out?
Maybe I’ll ask Santa for a real ACLU. I’m about as likely to get one there as by any other means.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
So what you’re saying, Suzanne Ito, is that the ACLU considers itself above the Supreme Court of the United States. Furthermore, when the SCOTUS defends an important civil liberty, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you disagree with them.
You’re not the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), you’re the ACUL, the American Charlatans Undermining Liberty.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Well, here’s how I see it…
For years, liberals have claimed the ACLU was the last line of defense for those holding unpopular views, despised minorities, yadda yadda.
And for years also, conservatives have
claimed the ACLU was a politically correct left-wing special interest group.
Sorry, but bronx cheers to you, ACLU. By cherry-picking the Constitutional rights
you’re willing to defend, you’ve just
proven the conservatives were right after all. (And I’ll eat from my cat’s litterbox before I’ll join you now. Have a nice day…)
July 16th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Will the ACLU now take it’s fingers out of it’s ears long enough to respond….?
I thought not….
July 16th, 2008 at 5:15 am
PS I love the statement, “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” Why not, “Your comment is awaiting censorship..?”
July 16th, 2008 at 9:05 am
James, the real ACLU (albeit focused primarily on a single right) is called the National Rifle Association.
If I thought for one second that the ACLU acutully did what it represents itself to be chartered to do, I’d join in a hearbeat.
But it’s no different than MoveOn.org – in fact, much worse as I think the Move On people are under no delusion that they are apart of anything other than what tney are a part of… not that they are above deceit and treachury.
Communism and Socialism has been proven false and faulty throughout it’s entire history. Even in small groups, human nature takes hold.
The ACLU is not supposed to be about economic/political systems, yet it was founded by communists and remains rife with them today.
The organization is front and nothing more.
Just look at their actions.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I don’t think we’re ever going to see any response to these complaints. The ACLU might be unwilling to climb out of this particular hole, but they’re smart enough to refrain from digging it deeper.
They’re not going to defend this indefensible position, and they’re not going to abandon it, either. They’re just going to play mum, and pretend the issue doesn’t exist.
BTW 10 tries to get the anti-spam word right? I’m not that blind, what gives?
July 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Why, why, why do you insist on alienating so many liberty-loving Americans by taking a discredited position on an issue you otherwise ignore?
July 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I am a member of the ACLU and NRA. I *thought* the ACLU was interested in protecting all civil rights, particularly those set forth in the Bill of Rights. The position set forth above is contrary to the SCOTUS stated opinion, and quite frankly, contrary to the idea of protecting individual rights. It is the second amendment that puts teeth in the others to protect us from an oppressive government. There is no logical reason for this position, so the ACLU should change its position. Otherwise, you might as well be the Bush Administration, just choosing which rights you defend based on personal opinion.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
ACLU, your position on this issue is defensible on neither legal, constitutional, or logical grounds.
You may want to re-think this one.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Would you care to comment on your past ties with the American Communist Party? Is it true that your largest benefactors are a who’s who list of active gun hating groups with socialist leanings?
‘Re-interperetation’- I wet myself when I read that in your blog. The Supreme Court just decided that the 2nd ammendment is an individual right and you decide that they are wrong. WTF?
Your anaolgy about cars being licensed is laughable and already picked apart by more capable wordsmiths that me.
Since you now deny that the Bill Of Rights protects the individual I call you an enemy of the state. You can rest assured that you will find your membership making hard choices when faced with your hypocracy towards our civil rights.
July 16th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
There all cowards. The real meaning
A ren’t
C onservertives
L iterally
U ndermined
July 16th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I was thinking of joining the ACLU, but after seeing this I realize my money would be better spent elsewhere. I suppose I’ll have to find some other organization that supports constitutionally derived rights without somehow missing the 2nd amendment. Maybe I’ll spend the money I would have given the ACLU on a Smith and Wesson A22, I need to get more practice in with handguns.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
It’s too bad that the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union doesn’t stand up for the most important CIVIL LIBERTY that we have.
This makes me sick.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I am an ACLU member but I don’t get it. I always respected the ACLU because I felt like they would always protect the Bill of Rights. I always understood the fact that they did not protect the 2nd Amendment was because there was no consensus on the meaning of that amendment. Now that the courts have ruled I am beginning to realize that the ACLU is only defending their own “interpretation” of the Bill of Rights. I never imagined that the ACLU interprets the Bill of RIghts based on their opinion. The ACLU has completely lost my respect and I will not be renewing my membership. I am a teacher and I always praised the ACLU in my classes for defending our rights. I can’t wait to get back to my classroom in the fall and tell my students that the ALCU is a biased organization with their own agenda. I think I will support the Human Rights Campaign instead.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:52 am
So when all 9 supreme court justices say that the Second Ammendment is an individual right, the ACLU sticks it’s fingers in it’s ears and sings “Lalalalalala can’t hear you!”. Please if you are serious about protecting civil liberties then you cannot ignore the second ammendment. It protected you from Hanovarean merceneries 230-ish years a go and it protects you from rapists, murderers, car-jackers and jackbooted thugs today.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:04 am
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. ”
To put it more accurately and honestly:
“The ACLU deliberately and willfully misinterprets the Second Amendment as a collective right and refuses to consider any and all evidence to the contrary.”
This issue makes the ACLU appear to be a fraud, particularly because of the sheer wealth of original sources that clearly define the nature and purpose of the right to keep and bear arms.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Unlike many of the outraged commenters, I was never an ACLU member.
However, I felt guilty about it.
I was annoyed by people who suggested the ACLU had any agenda besides protecting our freedoms while respecting
the constitution.
I think this post settles that.
The fact the ACLU is willing to damage their own position on defending the rights of “we people” in other parts
of the bill of rights and ignore SCOTUS just to try and please their donors is pretty sad.
I don’t feel guilty about that membership anymore, and certainly will not entertain any thoughts in the future.
Unless I move to Nevada of course.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
It’s nice to know that our civil liberites are being protected by an organization that molds them to fit their agenda whether it is in agreement with the law or not. PLEEEASE Thankfully the courts have the “LEGAL AUTHORITY” to interpret our laws and not the ACLU.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
The ACLU is wrong. Like other rights the Second Amendment applies to *individuals* and not just collectively.
This is another example of a questionable ACLU opinion.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
They removed my post #778?! Doesn’t matter, things are starting to sway a different way.
http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-nevada-supports-individual%E2%80%99s-right-bear-arms
Everyone send an email to the Nevada ACLU and praise them for taking a stand in support of the Second Amendment!
July 17th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
As long as the ACLU feels that they can pick and choose which rights to protect, they will not receive my money !!
The only language that ACLU really speaks is money.
Such a shame that such an admirable concept (that of protecting our rights) has been so bastardized…..
July 17th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
The ACLU like other socialist organizations need to maintain control over the individual. One way to do this is to ensure that the individual cannot protect themselves. The 2 amendment guarantees the others.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
The idea that the 2nd Amendment is open to continual reinterpretation – whether by the court system, the Congress, or the ACLU – is ludicrous.
The founding fathers are to blame for the ambiguous language in the Bill of Rights, however their opinions when pressed on the issue of the 2nd Amendment are unwavering in their support for the individual and the right to possess weapons for defensive purposes:
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46
“The whole of that Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” – Albert Gallatin
July 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
If you really want to defend our Bill Of Rights(ALL OF IT), then support these fine groups instead:
JPFO.org
GunOwners.org
July 18th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I dropped my membership in the ACLU back in 1972 when I learned that you really did not help anyone establish their civil rights, but merely stepped in with a brief so you could claim credit for the work of local attorneys. When your announced your policy of denying the Second Amendment protects an individual right, that was merely confirmation to me that yours is a corrupt, base organization, defrauding your members, and the public as to your true agenda. You simply want to cherry pick those ” Rights ” with which you agree for your own left-wing politica agenda. You are controlled by people who come from urban backgrounds, and look down on any other people who live outside cities, or enjoy a culture that differs from your own. Elitism is the MOTHER of all bigots, and you have shown you are just as bigoted as any of those people you have attacked.
My only surprise is at the huge list of people here, who are just now figuring out how truly uninterested you are in protecting civil Liberties. Where have all you folks been for the past 40 years? The leadership of the ACLU has been very openly arrogant about their narrow views on civil rights. It should not have taken any of you this long to recognize that the ACLU is not going to change it position on the Second Amendment, no matter how many court decisions they lose.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
The state militia system is not dead. Most states including California have on the books legislation that empowers the governor to conscript able-bodied citizens in response to an emergency of any kind. Militia duty is not limited to armed conflict – It includes responses to natural disaster such as fighting wildfires, sandbagging levies, and rescuing victims who are trapped or stranded. Fortunately there are enough people who are willing to volunteer for these kinds of services that gubernatorial authority to call up the unorganized militia has rarely been needed. People organize themselves into ad hoc groups of varying size to help themselves and others in times of trouble.
Defense of communities, neighborhoods, homes, and individuals is as important to the security of a free state as is defense of the whole state. An individual who puts up a defense against an attack in his or her home constitutes a militia of one, and that person’s right to have weapons for self-defense surely was in the minds of the authors of the Bill of Rights.
The term “collective right” makes sense to me for issues like tribal sovreignty, but for the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it seems meaningless. How secure is a state if the blessing of security is not extended to each and every individual?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Collectively, we all have a right to defend ourselves. Specifically via arms.
The ACLU’s position is anti-rights, anti-justice, anti-reason. Their position deserves to be blasted, particularly since it goes against their mission.
I fully appreciate the fears they have over criminal misuse of arms. What I cannot tolerate is those fears that seek to deny me my right to defend my life.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Collectively, we all have a right to defend ourselves. Specifically via arms.
The ACLU’s position is anti-rights, anti-justice, anti-reason. Their position deserves to be blasted, particularly since it goes against their mission.
I fully appreciate the fears they have over criminal misuse of arms. What I cannot tolerate is those fears that seek to deny me my right to defend my life.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
-I am not a collective.
-I don’t need a socialist organization to “fight” for my rights.
-I have sworn to protect and defend the COTUS, in its entirety.
-My moral compass will not allow me to circumvent the parts I may not agree with.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:06 am
So the ACLU is acting like a child that refuses to throw away their blankie even though it is tattered and worn out, just like the ACLUs comical and idiotic longtime stance that right there, in with 9 Amendments that guarantee the rights of an individual, our founders tossed in a right of the government.
Anyone that continues to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU after this showing by the ACLU to refuse to admit they are wrong needs to seriously think about what other rights the ACLU may decide to stop defending should it ever become politically convenient.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
For an organization to say it supports civil liberties you sure did miss out on this one. This country would not exist if the “people” did not own guns and did not bear them against the British tyrants that sought to dictate how they live their lives. How about defending the second instead of pandering to the chicken littles of the world.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I have long suspected that the ACLU had ceased to be a defender of all our civil rights and instead become a cheerleader for the politically correct left. The refusal to accept Heller is the last straw. How the ACLU manages to keep its tax-exempt status when clearly it is aligned entirely with one political party is a mystery to me. I cannot support this organization any more. I will burn my card now and carry it no longer.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
It’s a shame I can’t support the ACLU now. They do so much good, but, now that I know they’re fighting against one of my most important civil liberties, I can’t in good faith support them with my voice or my purse. I am truly disappointed.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Astonishing that the ACLU would take this stance. Your organization is a fraud and has lost all of my respect and funding.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
The ACLU is comprised of nothing more than a bunch of GodDamned Communists who want nothing more than to destroy the moral fabric and the basic Constitutional Rights of EVERY red-blooded American! The ACLU’s leaders will burn in HELL for the EVIL acts it perpetrates onto to the American people. We, ‘The People’, WILL Rise against the ACLU and the Communists who run it!
July 20th, 2008 at 5:04 am
The ACLU is comprised of nothing more than a bunch of God-Forsaken Communists who want nothing more than to destroy the moral fabric and the basic Constitutional Rights of EVERY red-blooded American! The ACLU’s leaders will burn in HE!! for the EVIL acts it perpetrates onto to the American people. We, ‘The People’, WILL Rise against the ACLU and the Communists who run it!
July 20th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Can any one militiaman “bear arms” against a neighbouring state, or would ‘The People’ in their collective capacity make that decision?
July 20th, 2008 at 11:06 am
The SCOTUS decision that the police have no duty or obligation to protect the individual(Castle Rock Vs. Gonzalez)ought to allow for individuals to possess arms for defence. Your stance that the individual has no right to bear arms seems to leave the citizenry in a bit of a catch-22 situation. How can you justify this cowardly position?
