Has the ACLU EVER taken a 2nd ammendment case?

Has the ACLU EVER taken a 2nd ammendment case?

This is a discussion on Has the ACLU EVER taken a 2nd ammendment case? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Just curious, as it seems like they conveniently skip over that part of the constitution. I have never heard of them taking a case regarding ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 43
Like Tree74Likes

Thread: Has the ACLU EVER taken a 2nd ammendment case?

  1. #1
    Member Array american23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    307

    Question Has the ACLU EVER taken a 2nd ammendment case?

    Just curious, as it seems like they conveniently skip over that part of the constitution. I have never heard of them taking a case regarding the second amendment. Have they ever done it?


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Jaeger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    St. Louis, MO "The Most Dangerous City in America"
    Posts
    2,187
    No, they claim they don't have to because of the NRA. Which, if you think about it is totally ridiculous, because they are not the only group of civil rights lawyers who claim to defend the Bill of Rights, yet they insert themselves wherever they think it will advance their agenda, and ignore cases that don't. They're a total and complete sham, and have been since their inception. That doesn't mean a broken clock is not right twice a day, but it does mean they could care less about our liberties other than being a means to an end.

    This selective process pretty much exposes their true intent, which is not to defend and protect our rights at all, but to tear down our society and advance the radical communist agenda of their founders. The ACLU is a far left attempt to use legal judo and turn our rights against the people, and increase government power. They are died in the wool progressives who believe that the unwashed masses need to be ruled by our betters (lawyers).

    The only real and legitimate legal foundation that actually works to protect our rights is Jay Sekulow's ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) and the operate on a tiny fraction of what the ACLU spends. All you have to do is look at the cases they accept and reject to see who is actually fighting for our rights, and who isn't.
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." C.S. Lewis

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,019
    In their list of "key issues" on their web site, they certainly don't promote it among the things they stand for (click).

    Interesting, in spite of their claim about their mission: "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country."


    A quickie internet search for "gun control" on the aclu.org web site shows quite a lot of "hits": click.

    Including for this: Second Amendment @ ACLU.org. Their official take on the 2A/RKBA:

    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. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

    ANALYSIS
    Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

    Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

    Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.

    In short, they're not a really strong supporter. To say the least.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,141
    I think their "it's the NRA's job" is actually reasonably true. Like, no charity can do everything that's ostensibly in their mandate. The ACLU is definitely on the side of the angels. The problem they have is one of PR, they help people who other people despise. Does a pedophile have a Freedom of Speech rights? Yes, they do. But, remember, the average person wants to shoot off a pedophile's nutsack with a shotgun and ship them to Somalia, so anyone protecting his Freedom of Speech inevitably gets hated too. It's the whole Larry Flynt argument again; to truly protect the rights of the wheat, you need to defend the chaff. Now, I think they just admit that the 2nd is outside of their mandate. So? That's their right. It's outside of a lot of people's mandates. It's also much easier on pro-2nd people; if you want to give money, you can make your choices more easily. Want to help the pastor put a pro-Jesus billboard on his property? The NRA won't help you. Want to increase the odds that you'll be allowed to use suppressors when you hunt? The NRA will help.
    edit: no, they're not really on 'your' side when it comes to 2A issues. Luckily, I think their cop out is reasonable. I don't hear about them being too egregious being anti-2A in any real proactive sense
    Our current plan for Universal Iron Lung coverage, just sayin'.
    Wisest. Retirement. Plan. Ever.
    Good thing the March of Dimes worked. How, why?

    Alternately, for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell..


  5. #5
    VIP Member Array LimaCharlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,429
    We are talking about the American Communists & Liberals Union aren't we?
    OD*, 357and40, tdave and 9 others like this.
    I carry a gun, because a Cop is too heavy.

