Post by: MicroBalrog on July 10, 2008, 10:39:08 PM
From the horse's own mouth
Post by: De Selby on July 10, 2008, 11:00:12 PM
Post by: JimMarch on July 10, 2008, 11:16:21 PM
Interesting. Any others? I'm hearing word of a similar re-think in the AZ chapter...
Post by: Standing Wolf on July 10, 2008, 11:21:22 PM
Quote
That's called principle.
Even if you show up decades late?
Post by: De Selby on July 10, 2008, 11:32:31 PM
Quote
That's called principle.
Even if you show up decades late?
I really don't think they're that late-I imagine they are the same anti-gun people they were before Heller, but are now defending the right because they recognize that it is....a right.
Just like I don't think there were many Klan members at the ACLU when they decided to help the Klan with its free speech rights.
The list goes on.
It's an organization that has more leftists than others for sure, but I think it's been genuinely principled in its approach to defending individual rights.
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 10, 2008, 11:42:51 PM
Post by: RevDisk on July 11, 2008, 01:11:46 AM
Quote
That's called principle.
Even if you show up decades late?
In fairness, previously SCOTUS has never ruled whether it was an individual right or a collective right under the US Constitution. Now they have. But yea, they should have parsed it decades ago. Still better 'allies' than enemies, Wolf. It's not unprecadented, NRA and the ACLU have worked together in the past...
Post by: HankB on July 11, 2008, 03:13:27 AM
. . . The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations. The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights. . . .
It's an encouraging sign, but notice the important caveat which I've boldfaced in the above quote.In light of their past history, I'd be willing to bet that what NV ACLU considers "constitutionally permissible regulations" aren't what most members of this board would regard as "constitutionally permissible regulations."
Any takers?
Post by: roo_ster on July 11, 2008, 05:00:20 AM
. . . The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations. The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights. . . .
It's an encouraging sign, but notice the important caveat which I've boldfaced in the above quote.In light of their past history, I'd be willing to bet that what NV ACLU considers to "constitutionally permissible regulations" aren't what most members of this board would regard as "constitutionally permissible regulations."
Any takers?
I was going to point that out.
Post by: Nitrogen on July 11, 2008, 05:19:53 AM
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html
Granted, it's a drop in the bucket, but you have to start somewhere.
Post by: Dntsycnt on July 11, 2008, 05:26:29 AM
. . . The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations. The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights. . . .
It's an encouraging sign, but notice the important caveat which I've boldfaced in the above quote.In light of their past history, I'd be willing to bet that what NV ACLU considers to "constitutionally permissible regulations" aren't what most members of this board would regard as "constitutionally permissible regulations."
Any takers?
Isn't that pretty much the same wording from Heller?
Post by: El Tejon on July 11, 2008, 05:29:14 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 11, 2008, 05:31:45 AM
Post by: longeyes on July 11, 2008, 06:25:25 AM
Hasn't the ACLU been trying to figure out for decades whether it's defending the U.S. or Soviet Constitution?
Post by: doczinn on July 11, 2008, 07:35:34 AM
Quote
constitutionally permissible
I do not theenk that word means what you theenk it means....
Post by: Nitrogen on July 11, 2008, 07:48:05 AM
This is promising. Maybe it's the beginning of a long overdue palace revolt within the ACLU ranks, who knows.
Hasn't the ACLU been trying to figure out for decades whether it's defending the U.S. or Soviet Constitution?
Hasn't the ACLU been trying to figure out for decades whether it's defending the U.S. or Soviet Constitution?
I think that's uncalled for. The soviet constitution would never tolerate free speech or due process.
Post by: HankB on July 11, 2008, 07:56:18 AM
I think that's uncalled for. The soviet constitution would never tolerate free speech or due process.
That's not entirely true.
Let's take a look at the Reagan years, just before the Soviets began their decline.
It was completely lawful in the USA to stand in front of the White House in Washington, D.C., get up on a soap box, and shout that you hated Reagan and everything he stood for.
At the same time, it was completely lawful in the USSR to stand up in front of the Kremlin in Moscow, get up on a soap box, and shout that you hated Reagan and everything he stood for.
See - same freedom of speech, to say the same things.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 11, 2008, 08:26:21 AM
...subject to constitutionally permissible regulations.
So they've given up their indefensible, overtly anti 2A position. Now it looks like they're simply going to continue the same agenda subversively, by pretending the Constitution permits all sorts of regulations.
"We aren't infringing on your individual right to bear arms. Honest. That's not a handgun ban in Chicago, no sir. That's not an assault weapons ban, either. We haven't banned anything, honest. We've just regulated things a little, just like the Constitution says we can."
Post by: K Frame on July 11, 2008, 08:58:48 AM
Post by: Nitrogen on July 12, 2008, 08:55:05 AM
I think that's uncalled for. The soviet constitution would never tolerate free speech or due process.
That's not entirely true.
Let's take a look at the Reagan years, just before the Soviets began their decline.
It was completely lawful in the USA to stand in front of the White House in Washington, D.C., get up on a soap box, and shout that you hated Reagan and everything he stood for.
At the same time, it was completely lawful in the USSR to stand up in front of the Kremlin in Moscow, get up on a soap box, and shout that you hated Reagan and everything he stood for.
See - same freedom of speech, to say the same things.
I love you guys.