“Hello, we’re from the government and we refuse to protect you from criminals, AND we refuse you the ability to do so yourselves.”
Does that pretty much cover your position? Or, am I misreading something here?
July 20th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Pretty sad that how the ACLU is now just an arm of the democratic party. Why would the ACLU possibly take a position that restricts a civil liberty? Oh right, arm of the democratic party. Sad.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Your stance on the second ammendment leaves citizens in a bit of a catch-22 situation. Castle Rock Vs. Gonzalez(a previous SCOTUS ruling) declared the police have NO obligation or duty to protect the public even when their actions were negligent and resulted in the kidnapping and murder of three young children by their father.
If the Supreme Court has decided the cops have no duty to protect us then how can you tow the Bullshit line that it is a ‘collective’ right and we, in fact, have no right to self defense?
Re-interperetation!
July 20th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
The number of comments (1055 as of this writing) is absolutely amazing. Most of the other issues on this site have comments in the single digits and many have none. What is even more amazing to me is the intellectual honesty expressed by many former ACLU members. Finally, the most amazing thing is that the “moderators” of this site remain absolutely silent. I suspect they are hoping this blog will just go away and the comments will stop. Will they ever come out and admit they were just wrong? If they hope to regain former members and maybe even gain conservative NRA members, they should make this admission. Come on ACLU, I dare you!
July 21st, 2008 at 9:54 am
Well, The ACLU has lost another supporter.
YOU PEOPLE ARE HYPOCRITE’S AND ARE A TOTAL DISGRACE TO THIS COUNTRY!!
Please do us all a favor and disband.
Thank you
July 21st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I think Ayn Rand said it best – “The smallest minority on Earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
And here’s another news flash – the Constitution and the Bill of Rights DO NOT grant rights; they protect rights granted by the Creator to all free men (look up inalienable). These are all individual rights as intended by the founding fathers. Guess which one they thought was second in importance?
July 21st, 2008 at 4:46 pm
The ACLU(American Communist Liberal Union) is now totally worthless.
These groups will fight for our most basic rights and are worthy of support:
Gun Owners Of America
gunowners.org
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
JPFO.org
July 21st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Dear ACLU,
You have explicitly confirmed my long-held position that you are nothing more than a front organization for far-left social engineering. Your arbitrary refusal to embrace the SCOTUS decision provides the proof. Perhaps the tax-exempt status of the ACLU should be reevaluated as you are now in clear conflict with your charter.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Without the 2nd Amendment there is no guarantee to the other 26 Amendments that we value here in America, the ACLU could care less about the American people as that group of people have shown us time and time again in fighting against the 2nd Amendment at every given opportunity ..The ACLU aka NAMBLA Extension Members will never receive 1c from us ever again
July 21st, 2008 at 7:38 pm
This is sooo dumb. ACLU, let me give you some free advice.
Just say that 2A guarantees an individual right but it is not part of your mission to fight it all the time because there are others doing that. What is the problem with that?
Here in DC, you opposed police checkpoints in a high crime area. The police stopped them and 6 people were shot by (illegal) guns last week.
I still think that was the right thing for you to do, but please, just because you don’t like guns, don’t try to reinvent the B0A.
BTW-if you really do just have a leftest agenda, look at your left-wing history. The leaders of the movement in the early 20th century ALL agreed, and even fought for an individuals right to bear arms.
I am a liberal civil libertarien, but you are out of it on this one.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:42 pm
What would Justice Ginsberg say about a state official who asked a pregnant woman: “Please explain to me why you need an abortion so that I can determine whether to give you a license.”
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
There is no legal or logical analysis to the ACLU’s continued “collective rights” theory. Until such a time as the ACLU posts a in-depth and researched justification of your disagreement with Parker vs. DC and DC vs. Heller, your motivation of this stance, rather than the stance itself is the primary issue.
In other words, people smarter then you told you you were wrong. Your response was to put your fingers in your ears and go “la la la la”.
Or are you saying you will just continue to disagree without examining Parker and Heller?
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
There is no disproving it now. The ACLU has shown its true colors and is now a self admitted enemy of the state.
The constitutional ‘reset’ button will be pressed at some point. When that happens, the ACLU and its followers better remember that they will deserve whatever they get.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Nevada ACLU has come around and embraced the right to own the necessary means to defend yourself so that you may exercise every other liberty that the Constitution embraces.
The remaining ACLU chapters continue their steady retreat from advocacy for the liberty of individuals and towards the promotion of left wing social programming agendas.
If you are a member of the NY ACLU or any other ACLU, quit, and join the Nevada ACLU.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
You can have my membership dues when you pry them from my cold, dead hands
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I always thought of the ACLU as just another Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton type group.
Defend whatever is convenient for them and the hell with everyone else.
I guess I’m right.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 am
So, finally a large number of (former)ACLU members are seeing that their orgainizaiton is nothing but a front group for oppressive left-wing ideologies, and that the ACLU cares NOTHING for the rights of the individual, only those cases that serve their political ends.
Try a real pro-rights group like the IJ or NRA.
Welcome to the real world.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 am
I guess they are going to treat this as the did Heller… Grow a fkn pair and respond you spineless money hungry hypocrates.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 am
Count ME out on anymore contributions to the ACLU! Ridiculous position that it is a ‘collective’ right!
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:32 am
Never mind, the brief was from the ACRU, Not the ACLU. my mistake. moderator, delete my previous post if you would like
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:05 am
The opinion of the ACLU on this one proves you are of no good use to the honest hard working citizens of this country. By not wanting the citizens of DC to protect themselves when every criminal has access to whatever they wish truly shows the ACLU’s motto “All Criminals Love Us”
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I would like the ACLU to define exactly what a “Collective Right” is.
My position is that there is no such thing as a collective right. A collective right would imply that the steward (owner) of such a right is the government, therefore setting the precedent that our government is endowed with rights.
Utter hogwash!
Our government uses authority and power delegated to it by people, meaning you & me. Nowhere in any government document does it say that our government has certain rights. In each case, government gets is delegated the authority to use certain power; never a right.
Only people have rights. All rights are individual. Rights, like responsibility, cannot be delegated.
Since the 2nd amendment clearly refers to a particular right, that right is automatically an individual right, and the ACLU’s position is a legal fiction.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Not one positive comment about the ACLU`s position on the Heller decision. Enough said.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Any other Bill of Rights that the ACLU has decided are “collective”?
Press? Unlawful search and siezure?
Just wondering?
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
If you want you cannot take it from me.
If you think you can, you still don’t know me. Let me tell you, when I said it, I meant it And I will always have the right to defend it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
While I support most of the contributions of the ACLU to the People, there is nothing worse than a supposed “liberties” group which selectively chooses which liberties they want to give the people. The founding fathers found it so important that the people be able to defend themselves against their own government that they made this right the 2nd amendment, second in importance only to freedom of speech. Just look at DC for a reason why people need this right; can you imagine if laws like this were regulated over the whole country? The Heller decision could have very easily gone the other way, changing America forever. We have the most freedom of any country in the whole world, and idiots like the ACLU would take that freedom away if it doesn’t agree with their misguided and uninformed ideals.
The Supreme Court has the authority, granted by the Constitution itself, to get the final say on what exactly the Constitution means. Or would you have that check/balance removed for your benefit as well?
If the fathers could have seen what this country has turned into, I’m sure that they would have made the 2nd amendment the 1st!
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Forwarding in case you did not get the hardcopy.
To: American Civil Liberties Union
From: Adrian Fenty, Mayor District of Columbia
To Whom It May Concern:
I have recently been told that the ACLU has changed it’s stance and is now willing to defend cases resulting from unconstitutional government actions. Please contact my office to discuss provision of services on retainer for all legal actions expected to occur as a result of my lack of willingness to abide by the US Constitution. I am willing to pay for extensive legal services with vast amounts of DC tax payer money. Additionally, I may be able to connect the ACLU with additional opportunites throguh my connections in New York and Louisiana. Please call as soon as possible.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Hey ACLU
Here’s a clue for you. . .
1083 comments telling you that your stance on the 2nd is WRONG!
If this was a vote or a poll it would be called a LANDSLIDE. . .
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I don’t get the ACLU. What makes them think they have the right to pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights get respected? Well, gag me with a spoon! What else did I expect from this group of far left liberal lawyers? “Collective right” my ___ – and you fill in the blank!
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Integrity is a heavy burden. Clearly the ACLU has rid itself of it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Hmm….Strange that out of the entire Bill of Rights you choose to not recognize/protect the one that protects ALL the others. Including your precious 1st.
Without the 2nd all the others fall. The Constitution will have no “teeth” at all.
I also find it funny that out of all these comments on here and out of the 1 or 200 I read I didn’t see a SINGLE comment supporting you.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
The ACLU is to busy defending its chapter presidents from child porn charges right now, they will attack this freedom later. Right after they get adult filters removed from public library’s. ACLU is a joke every working American knows it. They love liberties as long as they fit into their radical left hippie agenda.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
There isn’t even a reference to 2A or self-defense issues on the ACLU “Categories” listing. Nothing close.
Seriously, I didn’t believe people who had told me “The ACLU? Oh they are just a bunch of wack-jobs”. That is no longer the case.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I am a long-time member of the ACLU, and a former staff member of the Iowa affiliate. I’ve always thought that the ACLU’s position that the Second Amendment was a “collective right” was ridiculous. Why would there be a collective right in the midst of individual rights? The “well regulated militia” argument is old and lame. Face it, friends at the ACLU, the Second Amendment means what it says, and Scalia got it right.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:07 am
As a long-time member and admirer of the ACLU’s courageous defense of our liberties, I’m deeply saddened by this refusal to accept clear confirmation by the Supreme Court of a fundamental civil right.
Your previous neutrality was disappointing but understandable.
Your current position is not.
I’d like to see an official Board position on whether or not the ACLU will at least recognize, if not defend, ALL our civil rights.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:10 am
As a long-time member and admirer of the ACLU’s courageous defense of our liberties, I’m deeply saddened by this refusal to accept clear confirmation by the Supreme Court of a fundamental civil right.
Your previous neutrality was disappointing but understandable.
Your current position is not.
I’d like to see an official Board position on whether or not the ACLU will at least recognize, if not defend, ALL our civil rights.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:39 am
When you wake in the middle of the night for a bathroom break and are confronted by “Flocko”, holding a knife, on the downside of a three-day crack binge, stealing your belongings and vowing to NEVER go back to jail… call your fellow ACLU member.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” ~ George Washington
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” ~ George Washington
The ACLU needs to grow up and start worrying about protecting people rather than pushing their own agendas. It’s truly a shame that the ACLU still cannot agree with what the Supreme Court says. There’s picture on the main ACLU.org page of an ear and below it states: “Democracy is about listening, not listening in…”
Democracy has just followed the course on the 2nd Amendment yet the ACLU is “listening in”… listening in to their own ideas rather than what democracy has decided.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Don’t you realize that the right to keep and bear arms provides a powerful backup to all of the other civil rights? Why on earth would you decline to recognize this? The founders of our nation thought it important enough to write into the bill of rights.
Who does it hurt to support this right?? Are you worried that people cannot be trusted with power? Then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
If you cannot trust the citizens, the ultimate rulers of the United States, with our own weapons, why should we trust you with our money?
July 24th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Whenever I feel a little down I just look at this blog and feel better after looking at all the former ACLU supporters realizing what a lie the organization is.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
When people believe they are right, they like to tell others why.
Silence from the ACLU.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Come on, ACLU, join the party. You can trust responsible citizens with firearms. You could do a lot of good by supporting the 2nd, encouraging education and training, and encouraging the use of gun safes and vaults to prevent unwanted use or theft. Sounds a bit like sex education. Don’t you support that?
The Bill of Rights is a non partisan document. Let go of the idea that only liberals think it is partisan. Please find a way to support the 2nd.
After 7 years of the Bush sham, do you really think it best that only the government and conservatives are armed?
July 25th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Although I haven’t searched every single ACLU blog, I have yeat to find another one which has anywhere near 1100+ comments on it. Nearly all say the ACLU organization should support the 2A precisely as the organization did in the state of Nevada.
Your supporters all have access to this blog, but they aren’t showing much support for some reason. Maybe they are, except they aren’t supporting you any longer. If your supporters truly number so low I fail to grasp how the ACLU will continue to survive.