    U.S. Army, Retired
    NRA Patron Life Member.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array The Fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Palm Beach, Florida
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by LimaCharlie View Post
    We are talking about the American Communists & Liberals Union aren't we?
    SILLY
    " Keep On Packin' On The Bimah"

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Yes-- The ACLU Defends Gun Rights - Hit & Run : Reason.com

    There are some other examples, and one has recently been in the news but I need to
    find a citation and don't have the time just now.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array USM1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yes-- The ACLU Defends Gun Rights - Hit & Run : Reason.com

    There are some other examples, and one has recently been in the news but I need to
    find a citation and don't have the time just now.


    I read that article from 2007 not so much as an issue of firearms but rather the issue of a vague law and the inconsistency of the people charged in such events. I don't bellieve the ACLU believes individual should be allowed to carry firearms.

    In the early days, people could not carry handguns in their vehicles, concealed or not. It changed via case law and then statute law in the '80s and more so in '97 during the initial years of CHL in Texas.
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array Jaeger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    St. Louis, MO "The Most Dangerous City in America"
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    I think their "it's the NRA's job" is actually reasonably true. Like, no charity can do everything that's ostensibly in their mandate. The ACLU is definitely on the side of the angels. The problem they have is one of PR, they help people who other people despise. Does a pedophile have a Freedom of Speech rights? Yes, they do. But, remember, the average person wants to shoot off a pedophile's nutsack with a shotgun and ship them to Somalia, so anyone protecting his Freedom of Speech inevitably gets hated too. It's the whole Larry Flynt argument again; to truly protect the rights of the wheat, you need to defend the chaff. Now, I think they just admit that the 2nd is outside of their mandate. So? That's their right. It's outside of a lot of people's mandates. It's also much easier on pro-2nd people; if you want to give money, you can make your choices more easily. Want to help the pastor put a pro-Jesus billboard on his property? The NRA won't help you. Want to increase the odds that you'll be allowed to use suppressors when you hunt? The NRA will help.
    edit: no, they're not really on 'your' side when it comes to 2A issues. Luckily, I think their cop out is reasonable. I don't hear about them being too egregious being anti-2A in any real proactive sense
    Wow. What a shock. So you're admitting that they're outright liars, and are NOT " ...our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country", ...and that's their prerogative to lie, and it's a "good thing". Rather they pick and choose which cases they want to defend, and which they would rather see people's rights trampled. I don't believe that even you believe their tag lines or mandate at all. While defending the worst of the worst is logical if their organization actually practiced what they preach, they choose to defend the worst because at heart their design is to tear everything down and remake it into a worker's paradise. Obviously you're not familiar with Roger Baldwin's writings, because he does not couch his aims and beliefs in the rhetoric of liberty and rights like the organization he created, and he was fairly straightforward with the belief that since you could not get people to willingly give up their freedom it must be taken from them piecemeal through the courts. The ACLU does the precise opposite of what they claim to be, and the fact that they are populated by liberty hating lawyers who have a penchant for terrorists and enemies of the American people is merely a symptom. By choosing the worst of the worst to defend they succeed in making stupid people scoff at the whole idea of rights. The ACLU knows that laws are clumsy nasty things that often do injustice, because they cannot be crafted for every single situation. They find those where the most injustice can be created, the worst people let off, and they choose those almost exclusively to the point where they hope people will reject the idea of individual liberty altogether, and instead adopt a totalitarian collectivism of the lowest common denominator, making everyone equally poor, wretched, and equally tyrannized. Angles? They are the purest evil that a lawyer could possibly be, because they are not useful idiots but do this actively with mal intent.

    All our rights are individual rights worthy of the Bill of Rights, except this one, which is directly and purely collective...meaning they don't support the individual right to bear arms at all, and don't believe in rights period, because there is no such thing as a "collective right". It is an absolute contrivance, and code for the belief that the witless and worthless be given an equal share that they did not earn or deserve. I wonder what their reasoning, assuming that they discard the Federalist Papers and the reasons and purpose of the BOR in the author's own words, and instead establish an oxymoron of a "collective" right. My guess is that they wouldn't even try to explain such a ridiculous thing.

