Author Topic: ACLU and Heller  (Read 18302 times)

tng27

  • New Member
  • Posts: 1
ACLU and Heller
« on: June 27, 2008, 08:16:31 AM »
This is a quote from the FAQ section of the ACLU website:

"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...."

Since their stated reason for failing to support the 2nd amendment is now gone, what will they do now?

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,335
  • I Am Inimical
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2008, 08:17:41 AM »
Entrench and try to get the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2008, 08:19:11 AM »
Maybe we need to form our own, call it American Civil Liberties Union - Freedoms United.  ACLU-FU

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

El Tejon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,641
    • http://www.kirkfreemanlaw.com
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2008, 08:23:03 AM »
Continue their work to destroy the Constitution and the USA.
I do not smoke pot, wear Wookie suits, live in my mom's basement, collect unemployment checks or eat Cheetoes, therefore I am not a Ron Paul voter.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,335
  • I Am Inimical
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2008, 08:26:13 AM »
Close, Charby, but I suggest rearranging the name a bit...

Freedoms United - American Civil Liberties Union.

FU ACLU.

No mistaking that!
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2008, 08:34:42 AM »
Even better Mike! 

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

Werewolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,126
  • Lead, Follow or Get the HELL out of the WAY!
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2008, 09:39:04 AM »
This is a quote from the FAQ section of the ACLU website:

"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...."

Since their stated reason for failing to support the 2nd amendment is now gone, what will they do now?

They'll simply ammend their position to read:

Quote
We disagree with the Supreme Court's position that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.   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...."

They will not have to change the way they do business at all.
Life is short, Break the rules, Forgive quickly, Kiss slowly, Love
truly, Laugh uncontrollably, And never regret anything that made you smile.

Fight Me Online

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,411
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2008, 12:28:41 PM »
Why would the ACLU have to change anything?  No one in the ACLU will be forced to change their beliefs about the 2A, or which cases in which they choose to get involved. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,901
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2008, 01:27:42 PM »
They have actually replied to heller.  They were obviously annoyed by the ruling, and just as obviously will NOT support the second.

taurusowner

  • Guest
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2008, 01:29:38 PM »
So much for all that drivel about protecting the rights of those they disagree with.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2008, 01:40:22 PM »
They have actually replied to heller.  They were obviously annoyed by the ruling, and just as obviously will NOT support the second.

You have a link?
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

freakazoid

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,243
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2008, 07:01:23 PM »
Quote
Continue their work to destroy the Constitution and the USA.

What do you mean? Besides there belief in what the 2A is supposed to mean they still fight to protect the others. And I have read that they are slowly coming to accept it for what it truly means, read about it in one of my copies of the Reason magazine.
"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,901
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2008, 03:49:52 AM »
From the ACLU release

The Right To Bear Arms

The Second Amendment has not been the subject of much Supreme Court discussion through the years. To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the Second Amendment as a collective right connected to the concept of a "well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to possess guns for private purposes.

In Heller, the Court reinterpreted rolleyes the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.'s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.
 
The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket  ;/the new rule will create.


xavier fremboe

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 904
  • All-American Meanie
    • The Shop
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2008, 04:26:08 AM »
Has anyone stopped to think how stupid it is for anyone to interpret 2a as ensuring the right of the government to arm itself?
If the bandersnatch seems even mildly frumious, best to shun it.  Really. http://www.cctplastics.com

coppertales

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 947
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2008, 06:15:56 AM »
So, if the 2nd is for a milita only, then we need to follow the SCOTUS opinion, pg 55, that we be armed like the current military is so we can prepare and train for militia duty.....chris3

nico

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 678
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2008, 06:28:14 AM »
Has anyone stopped to think how stupid it is for anyone to interpret 2a as ensuring the right of the government to arm itself?

I have, but based on firsthand experience, not many people who advocate that position have. undecided 

The mental gymnastics to believe that "the people" really means "the states" in the 2A, when it clearly means "the people" in the rest of the Bill of Rights, and that the 2A "gives" (also misunderstanding that the BOR only acknowledges rights that the government can't violate) a right to the states, while the rest of the BOR gives rights to the people must make one very tired.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2008, 06:41:19 AM »
Maybe you mean "Heller in Pink Tights?"

Then the ACLU might be interested.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2008, 08:50:15 AM »
Quote
Continue their work to destroy the Constitution and the USA.

What do you mean? Besides there belief in what the 2A is supposed to mean they still fight to protect the others. And I have read that they are slowly coming to accept it for what it truly means, read about it in one of my copies of the Reason magazine.

Much/most of what the ACLU agitates for is not found in the COTUS and many of their positions are in direct opposition to the principles of the COTUS.

The listing of categories on their own website is illustrative:
Criminal Justice

Death Penalty: Obviously constitutional, since it is mentioned in the COTUS several places.
Quote
The Capital Punishment Project (CPP) challenges the unfairness and arbitrariness of capital punishment while working toward the ultimate goal of abolishing the death penalty.

Disability Rights: Show me where in the COTUS.
Quote
Despite ample evidence that the ADA is working, people with disabilities are still, far too often, treated as second class citizens, shunned and segregated by physical barriers and social stereotypes. They are discriminated against in employment, schools, and housing, robbed of their personal autonomy, sometimes even hidden away and forgotten by the larger society. Many people with disabilities continue to be excluded from the American dream.

Drug Policy

Free Speech: I wasn't aware that a security clearance was guaranteed in the COTUS:
PITTSBURGH - The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit today on behalf of Dr. Moniem El-Ganayni, a nuclear physicist and naturalized American citizen whose security clearance was improperly revoked earlier this year by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). In an unprecedented move, the government  counter to its own policy  has denied El-Ganayni the chance to contest the revocation and refused to divulge the reasons behind it, citing "national security."