Further, many on this blog are refusing to financially support the ACLU until it supports the 2A with as much passion as it does for other Constitutional rights. I presume their funding is important to you, as is the importance of the ACLU to maintain consistency in all states. A house divided cannot stand, especially when funds are drying up.
Surely the ACLU is taking these comments seriously. We would like to request moderator comments to provide an update.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:58 am
wow,
way to drop the ball ACLU….
our forefathers thought long and hard about that one.
as they had just escaped an oppressive government, do you really think that they intended for only the government/authorities to bare arms?
we are the “people”
July 27th, 2008 at 8:08 am
I would say I was surprised at a decision like this out of the ACLU, but I’d be lying.
Maybe we should have a CCLU instead of the ACLU.
“Citizens’ Civil Liberties Union”
Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I doubt we’re going to hear anything more from the ACLU on this subject until the next big case, 2nd amendment incorporation, makes comment unavoidable. When we’ll get another brief, insupportable comment to the effect that the Supreme court is still wrong, and again no response to comments.
This particular blog post is buried so deep by now only the people who bookmarked it while it was on top, or who are coming to it from external links, are ever going to see it. Nothing we’re saying here is being seen even by the few who peruse the ACLU’s blog. It’s viewed by the ACLU as harmless venting, to be ignored.
And getting ACLU members talking to each other has never been a very big concern of the ACLU, or else they wouldn’t have taken, what? Two years? to replace the forum they earlier killed off with this blog.
Like any centrally run, top down organization, the ACLU would really prefer that the membership not compare notes with each other, because of the potential they’d discover that they agree on something that they disagree with the leadership about. Such as, in this instance, the desirability of defending the entire Bill of Rights.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Well, it seems that the ACLU has finally found a civil liberty it will NOT defend. Dont get me wrong, I have never liked your organization, for the most part I dispize you and think that your liberal interpertation of the constitution has expedited the moral degredation of America. But I always respected the fact that you fought for what you believed in…. The protection of the Constitution of the United States. But now I have been proven wrong. You only defend the parts you like and are willing to disregard the rest. The Constitution protects the rights of every citizen. Every INDIVIDUAL citizen. And its a good thing it does, because the ACLU certainly doesn,t!
July 27th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
ACLU, defender of the constitution and all of its amendments! Er, um, I mean most of its amendments… Well, maybe just some of them. How about the ones they like and fit their agenda?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Here is a question to see if the ACLU even reads the posts from people who dont parrot their views. What percentage of firearms used in violent crimes where regestered/ legally purchased by the purpotrator? Do a little research and a blind man could see that legally owned firearms are not the problem. How about you protect my constitutional right to keep and bare arms by attacking bills 2235, 2062, and 2948, all currently in the California state senate. These bills are attacking the rights of law abiding citizens and setting a terrible precident stepping on OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! Hey ACLU, how about you do something good for America?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Here is a quote for all of you out there that believe guns are evil.
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficiant, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
- Adolf Hitler, 1935
An armed person is a citizen, an unarmed person is a peasant.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Does anyone really believe that it is a coincedence that the two counties in Texas that allow all law abiding citizens to carry firearms without a permit. Also happen to be the two counties in America with the lowset crime rate per capita?
“THE SECOND AMENDMENT, DEFENDER OF THE REST!”
July 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Wow, guess you have to swear in order to get your comment posted. Otherwise it gets sensored. Kind of strange that the ACLU would sensor someones comments on constitutional freedoms.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Re: Brett Bellmore, comment #1105
It is still the top post for the SCOTUS tag – that’s something. It’ll show up if anyone browsers that tag,
or in the event of another SCOTUS post by ACLU.
Of course, my interest in this has mostly moved to merely curiosity. It is pretty clear what side of liberty
the ACLU has chosen for the near future.
Re: #1082 and a few others. There *was* one positive response.
It was fairly silly and took a non-dictionary interpretation of what a Civil Liberty might mean.
Oh. And they never returned.
Greg M – #290 was positive
BussiBaer – #480 was in response.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
- Mao
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”
- Joseph Stalin
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”
- Lenin
July 28th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
One last post before I erase my bookmark and the ACLU vanishes from my mind.
To those defending the ACLU by saying that they “still defend the other amendments” remember this:
You cannot direct your donations to a specific cause or case. Therefore your continued donations may one day fund an ACLU attack on the Second Amendment.
Live with that.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I applaud ACLU of NEVADA for breaking rank with ACLU national organizational office now that Nevada interprets the 2nd Amendment correctly.
If it can be possible at all, I will donate $ to Nevada ACLU organization and become a card-carrying member of ACLU Nevada. Not ACLU as a national organization.
I have donated $35 to Gun Owners of America and NRA. I am a liberal, yet I find ACLU’s skewed interpretation of the 2nd Amendment offensive. Read the Founding Fathers’ statements on the exact meaning of this important amendment.
ACLU no longer possess credibility except for Nevada. ACLU has demonstrated time and again it is hostile to 2nd Amendment rights as an exception, proving it to be a partisan Communist organization.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
What does the aclu have to say about any of this?!
July 29th, 2008 at 12:14 am
The ACLU is has strayed so far from its original mission as to become intellectually bankrupt and patently dishonest. If anyone doubts these facts, they might start by examining all the briefs in support of the respondent (Mr. Heller) in the case:
scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller
-with an eye towards their interpretation of the constitution as protecting the rights of the INDIVIDUAL – and NOT the limited powers allowed to the government.
By abandoning their dedication to individual rights following Heller, the ACLU has simply shown that they are merely an extension of the democratic party and that they would prefer all arms (and all power) ultimately stay under the control of the government – which is currently headed by George W. Bush. The ACLU has abandoned the people with their politically biased spin on Heller in favor of a police state.
ACLU: you should be ashamed of what you’ve done to a previously-great organization.
July 30th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Josef Stalin said:
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We don’t let the people have guns. Why would we let them have ideas?”
Loss of one follows the other.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I have not been an ACLU member, as I am still young… but now I have a feeling like I never will be.
All my positive beliefs regarding the 2nd amendment have be stated already. Let me remind you the 2nd amendment states in the second part, a piece of English which is hard to misunderstand
“…, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” Regardless of the intent mentioned before this, it should be clear that our right to keep and bear arms will and should not be limited.
I hope you realize your mistake before its too late, as you seem to have already lots quite a bit of support over this.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
You give me hope for the future Will, Knowing that young people can read English better than some Lawyers.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
In the previous 1120 pro-gun commentaries, I lost track of counting misspellings at about 100.
We have a long history of carelessness here.
Trivial?
I don’t think so.
Our basic and unalienable right to defend ourselves originated thus:
#2 the right to BARE arms
Let’s all do a few push-ups and smile at our neighbors.
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:34 am
The ACLU supports NABLA, so this is no surprise.
August 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
#1115 (Aaron): “If it can be possible at all, I will donate $ to Nevada ACLU organization and become a card-carrying member of ACLU Nevada. Not ACLU as a national organization.”
I’ve just written to the Nevada chapter to ask that very question. If they give me an answer, I’ll post it here.
I will say that I have had no luck getting email replies from anyone at the ACLU, at either the national or (Washington) state level.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Ok, so I is individual, but II is collective. Get a life ACLU. You are a bunch of irrational idiots if this is how you see thing, and most of the world knows it.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Ya know, I’ve been mulling this whole thing over for quite a while, and I think the Founding Fathers were on to something when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.
You know how certain words in the English Language, while spelled the same, can still take on different meanings?
Well, I think the Founding Fathers may have used the word “State” in that way.
For example, and I believe most here would agree, the use of the word “state” in the 2nd Amendment, has been interpreted to mean a “political sub-division” or as the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines it here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/State): “5a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign; b: the political organization of such a body of people c: a government or politically organized society having a particular character ”
It is funny to note that the first definition is “1a: mode or condition of being b (1): condition of mind or temperament (2): a condition of abnormal tension or excitement.”
So it got me wondering, were the Founding Fathers words “…being necessary to the security of a free state…” talking about the “Several States” or were they talking about the security that comes from being in a state of mind that comes with being free? Is it possible they, maybe, meant both?
Just a thought…
August 4th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Try this one. “A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Now, does this this means that only well-educated people could keep and read books, or does it mean that everyone can have books as a means to produce a well-educated people.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
lol, the Constitution is whatever the supreme court says it is except when they disagree with you?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Consider that the ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment has been historically wrong. What does this mean? Can the ACLU look at this issue objectively? Can the ACLU learn from it’s mistakes, grow, and adapt? Or will the ACLU follow rhetoric and ignore logic, and eventually become obsolete? I challenge the ACLU to challenge it’s own previous assumptions and positions regarding the Second Amendment and to re-examine this issue. The Second Amendment is the People’s ultimate check and balance on Government; the Right to Bear Arms ultimately protects the people from Government gone wrong. Free Citizens have a Right to Bear Arms; Government Subjects do not.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Just curious to see where ACLU stood on the civil liberty to own a gun. Sounds like they don’t recognize gun ownership as a civil liberty. I’m not sure if I should be surprized…
August 8th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Editor
Given that we on the pro-gun side are a bunch of ignorant rubes who cannot even spell, surely the intelligent, educated, and wise anti-gun side will delight in devastating us with their wit and wisdom and extensive knowledge… I wonder why they have ignored our many pleas for enlightenment all this time.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:08 am
ACLU: you have lost a supporter and affirmed the accusation that you are simply a bunch of profiteering bastards. I concur with post #1115…being pro-gun is not mutually exclusive with being liberal. This is just as bad as certain sectors of the NRA chumping the first and fourth amendments. It’s bullshit. Shame on you, ACLU.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:06 am
As a proud ACLU member, and a supporter of a non-fictional interpretation of the Second Amendment, I am very disappointed, and am not likely to renew my membership.
If the ACLU is going to become a nakedly partisan political PAC, and not an independent defender of all the Constitutional rights of every citizen, then I see no reason to continue supporting it.
I shudder to think what might happen if we encouraged such specious and cynical interpretations of the rest of the Constitution.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:08 am
If you are to retian the name “civil “liberties” you need to fall in line with the SCOTUS decision on the Second Amendment.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am
The ultimate goal of many who support gun control is to ban and confiscate all modern guns in civilian hands.
Historically they have used government agents(and even paid thugs) armed with fully automatic assault weapons to enforce their gun bans.
They do not trust law-abiding citizens to own common hunting rifles and handguns yet they will trust a totalitarian government with machine guns and tanks!
The hypocrisy, ignorance of history, and flat-out stupidity amazes me and I will simply never understand those who support a gun ban.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
About every two weeks you guys send me a request for a donation. And every time I send it back with a written comment telling you I would be glad to donate if you supported all 10 of the bill of rights. Read my lips, guys, that is IF you supported all 10 of the Bill of Rights!
You just don’t get it, do you? You have to support all of the God-given Bill or Rights to get my money or any other support from me. So long as you pursue some other half-assed political agenda, you an kiss mine.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:33 am
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right….!
WOW! Here’s a news flash, The ACLU is out of step/touch with the majority of real Americans..
August 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision …
WOW ! The ACLU has done it again, staying out of touch with the majority of real AMERICANS and representing NO ONE.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:53 am
When the ACLU supports all the rights in the Bill of Rights–including the Second–I will join. Continue to ignore it, and I will continue to ignore your appeals for my money.
http://www.shanegericke.com
August 20th, 2008 at 9:32 am
It doesn’t matter what the Constitution says; it doesn’t matter what SCOTUS says.
85% of the US population holds that citizens have the right to defend themselves and their families from harm.
In order to do this effectively, firearms are simply necessary.
By denying Heller, the ACLU denies the right of individuals to defend themselves in any practicable manner.
Which, of course, is an logically and morally untenable position.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
You have failed to support the Second Amendment!
And that is why I’m no longer a member of the ACLU!
August 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Absurd! Way to destroy your credibility as a “civil liberties” organization. At least you have finally revealed that the ACLU is simply a radical left-wing self-serving special-interest group (whose interests are now special to noone). I will be contributing more money to the NRA on your behalf, and will also celebrate with the purchase of a new semi-automatic pistol.
Love America and defend the ENTIRE constitution, or fold up and disappear!
Jim Shook
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 am
And anyone else who will not accept our most basic constitutional rights!
LIVE FREE OR DIE.
August 24th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
so, is the internet an individual or collective right? oh well….. and my money goes to… drumroll…..
THE NRA
August 24th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I cant wait till you guys re-interpret reproductive rights as collective rather than individual….. at least that would make more sense than a community owning a gun
August 24th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
and the money I would’ve donated will either now go to a LIFETIME NRA membership, or to purchase a new handgun!