    CanuckQue, please explain to all we cretins what a "right" is, and what a "collective right" is. If you say the ACLU is angelic, I would love to hear you extrapolate upon this idea of "collective rights", because rights are what keeps the collective at bay from the individual. Without rights then our basic freedoms are open to a vote by the mob, and indeed rights become meaningless (which is the intent and reason for being of the ACLU). The smallest minority, the individual, is defenseless against the mob without rights that come from a higher power than government, and therefore any abridgement of rights by a government is illegal according to natural law, God's law, or insert your belief system here. Collectivism and collective rights are indistinguishable from any other sort of totalitarianism. They're just sub-generas of the very same thing. If they existed then individual rights would not exist. Individual rights exist because we say they exist, because we believe they exist. You can get to the same place being an atheist, but it is a lot more difficult, and there is allot less certainty. We can argue about natural rights all day, but just accepting that rights come from a higher power means you are already there.

    The Declaration of Independence is our guiding light. The Constitution is the compromise. If the ACLU believed in the ideas in the DOI they would be a much different organization and would take much different cases. They are what they do. They're clever, but not wise. They're just an organ of the radical left working within the system that they despise to undermine and destroy it.
    american23 likes this.
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." C.S. Lewis

  10. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by USM1976 View Post
    I read that article from 2007 not so much as an issue of firearms but rather the issue of a vague law and the inconsistency of the people charged in such events. I don't bellieve the ACLU believes individual should be allowed to carry firearms.

    In the early days, people could not carry handguns in their vehicles, concealed or not. It changed via case law and then statute law in the '80s and more so in '97 during the initial years of CHL in Texas.
    Try this one too: ACLU: Reid gun bill could threaten privacy, civil liberties | The Daily Caller
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array Jaeger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    St. Louis, MO "The Most Dangerous City in America"
    Posts
    2,187
    Reason and intent
    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." C.S. Lewis

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaeger View Post
    Rather they pick and choose which cases they want to defend, and which they would rather see people's rights trampled.
    I just don't think that's fair. Yeah, they pick and choose their cases (I mean, that's just the way the world works), but I'd not assume that inaction on a specific front is the same as "they'd rather see". I think you might underestimate the credit they're giving the NRA. They allow the NRA to handle 2A issues, except for the odd overlap. So? Lots of charities do that. This really does allow the charity-givers an easier time figuring out how they want their dollars spent; it allows distinguishing characteristics instead of 'race towards the middle' you so commonly see elsewhere.
    It's not like I need to agree with all of what they do, and still respect them.
    And, again, you're too acerbic to even consider replying to in-depth.
    Our current plan for Universal Iron Lung coverage, just sayin'.
    Wisest. Retirement. Plan. Ever.
    Good thing the March of Dimes worked. How, why?

    Alternately, for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell..


  13. #13
    Distinguished Member Array DingBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,725
    hmm. i could care less about the ACLU's mandates, structure, or anything else. i could care less what their historical record is. (i should, and i do, to a tiny degree) but for purposes of this argument, i don't care.

    i do care about this;

    as a white, middle class male. who pays taxes, supports my non-mixed race family through a legitimate and respectable job, i would expect exactly ZERO help from the ACLU should almost anyhting happen to me. if i was involved in a questionable shooting or 2A issue, i would expect ZERO help form them, and be SHOCKED if i did get some. to take it a step further, i would also be shocked to receive help form them on ANY constitutional issue i would ever find myself involved in.

  14. #14
    Member
    Array rcsoftexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    325
    357and40 and american23 like this.
    "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Wayne
    NRA member 18 yrs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKnEA...C4C7BEE0A02E48

  15. #15
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,475
    I will go with the ACLU is very selective in who's civil liberties and what civil liberties it chooses to defend and let it go at that.
    american23 and blitzburgh like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

has aclu ever supported right wing
,

has the aclu ever defended a 2nd admendment case

,
has the aclu ever defended the 2nd amendment
,
has the aclu taken on any retirement
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors