ufcfanvt wrote:
I have peronally disagreed w/ the ACLU in VERY few instances. I am a libertarian, an atheist, a pornography consumer, etc, etc, etc. :celebrate
You are obviously not reading the facetiousness in their position regarding the totality of arms that would be allowed for ownership, carry, etc the R2KBA WERE an individual right. The use of the Nukes, rocket launchers, etc have been used by Anti's ad-nauseum. They are putting it all out on the table that they believe this right CANNOT be absolute in any way and they will interpret any decision on it to fit within that mold.
I guarantee that they will interpret Scalia's decision this way:
You have a right to own a gun in your home only. The gun you own must be suitable for some civilian, non-military purpose and must be commonly held by many people within the US or perhaps your district. That is a right that can be licensed by the government, who by the way, gets to set nearly arbitrary restrictions on who gets to own/carry/etc, as long as those restictions are made under the guise of safety. They will support any safe storage law that doesn't go quite as far as DC's had. All of these will be called REASONABLE and paralells will be fabricated with restrictions that we accept on the First/4th amendments.
I would actually like to be a box of ammo on this being their interpretation and how they treat the right henceforth. Terms to be described either in PM's or a new thread :lol:
If I am right, are they really our friends?
Perhaps it would help if I explained how I read the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment, using the aforementioned page as a reference:
First off, the ACLU does not contend that the Second Amendment is about hunting or self-defense. They clearly state that its purpose is to allow the militias to keep the central government in check.
Next, the ACLU states that in order to fulfill this purpose, the militia described in the Second Amendment must be able to present a reasonable challenge to the modern US military. In other words, a militia armed with muskets is no match for select-fire assault rifles wielded by the current US military, much less the aircraft and other crew-served weapons in use by said military. I think we're still in agreement here.
As a sub-point of that, regulations (read "reasonable restrictions") that disallow the militia access to modern military weapons are unconstitutional. So, no RPGS, no militia. Simply, a neutered Second Amendment is as useless as no Second Amendment at all. Still in agreement, no?
Now, this is where our opinions diverge. As the ACLU believes that restrictions on, say, WMDs and artillery pieces are justifiable, the purpose of the Second Amendment is invalid. And thus cannot convey an individual right.
Comparing it to the First Amendment, if "reasonable restrictions" denied individuals the right to criticize the government, but allowed them all other free speech, presumably the First Amendment would pretty much be invalid.
The whole point I'm trying to make is that the ACLU's stance on the Second Amendment is not based on a "guns are evil! ban them!" argument, but rather an erroneous judgement on whether or not the Second Amendment covers weapons beyond small arms.
And that is in addition to the whole issue of the
other rights the ACLU fights to preserve. At worst, the ACLU is not advocating more restrictions, but not advocating fewer restrictions. Yet, as I pointed out in a previous post in this thread, the other rights, beyond just gun ownership, prove the value of the ACLU. Hence my assessment that they're more friends than enemies of gun owners.