HOOOOORRRAAAYYYY!
August 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Thanks for reminding me that if the ACLU supports it, then I should be against it.
August 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I have defended the ACLU on many online forums, backing their stance that even the disagreeable have a right to speak. In that Light, the ACLU has the right to state that it believes the 2nd amendment is collective and not an individual right. And that rates right up there with what the WBBC (aka Phelps clan) spouts. ACLU, you just lost a vocal supporter and I will now denounce you just as vocally as I once supported you.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
O, how the pendulum has swung. I once believed that the ACLU stood for something, fought for civil liberties granted by the Bill of Rights and against oppression from all organizations that would infringe upon those rights.
Now, with its stance on the SCOTUS/Heller ruling, it is obvious that has become as fascist as those they once opposed. How hypocritical. How sad.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Good to know the ACLU feels free to pick and choose the civil liberties they are willing to support.
I wonder if they will throw their true causes to the wolves if they find out one of their victims is a *gasp* gun owner.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:00 am
The ACLU’s stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States”.
Now, however, the ACLU apparently cherry picks which civil liberties should be defended and which should be discarded. The ACLU’s credibility is shot; it has forsaken its ideals. The preservation of civil liberties in the future will be better off without this organization.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
You folks there at the ACLU sure do adulterate the meaning of the word ‘interprets!’
September 1st, 2008 at 5:37 am
This is so amazing to me… As a dues paying member (an actual, genuine dues paying member- not one who lies about it on a blog post to gain whatever conversational capital that lends in this context) this is so disappointing to me.
It’s so sad that the ACLU- an otherwise important and necessary organization- has devolved into being nothing more than a mindless mouthpiece for leftist social dogma, including the one issue where the left is the furthest off base- individual gun rights.
I don’t know if you’ll get another check from me or not- I can’t say with certainty that you won’t, but I can say with absolute certainty that this is the first time I’ve ever seriously reconsidered being a member.
Terrible decision; a strong indicator that the intellectual leaders at the ACLU need to be douched, fast.
September 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I almost joined the ACLU because I have a strong passion for defending the freedoms and liberties that are non negotiable. But when I found out the ACLU position on second amendment I as flabbergasted. Ok is it not a individual right to defend his own life?? The Bill of Rights is rights to INDIVIDUAL hence saying its collective is just going against that. Besides, they mention the peoples right. Why doesn’t the ACLU recite the last part?? Do you only repeat the first few words in the other amendments as well?? ACLU are hypocrites and push only the human rights they like instead of ALL human righs
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Just got a letter from Geraldine Engel stating, “I’m betting . . . that you haven’t made a conscious decision to stop being . . . a member of the ACLU.” I guess you didn’t see the handwritten note I included with my crossed out renewal. Let me repeat it here.
ACLU, like many organizations and politicians, wants money from small donors (even calls them members) but is totally oblivious to their wishes. You invite us to the ball but then you dance only with the wealthy whoremasters. I’ll pass, thank you. (The Joyce Foundation, is that your whoremaster? I need to investigate further.)
There is no honest argument that the 2nd Amendment could be a “collective right.” The Bill of Rights is all about individual rights versus the powers of government.
Further, a united front in defense of the Bill of Rights would have been a political masterstroke. You want protection for the 1st and 4th, then protect the 2nd. The Constitution is all we have, yet you have shown that you are willing to trample (in your own small way) on it, in pursuit of your private interests. Goodday.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
re: Dues Paying Member
Hey. You’re not the only one. I can attest a couple of the entries above were friends of mine who most certainly
were ACLU members. Heck. At least one gave his name (post #1009)
The overlap between those who support freedom and the freedoms of the US constitution is clearly a strong overlap with the ACLU.
I’ve made a point of linking as many of my friends to this blog post, which I still monitor out of curiosity. I’m hoping to get as many to become former ACLU members as possible.
It pains me to see the ACLU harmed due to their decisions, since overall I support their cause, but clearly voting with our pocketbooks is the only option.
Fortunately there are other worthy organisations we can still support, granted, none as broad as the ACLU.
NRA or EFF just isn’t the same for me.
Anyone know of any other alternatives?
September 4th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Nemo, you might want to look into the JPFO
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
They are quite vocal about the subject of freedom.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:14 am
The ACLU called me today about renewing my membership. I told them I will not be renewing.
The reason is that I believe the ACLU has failed in their mission to protect all of the Bill of Rights by not supporting the Supreme Court decision regarding the Heller case.
I can’t imagine why an organization whose mission is to defend civil liberties would single out one of those rights as being a collective right of the state even after the Supreme Court has ruled that it is an individual right. The twisted logic the ACLU has used to support their stance sounds like something out of Animal Farm.
The ACLU should consider the opinion of the man who wrote the Constitution before they explain away our second amendment rights with a bunch of Orwellian doublespeak;
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)
I will continue to support the ACLU in any efforts to protect our civil liberties short of contributing money. As far as my annual ACLU contribution goes; I am temporarily re-directing it to the NRA until the ACLU reverses its stance on the second amendment.
I hope other dues-paying members do the same.
September 6th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I was stopped on the street the other day by a couple nice young women asking for contributions to the ACLU. I had hear of it but, didn’t know the ACLU’s stance on the 2nd Amendment. They could’t tell me either. Good thing I didn’t sign up to donate to the ACLU, because apparently the ACLU doesn’t support my civil (and basic human right) to equip myself in defence of my life the those of my family.
September 11th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
It’s telling that the ACLU views the right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment as “a collective right” when none of the “Bill of Rights’ has ever been collective, now or in the past. The ACLU has chosen to allow the personal opinions of it’s staff to intrude upon truth and reality.
The statement that the ACLU exists “Because freedom can’t protect itself.” rings hollow due to your failure to protect the Second Amendment.
Also, the claim that “The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency.” is nothing but a lie.
I can only say what is a common thing said to children that misbehave. “Shame on you.”
September 11th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Dear members,
When you listen to the people that are always saying that the ACLU is a organization that promotes liberties for some but not all, remember truth has a distinct ring. My fellow patriots, there is truth. Listen carefully.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
You’ve lost yet another here if you think that a 110lb woman has no right to equalize her chances of survival via a firearm against a 210lb rapist. Or do you think that she should just fistfight with him? Please test that idea and tell me how that works out… oh, never mind, I already have a pretty good idea.
Sorry to sound so indignant, but your way of thinking leads to disarmament of the people (something that our forefathers warned against for a reason)disarmament of the people by the government hasn’t ended all that pleasantly in the past… those who listen not to history are bound to repeat it.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
One, Three, Four, Five …
You can’t have a First Amendment with a Second. Gun ownership is a right, and one that ACLU should embrace.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
It is quite obvious that that the ACLU is nothing more than a liberal Self-interest group. It is well established that to subjugate a populous one must remove there means to defend themselves. And since many americans, myself included, view any liberal organization as socialist and therefore against individual rights it comes as no surprise to me that you take such a leftist view of the only right that guarantees one the ability to physically defend all the others in the face of tyranny.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I have always argued with other members of the NRA that the ACLU is another group which deserves support to protect our constitutional rights. It is sad and disappointing to see what I thought was an apolitical group, which I had so much respect for disregard a constitutional right simply because they don’t like it. Very sad indeed.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I have always argued with other members of the NRA that the ACLU is another group which deserves support to protect our constitutional rights. It is sad and disappointing to see what I thought was an apolitical group, which I had so much respect for disregard a constitutional right simply because they don’t like it. Very sad indeed.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Regarding your request to sign on as a constitutional voter.
I AM a constitution voter, but won’t sign the ACLU, since I completely disagree with your position on the second amendment.
Please re-consider!
September 15th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
The second amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause provides the original reason for protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms, namely to make possible a well-regulated militia, this in turn being necessary to the security of a free state. The problem is that, on any interpretation (including the interpretation in Heller), the prefatory clause is FALSE. It turns out, unsurprisingly, that a well regulated MILITIA is not NECESSARY to the security of a free state. After all, we have a standing army and this is sufficient to protect the country, and this makes the militia unnecessary. Because the prefatory clause is false, the operative clause does not apply. The second amendment, which would protect an individual right if the prefatory clause were true, is actually MOOT.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Nice try Sam. However, in the first place you make an unsubstantiated assertion. Backed by an inaccurate presumption. You assert that a well regulated Militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, but you have offered no evidence of that, other that the implication that the U.S.A has survived a couple centuries without one. In the lifetime of civilizations that is nothing. One might as well assert that food is not necessary because one person once went a day without eating. Your inaccurate presumption is that our nation does not have and has not had a well regulated militia during this time span–or has not relied upon it. For that I can only prescribe a more in depth study of history. You also assume that a standing army is always committed to protecting the country, ignoring the possibility that it might become a THREAT to a country. This was not some irrational fantasy of the founders, but was a lesson they learned from history. A Militia of armed citizens provides insurance against this by providing that a rogue military leader would not only have to deal with a handful of politicians,(as we see frequently in South America) but would have to persuade his troops to turn their weapons against their civilian brothers and fathers and neighbors. Thus it is not only a matter of whether the military could win such a struggle, but whether they would be willing to engage in it.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Anti gun people often attempt to show guns are not effective by counting the number of dead assailants. This is an error because the goal of a gun owner is not to kill assailants, but to dissuade them. Every miscreant who considers a crime, but is scared to commit it, is a success of gun owners. LIKEWISE, every politician who is afraid to enact his oppressive policies and every foreign power that is afraid of The Resistance Movement they would face, is a success of the Militia.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
People often make the error of viewing conflicts as merely a question of winner vs. looser. Thus if they believe a Militia could not defeat the Standing Army, they imagine it useless. But this is not the equation. One must also consider the cost of victory. Hitler COULD have conquered Switzerland. He did not attempt it because he was persuaded that Swiss soil would cost more than it was worth. You COULD choke me to death, but before I die I WILL stick a pencil in your eye. You must then consider if you want to kill me that badly. The Militias task is not to win, but to ensure that taking American Freedom would cost more than anyone, foreign or domestic, is willing to pay.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
that should be ‘loser’ obviously
September 18th, 2008 at 3:59 am
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.”
Given the decision, in essentially unanimous terms, there is a strong onus on you to explain how you cling to what is now a fringe position. It’s been months and I’ve heard nothing other than stubborn refusal to acknowledge what is by numbers, a validated primary purpose of the 2nd amendment.
If you’re against one, and you cling to your name and publicly stated mission, you’re frauds.
I know everyone is partisan at some point, but people will stop taking you seriously if you’re dishonest.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I was going to join the ACLU today until I read this statement.
September 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I’m a card-carrying ACLU member and believe that we need to defend ALL civil liberties, not just those the left feel are important. The Second Amendment is clearly an individual right. Read the founders on the Second Amendment and it becomes clear. Stop working to undermine that civil right. If you don’t like it, amend the constitution, but realize that the individual right to bear arms is the cornerstone of liberty and preventing or overthrowing tyranny.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Obious: ACLU, Commie Front ….
September 20th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Obvious: ACLU, Commie front …
September 21st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Confused here . . . Does the ACLU acronym stand for American Communist Lefties Unite???
They should be ashamed of themselves for pissing on MY,(the collective MY) flag.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
You urge people to vote the constitution. Which parts? Only the parts that fit into your view of reality. For an organization that is so frightened of gov’t misuse of power you would attempt to hobble the very citizens that the Bill Of Rights protects.
You couldn’t even think that your members are stupid. You just take an indefensible position and expect your rank and file to be silent and continue supporting you. What arrogance.
You disgust me.
September 25th, 2008 at 10:51 am
The Second Amendment is individual right. To claim otherwise is to claim the bill of rights should not be read literally. Shame on the ACLU
September 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
It’s interesting to see that the ACLU only sticks up for the rights that it believes in. How could the second amendment not be an individual right when it is in the Bill of Rights, a list of rights of the INDIVIDUAL to protect us from the government.
At a point it is possible that the government will over step it’s bounds and trounce on the liberties we hold so dear. The only amendment that can protect us at that point is the second amendment.
I think your organization needs to do some further research on the topic and get with reality. It’s clear with a response like the one you gave I am sure you are in league with gun control groups like the Brady Campaign.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
At least change your name to the “American Communist Liberal Union” so people will better know who they are dealing with!!!!
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 am
You people posting here are missing the clue right in front of your eyes.
