ACLU Represents Phelps

[JamesDillon]

The ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment confers a collective, rather than an individual, right, and is therefore not infringed by state statutes regulating individual gun ownership.

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. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. 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.

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

Under that interpretation of the Second Amendment, there has never been a case in which the civil rights protected by that amendment have been undermined, and therefore nothing for the ACLU to litigate.

 

[casebro]

So like I implied, they are not protecting what I believe to be MY civil liberties.

While they speak of "most opponents", they don't mention that most legal scholars who feel that this is a right of the individual. Or the latest interpretation that states may pass laws, but NOT congress. In short, they are copping out in favor of the gun control advocates. Which makes them look to take a stance favoring one side... something they supossedly don't do, per above post.

 

[Upchurch]

So like I implied, they are not protecting what I believe to be MY civil liberties.

Well, they've never argued a case that they felt breached the third amendment. Does that mean they wouldn't? I dunno.

Just because they haven't taken a position that you would like them to does not mean they are hypocrites.

 

[JamesDillon]

So like I implied, they are not protecting what I believe to be MY civil liberties.

While they speak of "most opponents", they don't mention that most legal scholars who feel that this is a right of the individual. Or the latest interpretation that states may pass laws, but NOT congress. In short, they are copping out in favor of the gun control advocates. Which makes them look to take a stance favoring one side... something they supossedly don't do, per above post.

I think there is a subtle but important difference between 1) Favoring some civil liberties over others, and 2) Interpreting an amendment in a manner somewhat outside the mainstream, such that certain laws that some groups argue infringe upon the protected liberty under the preferred interpretation, in fact do not.

All of the constitutional provisions have to be interpreted to a degree, and I don't think the ACLU would litigate for an interpretation of any other amendment that runs against what it believes is the correct one. For example, a prisoner might argue that incarceration itself is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The ACLU would likely not agree with that interpretation, and would be unlikely to take the prisoner's case. I don't see that as favoritism.

 

[drkitten]

While they speak of "most opponents", they don't mention that most legal scholars who feel that this is a right of the individual.

Err, assumes "facts" not in evidence.

Or the latest interpretation that states may pass laws, but NOT congress.

Ditto.

In short, they are copping out in favor of the gun control advocates.

They're hardly "copping out." They're taking a well-reasoned, historically well-supported position favored by a substantial body of Constitutional scholars, and acting in support of that position. That their position differs from yours hardly makes them a cop-out any more than your disagreement with theirs makes you a raving nutcase.

 

[Katana]

I love the all-or-nothing attitude. Do you think any gun control a bad thing? If so why? No one is infringing on your civil rights by outlawing the sale of assault weapons, requiring a waiting period, or doing back-ground checks. You can still own a gun-as long as you're not crazy or a wanted criminal. Don't you think that it's a good idea to at least try to keep guns out of the hands of crazies or criminals? Doesn't keep them from going somewhere else and getting a gun illegally, but I don't feel like making it easier on them.

Owning a gun is not a right. If it were, then anyone and everyone should be able to have one. Would you advocate that? Civil rights are the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination. Do you hear owning a gun in that?

Edited to correct mistake.

 

[Dave1001]

Good on the ACLU for representing Phelps. He's a citizen; it must be done. I hope they lose.

Why do you support the ACLU losing this case?

 

[Dave1001]

The ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment confers a collective, rather than an individual, right, and is therefore not infringed by state statutes regulating individual gun ownership.


http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

Under that interpretation of the Second Amendment, there has never been a case in which the civil rights protected by that amendment have been undermined, and therefore nothing for the ACLU to litigate.

That's actually a suprisingly radical states' rights position by the ACLU (as spelled out in your quote from their website). They're implying the right for state governments to own serious fire power, unregulated by the federal goverment, in order to protect themselves from the federal government. Sounds like the ACLU might have supported the South in the Civil War.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html?sub=AR

My thought on this is, good for the ACLU for standing up for the civil rights of some of the most reprehensible Americans alive, though I think that the Missouri law is probably constitutional.

I think they should assign a gay attorney to the case.

 

[Dave1001]

This will make the ACLU look worse. It won't be perceived as the ACLU protecting a religious group, rather it'll be perceived as the ACLU disdaining religion by choosing to protect a religious group that even religious people hate.

I realize the goal of the ACLU is to protect civil liberties, but pretending you're in a vacuum instead of a larger society does no good in the long run. Their PR is terrible and as near as I can tell their attitude is "We protect civil liberties and we don't particularly care what people think," which, if they really want to protect civil liberties, is a really stupid approach to take. They're putting idealism over practicality. Maybe I'm just getting old and curmudgeonly, but while I used to find that sort of thing admirable, now I just find it dumb.

That's because a non-transparent goal of the ACLU is to be a moral barrier aesthetic, allowing self-perceived elites to separate themselves from the larger public. Sort of like the opera or elephant polo, except for moral aesthetics rather than musical or athletic ones.

 

[Katana]

I think they should assign a gay attorney to the case.

I just had to restrain a guffaw. Good one!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So, show me just ONCE where the ACLU defended the civil liberties gauranteed by the Second Ammendment.

Show me just ONCE where a member of the National Guard had his weapon taken away.

 

[JamesDillon]

That's actually a suprisingly radical states' rights position by the ACLU (as spelled out in your quote from their website). They're implying the right for state governments to own serious fire power, unregulated by the federal goverment, in order to protect themselves from the federal government.

