Thread: More good ACLU news

Originally Posted by AGCR

The ACLU has been gradually moving away from it's traditionally neutral stance regarding the 2A for quite a few years now.

There's nothing about their official stance that's ever been neutral! Unless intentionally misconstruing what the militia is, or somehow disagreeing with SCOTUS rulings is supposedly neutral.

http://www.aclu.org/faqs#3_5
http://www.aclu.org/organization-new...cond-amendment

Originally Posted by hapuna

Here you go! Notice it wasn't the first. http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=6111

Nice. That may make people's heads explode a little.

The ACLU does not support the 2nd Amendment as we gun owners see it. The ACLU does not support the individual freedom of owning a firearm. The ACLU stance has always been the 2nd amendment means a militia is the term that quantifes firearms ownership. Since the recent Supreme Court ruling on Miller the ACLU has taken issue with that. The ACLU stance is a left wing stance on firearms freedom. Get to thier website and read,then read again. They are against the individuals right to firearms ownership and did not agree withthe Miller decision of the Supreme Court. When it comes to firearms,the ACLU is not your friend. Spad

From ACLU's website.

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

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.

The ACLU disagrees with the Heller ruling.

Originally Posted by Trlsmn

The ACLU disagrees with the Heller ruling.

Though really they don't agree with Miller either, since the Miller decision wasn't that the 2nd was a collective right.

Its always been true that the national org has taken that stance. Where you see the change is in the state organizations which may eventually seep in to the national interpretation. It is also true that they have simply stayed away from these cases and focused on the other ammendments.

I can't comment intelligently on this issue as I don't know enough about the current state of the ACLU or it's leaders and their affiliations. I guess I'll have to do some research and see what they're really up to. I hope several other members will do the same.

I feel that associating with the ACLU is like playing with rattlesnakes. You may get away with it for a while, but sooner or later you WILL get bitten!

Originally Posted by AGCR

Quote Originally Posted by hapuna View Post
Here you go! Notice it wasn't the first. http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=6111

Nice. That may make people's heads explode a little.

Heads explode? Why exactly would that be? Because they are factual in the face of the ACLU's specious and deceitful arguments/non-arguments about gun rights?

Face facts AGCR, with the ACLU's clout, if they truly supported an individual's right to own and carry, the NRA wouldn't need to exist as a lobbying entity. Just because the NRA chooses to be factual about this issue, in a single state, should make no one's "head explode."

Only those that support efforts to empower the government and define the citizen as a subject, would support the ideal that the citizen has NO RIGHT to defend him/herself. And make no mistake, failing to support the citizen's right(s) in this instance, carries the same effect as actively disarming them. Especially in the current debate about gun rights.

Thus far, that has been the ACLU's stance. Time will tell if that position changes, but so far they haven't elected to support citizens in this battle.
If you have the (critical) information as to why they would support a legal alien's right within a state, before they would support a U.S. citizen's national right, you should share it.
That is far more likely to make heads explode.
After all, the A in ACLU is supposed to stand for American, not Alien.

BTW, how does a head explode "a little?"

What I think isn't entirely clear to some people is that the ACLU is not a monolithic organization. Individual state chapters possess considerable autonomy. That is why their national website claims 2a neutrality and may have some other lame stances while many local chapters actively support gun rights. There's not some kind of decree against that. I have an associate who is head legal council for the Oklahoma ACLU which is quite pro-gun. The New York branch might be less so, but it's up to them.

Originally Posted by AGCR

What I think isn't entirely clear to some people is that the ACLU is not a monolithic organization. Individual state chapters possess considerable autonomy. That is why their national website claims 2a neutrality and may have some other lame stances while many local chapters actively support gun rights. There's not some kind of decree against that. I have an associate who is head legal council for the Oklahoma ACLU which is quite pro-gun. The New York branch might be less so, but it's up to them.

That is good, I just hope the idea of supporting the 2A trickles up to the national level at some point.