It’s in their name: ACL *UNION*…
See it? Now look at how unions have ruined American industry and commerce, e.g. automobiles, textiles, telecommunications, etc. — all crippled hopelessly by infestation of
UNIONS.
Now Civil Liberties too!
Unions ruin everything.
Right to Work = Right to Live Free
Do the Right Thing and stop the unions.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
2nd amendment gives the states the power to regulate, the amendment places a restriction on the federal government
October 10th, 2008 at 3:10 am
I’m truly disappointed that the ACLU has decided to follow an anti-gun agenda instead of acting as an advocate for the Bill of Rights.
October 14th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I’m blown away that I’ve never really read the ACLU’s stance on the second amendment.
I am going to be pulling all financial consideration to the ACLU. Having an opinion on a subject is fine, but at this point it has already been clearly defined that individuals have the right under American law to posses firearms. Either you defend this right, being a civil right equal to the others in the Constitution, such as free speech, or you do not stand as a principled supporter of American Civil Rights.
It saddens me that the ACLU ignores this right, but glad that I’ve learned and grown and better yet – moved on.
October 19th, 2008 at 8:51 am
How sad. Your collective rights position has no merit. You have chosen it because any other position would force you to support firearms owners whose rights are violated by an overbearing government. You are shirking this mission because you know that there are more civil rights abuses against gun owners than any other type of civil rights abuse.
It boils down to picking the parts of constitutional rights you want to support and defend. You should accept that self defense is a basic human right, which is affirmed by the 2nd amendment.
You are defining yourselves as a kritocratic advocacy organization, advocating not for all constitutional rights, but only those rights that you want Americans to have.
October 24th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
You got my $0.02 donation with “hypocrisy” in the memo field. Enjoy!
Now does the ACLU have the courage to relocate to Moscow? Didn’t think so.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I’d love to support the ACLU, but your hypocrisy in ignoring the Heller decision confirms your bias.
When the gov’t thugs are locking you up in a “constitution free zone” remember that without the ability to fight for your rights you are nothing.
I’d rather be a jew in the Warsaw ghetto dying on my feet than one in a camp dying on my knees!
November 8th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
The problem here is that everyone wants to ‘Interpret’ the Second Amendment. There is nothing to ‘Interpret’. It is quite specific!
The Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution, in the First Ten Amendments, to the Bill of Rights, insured by the U.S. Constitution, merely wrote down that which is a given.
The Bill of Rights were rights that each and every citizen of the United States had. They were not ‘group rights’, did not refer to a National Guard, etc. and were not states or national government rights. The were individual rights! All one has to do is read it, don’ try to explain it, don’t try to put meanings o it that are not there. Don’t say the wording or grammar is antiquated (it’s not). Read it, understand it and accept it.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Another question. Why is it that so many people talk about the so called ‘assault weapons’ and quite apparently haven’t a clue what an assault weapon is?
I’m a retired U.S. Marine and former Law Enforcement Officer and find such ignorance almost daily.
Someone once said that it is better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
November 8th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
so we used to tell this joke, “how does the ACLU count to 10?”
The punchline is still true, but it’s never been funny.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:34 am
I’ve rejoined and made a small contribution that I can’t really afford. Congratulations on maintaining your integrity.
November 9th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
The interpretation as offered for the second amendment are subversive at best.
A militia is simply all able bodied peoples of the populace who can be called upon in a time of peace or a time of need
Therefore it is imperative that the populace be supplied and supported up to an equal level of the standing forces, this is the strength of ‘community’ and it is this equality in strength which denies the formation of a ‘police state’and does not allow the horrific fallout from natural disasters like what we saw with Hurrican Katrina.
Without realizing it, our rights are being infringed upon every day. Everytime we fall for the political campaign of fear and allow the government to further limit a mature law abiding citizens access to weapons
we become dependent on a woefully mismanaged system that will not be there for us in our time of need.
It is the responsibilty of the individual to provide for their on protection, the security of their community, state and nation, in that order.
It is not the guns they ban, but the fact they dare to ban any gun that one may want or need.
Choose to board the train to freedom, not the one bound for the reducation camp. Our way of life is threatened in direct proportion to the assault on our constitution.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Still Silly about the Second
It’s good to see that the ACLU is still silly about the second amendment.
This saves me from having to add them to my list of charities for yet another year.
Continuing to hold your illogical “collectivist” position is the same as that “freedom of the press” is only intended to protect people who own or operate actual printing presses.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Even if the ACLU views the 2nd as a collective right, “collective security” oftentimes requires individual action. Just consider how lawless and dangerous our society would be if nobody took individual action to report or prevent criminal activity. The first line of security is independent individual action. Especially in the presence of heavily armed criminal organizations (I include terrorists here), it is more important than ever that individual citizens be guaranteed the tools required for self- and community defense.
Furthermore, the 2nd ammendment is not one that grants power to the government. It was enacted to ensure the government does not attempt to assume a power which has not been granted. Perhaps the ACLU should re-read the 4th, 9th and 10th ammendments then have their lawyers go retake their state bar exams. Any 2nd year law student should know that denial of explicit powers does not grant powers that are not enumerated.
I may be sounding like a strict constitutional nutcase but the fact is I proudly consider myself a strong liberal and critical thinker. I disagree with the majority opinion analysis in the Heller case but I also think the minority analysis is also incorrect. They are both so caught up in diagraming sentences and providing exacting definitions of words that they have lost sight of the forest. They also both fail to recognize that the government is not given any power whatsoever regarding “arms”. The forest in question being a restriction on government in denying the citizens from defending their communities in an “ad hoc” (e.g. militia) forum. The primary modern tools for such defense are handguns, shotguns and rifles.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:31 am
If you want to take my “assault weapons”, you better come in a tank because body armor will be useless.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Ohhhh. How disappointing. No, I’m not going to cancel my ACLU membership. We need the protection of our other civil rights. But, I urge anyone reading this to also join the National Rifle Assn:
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
or the 2nd Amendment Foundation:
http://www.saf.org/
In this way we can, together, support ALL of our rights.
Thanks for the consideration
November 17th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I just got my renewal notice.
I just read the official stance of the ACLU in direct disagreement with the United States Supreme Court.
I’m sorry, but the Supreme Court cannot be clearer than a 9 to 0 decision that the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right.
Just like all the others.
I will not give monetary support to any organization that stands opposed to any of the Bill of Rights.
Let me know when (sadly, if?) you change your mind and want to support ALL MY rights and I will gladly re-join.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
The best tool for the job ranges from the simple mind and body and soul to the most modern of weapons, tools, and utilities to stave off an overbearing government or militia, therefore if people are to throw off a non working government as the founding fathers did the proscribe a right to all people to bear arms and a n “obligation or duty to alter, modify, or aboloish” that form of government, in whole or in part I believe, which fails to secure “life, liberty and the PUSUIT of happiness” only after other peaceful means have been exhausted- that is, aquiesce to taking or perverting of laws or rights to a limited and reasonable extent only- so no weapon can legally be banned as all arms have a right to be beared. Fact is if they own nukes, etc. so can we. Like it or not A majority cannot overturn the straightforward words of the Constitution, even if it appears they have. Militias are fine but who guards against them. Every citizen should have and be well trained in arms. There should be a modest penalty imposed for those who don’t. If you surrender your weapon, I might well impose my will on you with mine- and if nooone owned a weapon I damn well would. By the way, I’m curious, unless we’re in a war at home I’m not aware of -drug war and war on terror don’t count as they don’t pit citizen against soldier (or do they) Isn’t the Fourth Ammendment violated by soldiers quartered in your home vis a vis electronic surveillance and the like?
And who gave Marshall and the Courts power to allow the Judges whim to Interpret My Constitution for me? I didn’t.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
OOPS :fathers did the(y) proscribe(d) a right
OOPS :and a(nd)n “obligation
November 20th, 2008 at 6:20 am
You will lose in the end. My children love to target shoot and see me holster my carry weapon every day. They know how to handle them, and clean them, and to responsibly use them to preserve innocent life if sadly needed. I will never surrender mine. They will not surrender there’s. Their children will not either. You have already lost.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
For more organizations who will actually fight for our ENTIRE Bill Of Rights, check out:
Gun Owners of America:
gunowners.org
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:
jpfo.org
And especially for current ACLU members there’s Pinkpistols:
pinkpistols.org
“Killers Love Unarmed Victims”
November 25th, 2008 at 12:24 am
How fucked up is the ACLU’s agenda that there’s over 1200 comments here questioning there thinking in addition to DC versus Heller telling them that they’re straight up wrong.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
How can the ACLU turn a blind eye to the second amendment? Surely you know that the second is there so the government, or anyone else for that matter, can’t take away the other 9?
November 26th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
The reason Madison wrote the Bill of Rights was to lay out some ground rules for individual rights that need protection from the government. So, the 1st and 3rd to 10th Amendments are all about individual rights and for some insane & bizarre reason the 2nd is not?
Nowhere else are rights recognized for government (which, in the Framers’ view is the Servant) but denied to the people (the Masters). No other amendment of the original ten speaks of the States having rights. The 1st Amendment contains the phrase “right of the people” along with the 2nd, but both have have different meanings?
Even the dissenting judges in Heller all agreed that the 2nd grants an individual right, not collective. Yet the ACLU intends to continue marching proudly into denial on this important subject.
Really sad.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:41 am
I really have a hard time understanding how is it possible for the ACLU, an organization that I have respected my entire life, not to support the Second Ammendment. Honest, law abiding citizens does not commit crimes. Criminals do it. DC banned guns in the 70’s and the result of that was the spike of crime for several years after that. I wonder why people does not seem to know or even worse care at these numbers. It is incredible to believe that taking the right to bear arms for law abiding citizens will lower crime. The firearms technology has been around for over 5 centuries and anybody with some ingenuity can make a homemade firearm. Criminals will modified their modus operandi, after all thats what they do. They think of ways to get the most out of their actions. Criminalizing the right of the people of defending themselves is part of the problem and not the solution.
November 29th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
So, the ACLU decides NOT to uphold and honor a SCOTUS decision? Why? Because they don’t like it!
Perhaps you empty suits could tell us what laws “We the People” get to ignore because we don’t like it.
Had the decision gone the other way you people would be dancing in the streets telling us how the Supreme court came through again for the Constitution!
Do us all a favor and take the word “American” out of your title, because the truth is ,there is NOTHING American about you. You don’t give a crap about the Constitution unless it happens to suit you.
One more thing “CLU”, you know all the rights you have and enjoy? Want to know why and how you got them?
Because millions of men from the Revolution to Iraq have taken up arms to first get those rights for you, and then to hang on to them for you.
I am so ashamed of you. How do you even look yourself in the mirror every morning…collectively?
November 30th, 2008 at 11:25 am
There are no collective rights.
Collectives are made up of individuals. It is impossible for a group of people to have a right that the individuals that make up that group do not.
“…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
What the hell part of those four words do politicians, and apparently the ACLU, not understand?
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 am
The Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights to protect us from fascist like the ACLU!
100 Million people have been murdered by their own governments in the last 100 years. The 2nd Amendment is the gift our Fathers fought and died for to insure our civil liberties in the future. It is not by chance that it is number TWO on the list. When we face subjugation and worse, in 2 years or 200 years, our blood is on your hands.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
The ACLU is the largest bunch of under educated idiots I have ever seen. The misconception of what they say about the second amendment is appalling. Where do they get their college degrees from? Every child in school understands the Amendments to the Constitution to protect an individual right, maybe the ACLU needs to go back to elementary school.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
When I ran across this blog and started reading the comments, my first thoughts was, “here comes the gun nuts”. However as I continued to read I believe I have been swayed on the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. I have no interest in owning a gun but it appears that the Supreme Court has verified that right to own one. I now have my doubts that the ACLU is willing to protect all of the Bill of Rights. Instead it reserves the right to pick and choose.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:40 am
And with that, you can kiss my 10 years of support goodbye. I will no longer support such a hypocritical group whom likes to pick and choose what rights they will defend.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:32 am
ACLU, you need to get a clue. You were wrong, and you need to adjust your position. The ‘collective rights’ argument is a political cop-out. You need to defend all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the ones that make you squeamish.
The ACLU needs to defend the 2nd and work with some of the ‘right wing’ organizations to defend our rights. There are plenty of people out there who will not support you until you come around and support ALL of their rights.