I don't see where they say that the right must be unregulated, only that it is more of a collective right than an individual one. That doesn't strike me as especially radical.

Sounds like the ACLU might have supported the South in the Civil War.

I don't see how that follows. At most, they would have supported the South's right to maintain militia forces, but that was never at issue, as far as I know. I certainly don't think the ACLU would have supported the South's stance on human rights issues-- though there was no Fourteenth Amendment at the time, so I'm not sure how they would have justified an abolitionist position purely on the basis of the Constitution.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So like I implied, they are not protecting what I believe to be MY civil liberties.

Then start your own organization.

 

[drkitten]

I love the all-or-nothing attitude. Do you think any gun control a bad thing? If so why? No one is infringing on your civil rights by outlawing the sale of assault weapons, requiring a waiting period, or doing back-ground checks. You can still own a gun-as long as you're not crazy or a wanted criminal.

Well, that's one of the issues at hand. Many of the anti gun-control nuts harbor this secret vision of themselves as Robin Hood style wanted criminals, striking back against the tyranny of the fascist state that only their assault rifles will prevent. And it's fairly safe to suggest that "active rebel against the government" is a category of wanted criminal that any sensible government would want to disarm.

Depending upon how you view the actions of the Founding Fathers, there is a key question in whether or not they wanted to establish by armed force a government that was itself protected from overthrow via armed force. It does seem somewhat hypocritical that Washington should have led huge bodies of armed men to overthrow a tyrannical ruler, then turned around and tried to keep anyone else to create huge bodies of armed men in opposition to his rule.

Alternatively, of course, the Founding Fathers were more pragmatic and wanted to create a Swiss-style civil defense system where the free citizens of the state were empowered to create large, well-regulated bodies of armed men in response to threats to the overall liberty.

The basic problem with Second Amendment debates is that word "well-regulated." Gun proponents would have us believe that it doesn't mean anything. That, by itself, is enough to convince me that the ACLU's interpretation is the correct one and that the "right of the individual" interpretation is out-of-the-box incorrect.

 

[drkitten]

That's actually a suprisingly radical states' rights position by the ACLU (as spelled out in your quote from their website). They're implying the right for state governments to own serious fire power, unregulated by the federal goverment, in order to protect themselves from the federal government.

Actually,.... no, they're not.

Actually, they're not "implying" anything at all -- you can't infer from a statement of a single interpretation that they reject which of the numerous competing interpretations they favor.

If I say that I don't live in Calcutta, what have I "implied" about where I do live?

 

[Dave1001]

Actually,.... no, they're not.

Actually, they're not "implying" anything at all -- you can't infer from a statement of a single interpretation that they reject which of the numerous competing interpretations they favor.

If I say that I don't live in Calcutta, what have I "implied" about where I do live?

I think this statement isn't that opaque.

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. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. 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.

 

[Dave1001]

I don't see where they say that the right must be unregulated, only that it is more of a collective right than an individual one. That doesn't strike me as especially radical.

The idea that states have a right to own firepower to protect themselves against the central (federal) government, yet that central (federal) government has the power to regulate that state right is funny to me, but I suppose not impossible to conceive of.

I don't see how that follows. At most, they would have supported the South's right to maintain militia forces, but that was never at issue, as far as I know. I certainly don't think the ACLU would have supported the South's stance on human rights issues-- though there was no Fourteenth Amendment at the time, so I'm not sure how they would have justified an abolitionist position purely on the basis of the Constitution.

I don't think the southern state governments that withdrew from the Union (and defended that decision with their state militias) and the federal government differed on the question of abolition at the start of the Civil War.

 

[drkitten]

I think this statement isn't that opaque.

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. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic .

Emphasis added by me. That quotation strongly suggests that the ACLU's position on the "constitutional right to bear arms" is "somewhat anachronistic" -- i.e. not especially appliable to the modern world. As such, it's not clear where they would stand on a case that directly pitted "the right of the states to maintain militias" against an infringement by the Federal Government. They might well decide that although the text of the Constitution demands that the states have that right, practical demands nullify it (in the same way that the ACLU does not demand a strict reading of the sixth amendment and thus an abolition of the "change of venue" motions).

It's clear from the ACLU's actions that they are not in any sense of the word "strict constructionists"; they have no problem, for example, demanding that E-mail be given the same degree of constitutional protection as "persons, houses, papers, and effects," and they've been long-standing champions of the judicially-inferred "right to privacy."

So, no, I don't think you can draw the inference you would like from the ACLU's stated position.

 

[Dave1001]

Emphasis added by me. That quotation strongly suggests that the ACLU's position on the "constitutional right to bear arms" is "somewhat anachronistic" -- i.e. not especially appliable to the modern world. As such, it's not clear where they would stand on a case that directly pitted "the right of the states to maintain militias" against an infringement by the Federal Government. They might well decide that although the text of the Constitution demands that the states have that right, practical demands nullify it (in the same way that the ACLU does not demand a strict reading of the sixth amendment and thus an abolition of the "change of venue" motions).

It's clear from the ACLU's actions that they are not in any sense of the word "strict constructionists"; they have no problem, for example, demanding that E-mail be given the same degree of constitutional protection as "persons, houses, papers, and effects," and they've been long-standing champions of the judicially-inferred "right to privacy."

So, no, I don't think you can draw the inference you would like from the ACLU's stated position.

Yup they give themselves a bit of an out with the phrase "somewhat anachronistic". And an evolving constitution approach of course gives them a carte blanche out.