imported post
DESERT ATILLA wrote:
Hey Tim,
Don't forget that this is quite probably a civil rights issue and the ACLU should be willing to take this on. On a side note, the meet and greet was great! I'm looking forward to our next gathering.
HA HA HA! If it weren't so sad, I would think you were making a joke there.
The ACLU works hard to preserve rights for terrorists, create rights for illegal aliens, pedophiles and murders while also actively, arrogantly advocating against my and your 2A rights. Yes, I said against your 2A rights, they expressly believe you have no 2A rights and that the recent Supreme Court ruling was an incorrect, defective interpretation of the 2A.
Until they reaffirmed their position *after* Heller, I was somewhat neutral-to-slightly positive on the ACLU. Hell no, not now, game over.
The ACLU should be called the American (Some) Civil Liberties Union --the some being the ones *they* believe you should have, not the ones enumerated in the Constitution, because they have repeatedly, even post Heller, stated that they do not believe that the 2A is an individual right in any way, under any circumstances.
Here are a few tidbits from their own web site, I hope you are sitting down:
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html
Home : Criminal Justice : General
Second Amendment
Updated: 7/8/2008
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
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.
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.
and
http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/
July 1st, 2008
Posted by Suzanne Ito, ACLU at 3:44 pm
CIVIL LIBERTIES NEWS, U.S. SUPREME COURT
Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
As always, we welcome your comments.