December 21st, 2008 at 5:21 am
I have been a long-time supporter of the ACLU, and its goals (making donations, signing petitions, spreading information and, on occasion, sending additional information, and feedback, back to the ACLU)…
However, in light of the ACLUs position on the “2nd-Amendment” (and, especially, after the Supreme Courts, unanimously, validating the “individual right” to “keep and bear arms”… and, by majority, striking down general “gun bans” as clearly-illegal infringements of that “right”)… I can no longer, in good conscience, continue to lend my support to an organization that, so directly, and actively, attacks such a basic human, and Constitutional, right (…namely: the inalienable right to self-defense).
Based upon the historical, and legal, facts, the ACLU simply cannot logically support their position. Which leaves the only argument in favor of “infringing” upon the Constitutional right to own firearms, being one of claiming that the “right” can be “misused”, or is just too inherently dangerous (to be freely granted to every, law-abiding, citizen)… the very arguments that are used by all enemies of the “Bill of Rights” (arguments, and actions, which the ACLU actually, supposedly, exists to oppose).
Our Nations founders (and the actual creators of the Second Amendment) spoke quite eloquently on the meaning and necessity (to any truly free nation) of the individual citizens right to “…keep and bear arms”. And, the ACLUs stubborn, irrational, unfounded, and aggressive, stance in direct-opposition to that “right”… means that I must, after much soul-searching, refrain from any further support of an organization that, so actively, attacks such fundamental elements of the U.S. Constitution, and the basic human-rights of its citizens.
This, deeply, saddens me.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
While I aplaud the ACLU for defending many of the rights we hold dear, I find it wholly hypocritical and disengenous that the ACLU is still maintaining a position that to own a weapon, subject to reasonable regulations, is not a “civil right” and that it “disagrees” with the Supreme Court’s definitive statement on the Second Amemdment.
ACLU, it’s time to do the correct thing and defend all rights–not just the ones you agree with.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
The second amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms… in fact, non of the amendments grant us rights.. the fact is that we as people have inalienable rights, including the one to protect ourself. The constitution and the ammendments are the people telling the government, we (the people) will not allow the government to infringe on those rights.
December 23rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I hope that accepting these comments is a first step toward recalibrating the ACLU’s approach, toward the support of *all* the individual rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.
Don’t concede the territory of defence of the second amendment to the political right; by doing so, you damage the ACLU’s credibility in the defense of the rest of the bill of rights.
Be consistent. Fight for our (and my) individual rights without prejudice.
December 24th, 2008 at 9:49 am
“While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms”
REINTERPRETATION!!! How can a collection of lawyers be so ignorant. The only interpretation of it as a collective right was by bodies not qualified to make that interpretation. The SCOTUS never spoke on a collective right until Heller. What they did say was there was no such thing!
December 24th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
The ACLU has lost it’s mind! You can not pick and choose which Constitutional Right to protect and defend. The 2nd Amd. is just as important, if not more so, than any other right. But you choose to consider all the other Rights as Individual Rights except for the 2nd Amnd. ??? What the F* is wrong with you people?
To think I ALMOST purchased two memberships for myself and sister…
January 1st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I’m extremely disappointed in the lack of integrity the “CLU” has once again shown, this time, with the selective decision to not support Americans’ 2A rights, let alone the Supreme Court.
To call yourselves “Americans” is antithetical considering your stance and actions to subvert the–individual–rights of every American.
Shame on you.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Okay! So where the he** is there a list of ALL the rights denied a felon. You seem to have everything else here, why not a simple list of the rights denied?
January 10th, 2009 at 12:49 am
I actually came here to join.
Your refusal to support the 2nd amendment in this blog so turns me off that I’m going to give my 50 bucks to the NRA instead.
I was so impressed with your stance on the Eminent Domain issue a couple of years ago that I thought you deserved my support, but now you’ve turned on a dime and are siding with the oppressors trying to deny law abiding citizens the rights granted to them by the Bill of Rights.
When did you guys become such a pathetic bunch of ultra-partisan/ultra-liberal weenies?
What a shame; makes me very sad.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Thats VERY HYPOCRITICAL. Especially since minorities are often victims of hate crimes by not only citizens but the police as well. Shame on you Anthony Romero. Join the “pink pistols” and defend your right to defend yourself from persecution and abuse!
January 17th, 2009 at 9:59 am
The position you take not only shows your double standard but you are violating the very reason you exist. You support all rights except the 2nd amendment because of your ignorance and fear. Anyone or any organization that opposes one right against the rest is in violation of all of them. Read the truth: WE the people of the United States of America not WE the people of the ACLU. Also states WE have the right to keep and bear arms and this right will not be infringed. Hypocrites! You only support your own ideals not the people of this country hence you are no better than any terrorist organization and should be done away with. Dio Vindice!
January 17th, 2009 at 10:22 am
What do you clowns think a Bill of Rights is? It is a guarantee of individual rights.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Your position on the Second Amendment is why I am no longer a member.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I have always ignored the ACLU’s stance on other issues that go against everything I believe in (like abortion), because their possition was not a religious possition, but a possition of protecting our rights. But now that the ACLU has decided to not defend our rights, I will never join.
Hmmm….Maybe we should form another national orgization that defends all of our rights. Or at least join those other orgizations that already do.
January 18th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.”
Like many subjects, the ACLU claims to be for freedom but supports left leaning positions. This is just THE prime example in which they support Government control of its subjects!
The ACLU is for personal freedom ONLY when its convient for its agenda. The organization does NOT have a history of supporting individuals. Yet many of the State ACLU branches DO understand realy freedom and support the 2nd. Just that nation puts its own income (i.e. bribes from large donors) above individuals IMHO.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:45 am
I cannot say that I am surprised. This is pretty much the response that I got when I asked the question point blank a few years ago when considering to volunteer my services to the ACLU. I really like the idea of the ACLU (or at least something like it) – I have sent them money in the past. I am GLAD that it went to defend John Walker Lindh, the Taliban, Al-Qaida, Soviet spies, amongst many thousands of others – EVERYONE deserves a proper defense within the bounds of the law. Wrongs done to those we hate, set precedents upon which the rest of us will be judged on in the future. More power to you ACLU!
That being said, the ACLU stance on the 2A issue is, as many here pointed out, hypocritical. Unlike many other parts of the constitution, which were left vague on purpose, the second amendment is as straight-forward as can be, “the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Does not say “Firearms”, it does not say “modern arms” (for those times) – it says “arms”, the dictionary definition of which is, “any weapon”! I cannot understand how the ACLU can proclaim to blindly defend the constitution and then slither every which way and pretend that the second-most-important thing placed in it, does not exist!
It is however understandable. It seems in our society today that free-thinking is taboo – one should be either Red or Blue. So, if you oppose despotism, cronyism, endless war, church-ran-state, state-ran-church, denial of scientific fact, etc; you must sign up to be on the ‘Blue team’ and thus reject the concept of 2A. Being that probably over 90% of the ACLU donors and volunteers are “Blue”, the organization is just supporting their base. Welcome to America!
Considering myself as one of the minority free-thinking individuals, I support my goals by grudgingly writing two checks instead of one. I write the first to the ACLU, to keep the ultra-right-wing in check (Keep going guys, you are doing a heck of a job!) I write the second (smaller) check to the NRA (as much as I disagree with them, and shake my head every other time that I hear them make a public statement). They help preserve my God-given RIGHT to act by whatever means I see necessary if I feel the occasion calls for it; and to a lesser degree, to challenge myself in the many fields of skill that surround my ability to make holes in paper at great distances.
January 25th, 2009 at 10:42 am
You’ve lost me now. I will not reup as I consider the 2nd amendment to be an individual right and to be a *real* civil libertarian, one would have to know that to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it is first required to have a way to protect it…. the right to keep and bear arms comes first. If you decide to have a change of heart wrt your stance on the 2nd amendment, I’ll consider re-upping.
JJ
January 25th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
You have now lost all credibilty as a protector of liberty. I will be joining the NRA.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Fight for our right to keep and bear arms!
Support these important groups today….
Gun Owners of America-
gunowners.org
JPFO-
jpfo.org
NRA-
nra.org
and especially for current ACLU members:
Pink Pistols-
pinkpistols.org
January 30th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
So many politicians and action groups say one thing and do another.You have the chance to lead with integrity. Please step up and support all rights and ammendments,including this bullshit end around on ammo accountability.Where does it end with registration? Nail guns?golf clubs, hammers,crowbars? Some people act badly, but we don’t need legislation for all because of the actions of a few.Doesn’t the majority still rule?
January 31st, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I joined the ACLU to protect ALL of my rights, the ACLU has let down every person who has paid them dues. The interpitation of the 2nd ammendment is correct, it is an individual right, just as is every other one on the Bill of Rights. You can not sit their, and say 9 are individual and one is not, it dosen’t work that way. I will not be joining ever again. I will never give up my right to defend my home, my family, and any others who need my help. Keep your little calls to action to your selves. You will never get another dime from me. You obviously will not defend my right to protect my self, so I will not help you defend your self. I am really glad to hear you people at the ACLU got hosed by that ponzi scheme now, you bunch of self absorbed hipocrits ( Leftist Commy Democrats).
January 31st, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Great! As a collective we each get to have a gun! Good Job guys….way to stick to your guns so to speak…
February 9th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Any attempt to retract your indefnisble position? The american people(not to mention the supreme law of the land) overwhelmingly agree you are DEAD wrong on this and you still cling to the stance the anti-gun Joyce foundation dictates to you? Who do you serve? Me, and my fellow americans, or your benefactors?
You are cowards and ingrates who sure love to feed at the Joyce Foundation trough.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Who better to prove the meaning of the Second Amendment than the people who wrote it and made it the law of the land??
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
- George Mason
“To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.”
- George Mason
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
- President Thomas Jefferson
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
- Thomas Jefferson, quoting criminologist Cesare Beccaria
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
- James Madison
“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
- Samuel Adams
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
- Alexander Hamilton
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry
“The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned, while they neglect the means of self defense.”
- Thomas Paine
ACLU, now you have no excuse!!!!
February 9th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
According to the ACLU, because of Bernard Madoff, in 2009 the ACLU will lose “…$850,000 in support we were counting on…”
I bet MANY THOUSANDS of people just like me have decided to no longer support the ACLU simply because of the anti-2nd Amendment beliefs and the failure to support ALL of the Bill Of Rights. Just read the comments right here on this page! The ACLU has already lost at least $200 from me alone.
ACLU, here is an easy way to get MORE members, MORE donations, and END THE HYPOCRISY by simply supporting our INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS! It’s really not that hard and if you had any sense you would end the hypocrisy today especially considering the large percentage of households in America with guns.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:17 am
There is only one reason for the stance on the 2nd that the ACLU has taken. It is for this very reason that the 2nd was written. To afford the people a last defense against tyranny. The ACLU and their ink cannot ENFORCE their leftist agenda upon the citizens as long as they have arms to defend themselves. Guess it’s back to the courts to try and get your agenda through. Only you’ll now find that without the idea of being the defender of the bill of rights that raising money will be a whole lot more difficult.
Is it not time for us who had supported the ACLU in the past to start our own organization to defend the bill of rights? All of them? Step aside ACLU and let those who will defend the bill of rights to step forward.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
the ACLU will vehemently defend “abortion rights” invented by SCOTUS and not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Yet they will deny that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms plainly listed in the Bill of Rights is a “collective right” (nonsensical term invented by tyrants). You are no better than the political tyrants that trample on the rights of people. EVERYONE STOP SENDING THE ACLU MONEY!!!!!
February 12th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I just posted about how the ACLU will defend abortion rights invented by SCOTUS yet will not defend the right to keep and bear arms plainly listed in the Bill of Rights. It was deleted. Is the ACLU now censoring blog posts?
$top sending the ACLU money!!!
February 12th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
ok, two corrections to previous posts with apologies…
1) ACLU denies 2nd as an individual right and argues for the mythical collective right.
2) ACLU didn’t censor my previous post. It was awaiting moderation. Sorry I’m typing and working at the same time and was sloppy.
ACLU I hope you come around and realize all individual rights can be abused by a few bad apples. It doesn’t mean those rights should be redefined out of existence for everyone else. That logic will allow tyrants to do that for all of our rights. If you do come around and defend all rights equally, I’ll join the ACLU.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I received a phone call today from the ACLU requesting a donation. I said that I do not support organizations that oppose my right to life and liberty (ie, self-defense). The caller expressed surprise, and said that the ACLU doesn’t oppose the Second Amendment, they just don’t support it. I disagreed, and declined to donate. When will the ACLU leave the flat earth society and get some of their leaders to read “The Federalist Papers”? It is appalling that the leaders of this organization cannot comprehend plain English!