HIV/AIDS: These illnesses in particular or illness in general were mentioned in the COTUS?
Quote
No one should be deprived of their basic constitutional protections of equality, privacy or free expression because they have HIV or AIDS. The AIDS Project fights to eliminate discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS in all aspects of society, including employment, housing and public accommodations. We also work to ensure that people can make informed decisions about HIV testing and treatment, and to challenge government responses to HIV that reflect prejudice rather than scientific principles.

Human Rights: 17YO volunteers in US military service are now, "child soldiers?"
The United States is shirking its commitments under an international agreement and failing to protect the rights of vulnerable young people. In a report to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, the ACLU charges that the U.S. isn't upholding its obligations under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict that it ratified in 2002. The report focuses on the U.S. military's recruiting tactics that target youth under 17 and low-income youth and students of color, and the U.S. government's failure to protect the rights of foreign child soldiers such as Guantánamo detainees Omar Khadr and Mohammed Jawad.

Immigrants' Rights: Yeah, illegal aliens are the highest form of American the same way that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

...

I could go on, but I am tired of pointing out the ACLU's essentially anti-COTUS and hence anti-American advocacy.


National Security
Police Practices
Prisoners' Rights
Privacy & Technology
Racial Justice
Religion & Belief
Reproductive Freedom
Rights of the Poor
Safe and Free
StandUp/Youth
Voting Rights
Women's Rights
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2008, 11:00:39 AM »
Yeah, the ACLU is a sham.  If you ever had any illusions about whether the ACLU supported the Constitution, their reluctance to accept the individual's right to arms and the Heller decision should settle the matter for you.

El Tejon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,641
    • http://www.kirkfreemanlaw.com
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2008, 11:17:23 AM »
Quote
What do you mean? Besides there belief in what the 2A is supposed to mean they still fight to protect the others. And I have read that they are slowly coming to accept it for what it truly means, read about it in one of my copies of the Reason magazine.

The ACLU fights to destroy America.  The people they "protect" are merely stalking horses to advance their destructive radical agenda.

THE ACLU will never accept an individual right to arms as this along is the bulwark against their radical society.  Remember what Lenin said about peasants with guns and what must happen to them--the ACLU believes this as well.
I do not smoke pot, wear Wookie suits, live in my mom's basement, collect unemployment checks or eat Cheetoes, therefore I am not a Ron Paul voter.

Marvin Dao

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2008, 11:44:00 AM »
Has anyone stopped to think how stupid it is for anyone to interpret 2a as ensuring the right of the government to arm itself?

A logical case can be made for it as long as you don't get too deep in the historical details.

1) The right of free men to keep and bear arms for personal use is a natural and unalienable right.
1a) This right was already present in the colonies from English Common Law.
1b) That the right existed was so evident that no one sane would argue otherwise.
1c) The Constitution does not address this right or any other previously existing right.
1d) Anything the constitution does not address is off limits for the Fed.Gov.
1e) Since the Fed.Gov can't affect this right, it is not addressed in the Bill of Rights.

2) States at the time wanted to protect their right to an independent militia.
2a) States at the time were independent from the Fed.Gov.
2b) States at the time wanted effective militias.
2c) Militiamen at the time often used personal firearms for militia duty.
2d) The Constitution does address the arming, training, and disciplining of militias by the Fed.Gov.
2e) States at the time feared that Fed.Gov could cripple militias with those powers by disarming the militia.
2f) 2nd Amendment is written to protect state militias by removing the Fed.Gov's ability to affect the arming of state militias.

There you go, a mostly logical Second Amendment interpretation where the purpose of the Second is to protect the right of the states to have properly armed militias.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2008, 01:37:03 PM »
"Mostly logical" only if you've never actually read the 2nd Amendment.  It clearly says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...".  It does NOT say  "..the right of the militia to keep and bear arms..." or "the right of the states to keep and bear arms...".

Marvin Dao

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2008, 04:55:20 PM »
"Mostly logical" only if you've never actually read the 2nd Amendment.  It clearly says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...".  It does NOT say  "..the right of the militia to keep and bear arms..." or "the right of the states to keep and bear arms...".

There isn't an inconsistency between the viewpoint I presented and the text of the Second Amendment. In that viewpoint, the reason why the Second Amendment existed was to preserve the capability of the state militias. The method they used was to prevent the federal government from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Since the Bill of Rights was not incorporated against the states at this time, there was nothing in the Second that prevented the states from infringing on the right of its people to keep and bear arms.

End result for this viewpoint is that all the Second Amendment does is protect the right of the state to arm it's militias by ensuring the federal government could not legally disarm the state's citizens. It does not create nor recognize an uninfringable right for the people to keep and bear arms as the states could freely attempt to impose restrictions on their populations if they wanted to.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2008, 12:29:44 AM »
Quote
What do you mean? Besides there belief in what the 2A is supposed to mean they still fight to protect the others. And I have read that they are slowly coming to accept it for what it truly means, read about it in one of my copies of the Reason magazine.

The ACLU fights to destroy America.  The people they "protect" are merely stalking horses to advance their destructive radical agenda.


Elaborate, please.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Dannyboy

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,340
Re: ACLU and Heller
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2008, 03:53:56 AM »
Quote
A logical case can be made for it as long as you don't get too deep in the historical details.

It's not logical when you look at the use of the phrase, "the people."  How can this phrase be used to mean "the government" in the 2nd Amendment but actually mean the people in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments?  It's not logical in any way, shape, form or fashion.  Just because people were able to make that argument work doesn't make it a good one.
Oh, Lord, please let me be as sanctimonious and self-righteous as those around me, so that I may fit in.