February 19th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I recently had the opportunity to direct some grant money to a non-profit organization. High on my list of possible orgs was the ACLU. But when I discovered the ACLU, the organization that calls itself the “guardian of liberty,” did not support the second amendment, I chose another organization.
I sincerely hope the ACLU changes its stance on this issue. Armed citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Unarmed citizens will only suffer more and more oppression until their hands and lips are tied.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:21 am
My four-figure charitable contribution this year is going to Institute for Justice, not the ACLU. I didn’t abandon you — you abandoned me.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
You are part of the new communist party of the 21st century, the Dems and the fake president that is calling himself the ruler of america. You are nothing but a money sucking, none caring, lying and bag of horse dung that infects this country, you will pay for supporting this way of thinking. when your american rights are taken away by the comrade in the white house and the idiots in congress that say they are for the people of the USA, you are setting this nation into a spin downward and making it easier for the bill of rights and the consitution to be used by congress a, the fake president and the UN to use it as toilet paper. right now the people of this nation will and are ready to take a stand when it hits the fan and fight for their rights, if its from the beaches, the forests, or the mountains, you and those against guns will have to fight us all till we are dead. An american that truly belives that the paper that is the founding of this nation is as holy as the bible, for it gives us the right to stand against the evil that is imposed against the people can and will be disposed of by the people, those that think its not worth reading should look at hitler and stalin on what they did, its anexact copy of what congress and osama is doing in the white house, and i dont care if you call the feds on me i have a right with free speech and the right to own a gun and defend myself as stated by the consitution of the USA not by a UN law ! ! Boy, you lost alot of following by screwing the american peoples rights and the guy on the street trying to survive. As shakespire wrote “Kill all the lawyers !” Gun control has failed in england, canada and all those other countries that have it, its called the black market no one needs a gun shop or a gun show to buy a gun, or anything else it comes across tour borders every day. you are as blind as the fools in Govt.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
“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.”
The most commonly ignored words in the constitution are the first 13 words of the second amendment. There is a legitimate argument for the collective interpretation of the right to bear arms.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I wish the ACLU would take as wide a stance on the 2nd amendment as they do on all the others.
The 1st amendment right is meaningless without the 2nd to back it up. Many other countries around the world have stupid gun laws and people still find ways to kill others. These laws just infringe on people who follow them. The bad guys don’t care about your laws and will just use these laws to prey on the people who are unarmed. Worse, the government could do the same. The forefathers saw that happen before, that is why they put the 2nd amendment in there. It’s not about just allowing for police forces and the army to be armed. It so every citizen could protect the government and be protected from the government.
The ACLU should be ashamed for not supporting the 2nd like they do the others.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Someone Said:
>> “The most commonly ignored words in the constitution are the first 13 words of the second amendment.”
These words are, hardly, “…ignored”
…if you know actual history, and also read what the people who actually wrote these words, plainly-stated these words truly mean… then, their meaning is crystal-clear. And, it does NOT have anything to do with a “collective right”. The United States declaration of INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS (”The Bill of Rights”), does NOT somehow mean that the, official, “U.S. Army” (”militia”) can have firearms. That is a historically, and logically, preposterous assertion. Frankly, that, “collective right” is, purely, an invention of the anti-personal-gun-rights crowd. Furthermore, this FACT was unanimously-recognized, recently, by the U.S. Supreme Court.
I know why the, rabid, anti-gun-crowd is so opposed to this basic-truth (…it completely undermines one of their most-cherished lies)… what puzzles me, is why the ACLU is doing so much harm to itself, still defending this, absolutely-discredited, anti-civil-rights, nonsense.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Raife when did a 5 to 4 decision become a “unanimously-recognized” fact? I am in fact against gun control but I dislike the tone of most of the gun-rights crowd. You say that the anti-gun crowd is rabid yet skimming through the 1250 comments on this very article I see an unscientific 80% or more that are ad hominem attacks on the ACLU and gun-control people.
I’m just trying to provide some balance in the comments.
The ACLU is one of the most important organizations we have in this country and to tear it down because you disagree with one of its stances is tragic and absurd.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
[June 26, 2008]
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
“The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a collective right or an
individual right. Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.”
[June 26, 2008]
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
“… I take as a starting point the following … to which I
believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an individual right i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.” See,
e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS,
J., dissenting).
[June 26, 2008]
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.
“The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s
dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with
militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 1112; post, at 1
(STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected
with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within
the home. See Brief for Respondent 24.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an
individual right to keep and bear arms.
Had the [Miller] Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those
serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that
the two crooks were not militiamen.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding interest-balancing approach. The very enumeration of
the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional
guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people
adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.”
March 5th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Mr. Albers asked:
>> “Raife when did a 5 to 4 decision become a “unanimously-recognized” fact?”
The “5 to 4 decision” related to whether the “DC gun-ban”, specifically, was a violation of the “2nd Amendment”. The court, by majority (5-4), decided that it (DC’s ban) IS a violation of the plaintiffs (Heller’s) “Constitutional Rights”.
However, despite the desperate, ongoing, anti-gun-rights, spin… all nine Justices did flatly-state that “…the right to keep and bear arms”, IS “…an individual right”… (NOT a “collective right”). That (”unanimous decision”) is what I, and most of the other posters here, have simply been pointing-out.
Furthermore, as to “sad” unwarranted personal-attacks… another, easily verifiable, “fact” (if you have actually been involved in this issue for any length of time, and have actually investigated the relevant firearm, and legal, facts)… is that the anti-gun groups have, for quite some time, flatly resorted to intentional mis-representations, distortions, and even out-and-out lies, aimed specifically at playing on the technical-ignorance, and abuse of the emotions, of others. That is what we (Constitutional-supporters) are now forced to address, head-on. In such a situation, I am afraid there is simply no way to address such deliberate-deceptions (and those that are willing to employ them), other than, bluntly, pointing them out.
Therefore, refusing to ignore such long-term, and easily-verifiable, intentionally-deceptive, propaganda (used in the pursuit of the imposition of a, clearly-unpopular, irrational, agenda)… is not an “ad hominem” attack. It is simply the truth… and an unfortunate reality which must be dealt-with.
And, as far as “tearing down” the ACLU over one issue… We have already seen the effective dismantling of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments. The 2nd Amendment was created as a fail-safe for the other “…inalienable Human Rights”. What is truly “absurd” is the ACLU’s, stubborn, irrational, self-destructive, refusal to acknowledge one of the cornerstones of American-freedom… as laid out by our Founding Fathers… and overwhelmingly-supported by the American-People, themselves. The ACLU is not being “torn-apart” by supporters of the “2nd-Amendment”. The ACLU is, foolishly, tearing itself apart (internally and externally) over a wrong-headed, and irrational, dogmatic-refusal to accept the will of its own members (and some of its own chapters)… in truly DEFENDING the “Bill of Rights” (…ALL of it, not just an arbitrary handful of its elements).
March 6th, 2009 at 2:05 am
I have always supported the ACLU when conservatives have attacked it, believing that the ACLU was supporting all rights, even the ones that are unpopular like separation of church and state, and abortion. But without supporting the entire bill of rights they are Hippocrates.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
When the Courts fail to uphold the other Rights afforded by the Bill of Rights, this is when the 2nd Amendment becomes the most important Right. The ACLU would become irrelevant in the face of tyranny. Although probably not imminent, it is pompous to believe that tyranny cannot occur in our society. Greater and more peaceful societies have fallen prey to dictators. The Founders were aware of this, which is why they made the individual right to keep and bear arms, as PART of collective resistance to the potential for oppression, the SECOND Amendment, just behind the right to freely exchange ideas.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Raife, I stand corrected. I have now read the relevant parts and accept the unanimity of the individual rights interpretation.
As I stated in my first post I am in fact against gun control. I do wonder though why people don’t argue for the right to own anti-tank or anti-aircraft missiles, since they would surely be needed to defeat any tyranny that exists today in the United States.
I think since I never grew up around and have never been around guns I am not nearly as passionate about this issue as most people are. I am far more worried about the constitutional violations like the PATRIOT Act and detaining people without trials.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
The ACLU cannot maintain that it defends “civil liberties” when it does not defend them all. I entirely agree that the ACLU is self-destructive on the 2nd amendment issue and is undermining it’s repsectability and credability. Get a grip….ALL BOR deserve defending…… Looks like this year’s donation goes to the NRA.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Count me in as one of the people who’s changing my donation strategy. Instead of giving my money to the ACLU each year, I’ll send it to the JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership). That’s an organization that is actually interested in (as they say on their web site) defending ALL of the constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens.
When the ACLU wakes up and smells the coffee on this, I may change my mind, but until then, they get nothing.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
i think the ACLU forgot what they were meant to stand for… TRY OUR CIVIL RIGHTS!!! It’s OUR right to bare arms!!! There… DONE!!! The ACLU loves to take one liners when they benefit them (seperation of church & state) but when it comes to firearms… forget it!!! ACLU… try to better focus more on preserving our America… the way it was meant to be!!!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I agree with the rest….if you don’t defend all the rights there is no reason to support ACLU!
March 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
So, let me get this straight. The ACLU will defend affirmative action, which has nothing at all to do with civil liberties, but it won’t defend the right to keep and bear arms, which has everything to do with civil liberties. Plus, the ACLU hasn’t been a strong defender of free speech on college campuses, leading to the formation of FIRE, which has been picking up the slack. I only wish America had an organization that actually defended liberty.
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:11 am
I’m like most of the people leaving comments here, I strongly believe in ones’s individual right to protect himself. For the ACLU to not support the 2nd amendment only shows how jaded the ACLU actually is. You will never have the support of millions of true partiots as long as you have that mentality. You have a very weak argument for your view of this, calling it a collective right. F you.
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Hmmm…I don’t have the time, nor, quite frankly, the energy to read through the 1000+ comments on this. Just a thought… The broad definition of militia is citizen soldiery, in other words, civilians, who in time of need, respond to a call-to-arms to protect the citizenry itself. Following that logic, then, just how are citizens expected to answer that call to arms – if they have no arms in the first place? Are the police, in a time of crisis, just going to hand out guns to the citizenry? Is the military going to line everyone up and distribute guns to any and all who ask? Not likely. In order to answer a call to arms, the individuals you are calling on must have the arms in order to respond. This, if nothing else, underlines the need for the individual right to keep and bear arms. I believe the writers of the Constitution knew what they were doing, and I’m glad to see the Supreme Court’s decision.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I agree, Aclu should not vote against guns when it is our right…what a cop out !!!! and alcu is protecting our rights ?????????????? Good Grief…we are all not in 3rd grade
March 24th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I am a devout originalist, moderate libretarian (or classical liberal), and low-grade paranoid as relates to government tyranny (or its cousin, scale). I have long admired the work the ACLU does in defending all the other civil liberties, and have always found the ACLU’s position on the 2nd amendment an embarassment to the organization and an unfortunate symptom of its constituents’ left bias. I give money to CATO, but the ACLU will never see a dime until they come around to the notion, very old in this country, that an armed militia is the last resort against a federal tyranny that renders all media and legal posturing with respect to other rights impotent.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Why do these idiots restrict our freedom when they claim to protect it?!
The 2nd amendment is our most important right because it holds the government accountable. Whenever a horrible tyrant enters power, he always disarms his citizens. I doubt anyone in North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, or any tyrannical country owns a gun, unless you’re in the military or a police.
Is America next?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
So, if the 2nd ammendment is a “collective right”, I presume that the 1st ammendment is a “collective right” as well. Considering that logic, our freedom to speech is only secured by the media, and not by the individual. According to the ACLU, I, as an individual, do not have the right to own a firearm, but the collective as a whole has a right. I guess the right to due process and speedy trial are both “collective rights” as well. That is, we should have a speedy criminal court system, but no guarentees that an individaul can have a speedy trial? Correct? How convenient? It seems to me that the only rights the ACLU wants to promote and defend are those that further it’s left-wing political agenda.
April 1st, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I will never support the ACLU so long as they show such dishonesty or hypocrisy on this issue. The double-talk is clear, and the ACLU should be ashamed of itself. It is unfortunate that all the good work in other areas has to be spoiled by the unwillingness to do the right thing here.
Thankfully others (posted above) can see this clearly as well, and hopefully the ACLU will open their eyes eventually.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I fully understand the ACLU’s decision.
Basically, the ACLU received the majority of its funding from wealthy Liberals who do not support the Second Amendment. (Many of them own guns, but that is because they are “responsible enough” whereas the masses are not.)
What the ACLU is doing is protecting its assets. If the ACLU were to acknowledge the Rights as actually defined by the Constitution and interpreted by the SCOTUS, they would lose the support of the wealthy patricians who donate to it.
So, you sold out. Just admit it.
The ACLU is willing to accept a very broad definition of some Rights based on fragmental wordings in the Constitution, but doesn’t want to accept a CLEAR CUT CASE.
Of course, the key as always is to follow the money.
Thanks for showing what you are made of.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Interesting to note how so many of those who want to interpret the 2nd Amendment want to say the purpose was to support a militia.
Well, NEWS FLASH! If the purpose was to have a militia, they don’t need single-shot rifles or handguns, they need ASSAULT WEAPONS.
But the same folk that don’t want to support the Second Amendment except for use by a militia don’t want anyone to have assault weapons, either.
Pick your poison, dimwits, but you are wrong.
April 4th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Join the N.R.A. instead.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:56 am
What a shame. I had truly believed the ACLU supported the constitution. Considering the stance on the second amendment, I now realize this is not true. It makes me wonder if some of my ACLU-hating redneck friends were right about the organization. I know I won’t be a member due to the inconsistency of the organizations stance on 2A.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:22 am
“We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments. ”
——April 20, 2009
April 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Find which ones you most agree with and support them. Freedom isn’t free!
Liberals With Guns
http://www.liberalswithguns.com/index.html
Amendment II Democrats
http://www.a2dems.net/
Pro Gun Progressive
http://www.progunprogressive.com/
The Gun Toting Liberal
http://www.guntotingliberal.com/
More Gun Toting Liberals
http://www.geocities.com/guntotingliberals/
Second Amendment Sisters
http://www.2asisters.org/
Women To Arms
http://womentoarms.net/
Pink Pistols
http://www.pinkpistols.org
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.jpfo.org
Black Man With A Gun
http://www.blackmanwithagun.com
Gun Owners of America
http://www.gunowners.org
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
http://www.ccrkba.org
National Rifle Association
http://www.nra.org
April 24th, 2009 at 7:06 am
so i suppose the 1st amendment can be a COLLECTIVE RIGHT? I am 49 years old and i used to believe that ACLU just wanted to up hold this nations original intent of the Constitution. Boy was I wrong. your organization really is a bunch of Pinko’s! Archie Bunker was right!
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 am
So do you read what comes out of your mouth and onto paper? Your essentially stating YOU do not believe in a right that was never not a right until recent times. The decision pushes back against Anti-2A freaks like you. Without that right in the past you would have no organization, let alone ANY rights.
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
The Collective Right stance is a mid-twentieth century fiction, invented out of thin air. Any educated analysis of the history of the Second Amendment shows that it was, and always has been, the statement of an individual right. This isn’t just “opinion” to be debated away or ignored, it’s overwhelming verifiable fact. Not only do the copious writings of the Founding Fathers make this clear, it is also the long legal history of the right itself, including significant post-civil war civil rights cases.
For a self-proclaimed defender of civil rights like the ACLU to take such a partisan and unsupported view on a confirmed fundamental human right as self-defense is the height of hubris and hypocrisy. If your name is to mean anything more than empty brand recognition, you need to dump your organization’s socialist roots and uphold ALL fundamental human rights, not just those that fit well with your politics.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:43 am
The only thing I could possibly add to many of the excellent posts is this:
ACLU, if you think you have a lot of supporters (monetarily and otherwise), imagine how many you would gain if you decided to actually back the ENTIRE bill of rights as the individual rights they were intended to be.
Alas, you will continue to only back the nine you agree are individual rights and claim the 2nd is a collective right (which is contrary to the meaning behind the Bill of Rights and the intention of the Founders).
May 5th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
There is now the Nordyke v. King also ruling that the second amendment is an individual right, do you disagree with the 9th circuit as well?
May 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Why would an organization ostensibly defending civil liberties, not “err” on the side of increased liberty?
You blew it. Fix your stance and move on. Hanging on to your error and attempting to defend it, just makes it obvious that you are a sham.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:05 am
I agree that the ACLU is way off-base on this issue. However, we cannot ignore all the things the ACLU has gotten right. This is not the time to withdraw support from an otherwise fine organization.
I’m remaining a dues-paying member, but am agitating from within. The more active members we can get to influence local state chapters to come around on this issue, the sooner we can put pressure on the national ACLU leadership to correct their pathetic stance.
Keep their feet to the fire! Don’t give up! Support all of our civil rights!
May 14th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Even I’m disgusted with you.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. ”
Glad to know the ACLU still continues theo maintein thier leftist, self-grandizing attitudes inspite of what the laws say
May 24th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
The ACLU are nothing but a bunch of candy asses who have nothing better to do than oppose those who protect this country.
“THE COST OF FREEDOM….SOMETHING THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW”
May 26th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
As an ACLU member I must say I have always been disappointed in their position on the 2nd Amendment. I do not own a gun and have no desire to, however, I do want to ensure that the protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights are upheld. The ACLU has always been wrong on this issue, now its hypocrisy has simply become much more obvious. The ACLU should always consider the broadest possible interpretation of individual rights so as to err (if at all) on the side of civil liberties. I may need to consider supporting an organization more willing to fight for the personal rights of ALL Americans as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not just the ones the ACLU thinks we should have.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
The Second Amendment is the linchpin of the Bill of Rights. The Founders understood that ultimately it takes more that left wing rhetoric to defend our rights.
May 30th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Count me as one more liberal, tax & spend, tree-hugging, democrat, firearms enthusiast. I believe that the 2d Amendment is the last, ultimate, defense of the 1st amendment. I am a single issue voter. When the democratic party, and the ACLU, support the 2d Amendment, I will be able to vote liberal again.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
The second amendment is an individual’s right. Collective is a term used to describe State controlled farms in the old USSR. The ACLU has reached the end of it’s usefulness in America when it seeks to thwart the very rights it was meant to defend. Off mission and out of touch with Americans. A broken political machine that once upon a time defended the PEOPLE. Goodbye ACLU. Hello NRA.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
The ACLU, for all the good they have done over the years, can no longer entertain in good faith that they are an unpartisan group. I am a semi-proud member of this organization but was forced to also join the NRA because I believe all individual rights (and, under Heller, the 2nd Amendment was unequivocally found to be an individual right by the supreme authority of the land) deserve protection, not just the ones that are aligned with my political party of choice. For all the demonization the NRA receives, they have proven over time to be ideologically pure, supporting whichever candidate regardless of political party affiliation, is aligned with their (NRA) beliefs. The ACLU has over the years truly been one of this country’s best advocates for freedom and, in my opinion, still retain the potential for greatness should they ever shed their hypocritical ideological bias and return to their original mandate and take up the mantle to protect all individual rights.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Gee. Just read most of these comments. Did the ACLU put this blog here to serve as a black hole. Do they have any response?
Old joke: “When they came for the jews, blacks, gypsys, gays, fill-in-the-blank; I said nothing. When they came for the gun nuts, well, f*ck’em. We have the guns. Come and get them.”
June 19th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
1283+ comments and not one response?
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I was researching the ACLU prior to joining and was satisfied with everything I learned until I came to its stance on my constitutional right to own a firearm. This is not the 11th ammendment added as an afterthought while most of the delagates were having a smoke, this was the second-most important stance behind only the right to have a decision and share it!
Not only will I NOT join the ACLU unless it SUPPORTS my right to protect myself, I will speak out against it until it does!
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
You need to change your acronym:
ACLEOTPRU – American Civil Liberties (Except the One That Protects the Rest) Union
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Two things that I find amazing about the ACLU:
1. They support a position that EXPANDS THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT and takes power away from people (i.e. private citizens do not have a constitutional right to own guns)
2. They strongly support abortion rights as fundamental, even though it is not mentioned in the constitution. They also support a separation of church and state, when that phrase is not mentioned either in the constitution. On top of all this, they refuse to acknowledge a fundamental human right (self defense through arms) that is SPELLED OUT in the constitution. It is in the bill of rights, which applies to the PEOPLE, and it even says the word “the people.”
I conclude that the ACLU lawyers are actually in favor of a powerful, tyrannical federal government, regardless of what they claim. They are incredibly intellectually dishonest.
July 5th, 2009 at 3:58 am
The ACLU betrays us in blatantly ignoring the words of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, et al. As such, the organization is unworthy of trust given their stated, yet unfulfilled, guiding purpose.
“My nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice.”
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Not all decent folk wish to be martyrs.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
It’s shocking that the aclu will use all sorts of abstract logic to create rights for thing never mentioned in the constitution, yet will choose not to uphold the 2nd ammedment. the bill of rights function is to bestow rights and guarantee protection to the people. the supreme court has upheld this view and most americans agree. the most amazing thing is that aclu doesn’t err on the side of protecting a right that americans now posess.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday filed federal suit on behalf of Errol Houston Jr., who was arrested on drug and firearms charges.
The suit says the district attorney’s office declined to prosecute Houston but has refused to return his .40 caliber firearm.
July 8th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Quote
“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device
to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.”
So,the ACLU doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court. But,doubtlessly you asgree with the above quote. When you get selective about the freedoms you defend,you are no better than the CHEKA you so admire.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:54 am
The Second Amendment is the “canary in the mine” of the Bill of Rights. If it dies, all of the rest will soon follow.
Goodbye, ACLU.
July 12th, 2009 at 5:18 am
“This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. The streets will be safer,the police more efficent and the world will follow our lead into the future.” ( Adolf Hitler, April 15, 1935.)
The model for 1968 Gun Control Act – even the wording was taken from Hitler’s legislation of 1935, which was a revision of the 1928 law passed by the Weimar government.
A good introduction to this politically incorrect history of American gun control is on jpfo.org: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:57 am
I am a Sergeant in the New York Army National Guard. I am also a member of the militia as defined in the 2nd Amendment.
The two are entirely separate and distinct entities.
1) By being a United States (and New York State) soldier in the Guard, I am constitutionally authorized as per the powers given to the federal government to maintian an Army.
2) By being a member of the militia, I am simply an able bodied United States citizen capable of utilizing my privately owned weapon in assisting in the defense of my state and nation in times of invasion.
The ‘militia’ as mentioned in the Seccond Amendment IS NOT the National Guard. It is the people. If the founding fathers could be asked for a clarification of the wording of the Second Amendment to accomodate the existance of the National Guard, they would re-write it to say: “A populace of armed, well-trained civilians being necessary for the security of a free nation, the right of the people to keep and bear armes shall not be infringed”
What part of the above does the ACLU not understand?
[email protected]
July 17th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
As an ACLU member, I believe the Bill of Rights protects individual rights, not collective rights. I am very troubled by the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment, as well as its support for Campus Speech codes, which undermine the First Amendment. It gives ammunition (no pun intended) to those who believe the ACLU is a supporter not of the Bill of Rights, but of liberal policy positions.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
The ACLU, in my opinion, has now lost all credibility and has revealed its true self-serving liberal agenda. Shame on the ACLU and all who continue to stand with it.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Though I am a staunch proponent of private ownership of guns I do think there are areas of the country, and groups of people, who have demonstrated they do not possess the mental, moral, and critical thinking capacities to own guns (a.e. the inners cities of most large metropolitian areas) and in these areas licensing requirements and such should be far greater than other parts of the country – simply based on the amount of gun based violent crime. I’m not proposing the elimination of guns for home self-defense, but stringent licensing in these areas.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:59 pm
All citizens should watch the new video called “NO GUNS FOR NEGROES” from JPFO.
It’s very important we learn about the racist roots of American gun control laws.
Watch it free on youtube….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU
Or at….
http://www.JPFO.org
July 24th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Does the ACLU consider any of the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights to be a collective right? How does the practical application of the collective right to bear arms work out. Can only police and armed forces bear arms. How would this apply to the historic notion of citizen’s militias?
I had thought of joing the ACLU as it has been said that this is the only organization that defends the Bill of Rights. You lost my support. And by the way, I do not own a handgun.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 am
What a farce!
What we really need is an organization that will defend our rights and our constitution. The ACLU has clearly demonstrated its distaste for the Bill of Rights and must now be considered an active danger to our freedoms.
The ACLU has proven itself more than irrelevant, it has proven itself to be an enemy of the people.
I will gladly contribute money to have the ACLU abolished. Where do I donate?
August 21st, 2009 at 3:50 am
“A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Now, does this this means that only well-educated people could keep and read books, or does it mean that everyone can have books as a means to produce a well-educated people.