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.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
So pretty much, your policy went from “we agree with the decision in US v Miller that gun ownership is not a constitutional right” to “we disagree with DC V Heller and still believe that gun ownership is not a constitutional right”, meaning that despite whatever ruling is laid down, the ACLU will be against the individual right of private gun ownership.
I was really hoping that the ACLU would at least reconsider its stance, now invalidated by the SCOTUS, and come around to the popularly accepted and now legally accepted view that an amendment in the bill of rights (whether it be the Firs, Second, Third or whichever) actually protects an individual’s right.
The ACLU has always claimed to protect the Bill of Rights and American values and its critics (myself included) have always seen it as just a clearing house for left wing legal advocacy that is willing to defend any shitbag with a grudge (be it John Walker Lindh, the Taliban, Al-Qaida, Soviet spies, the CPUSA, etcetera).
Well, now it’s confirmed, you are nothing more that a bunch of left wing hacks who could give a flying fuck about the Bill of Rights.
Q: How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . .
July 1st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
thank you for this consolidation thread. for conciseness, i will copy over my earlier comment; if the moderators wish, they may delete that earlier comment from the unrelated thread.
well duh — what else have we been doing around the first amendment all these decades? now the second gets to be taken equally as seriously, that’s all.
yes, there’s a lot of lost time to catch up on; there’s decades of litigation and precedent that’s established a culture of judicial debate around the first amendment’s various clauses that the second has yet to get. but now, it can and hopefully will. is the ACLU going to help or hinder this process? or is it going to play ostrich and pretend none of it is happening?
ostrich it is, i see. news flash: the ACLU is not the supreme court of this country. i’m disappointed in you.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
The ACLU’s position was wrong before Heller; to maintain it now is absurd. Not one of the justices in Heller endorsed the “collective rights” viewpoint. If the ACLU believes that it is the best public policy that individuals should not own guns, it should campaign for the removal of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. By instead arguing for a ridiculously narrow judicial interpretation of that amendment, it is undermining its argument for a broad reading of the rest of the Bill of Rights it so treasures.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Does that mean that I can interpret the constitution as not providing for a right to privacy? That wasn’t a dramatic innovation in civil liberties? Now that the Court has decided that, will the ACLU now feel compelled to defend it as a constitutional right? Does the ACLU only defend civil liberties it agrees with?
July 1st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I don’t know why this the only consitutional right the ACLU doesn’t defend. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of INDIVIDUALS, so the idea that the Bill of Rights protects a “collective right” is absolutely preposterous. The ACLU needs to change its position on the Second Amendment from the politically correct orthodox liberal position to the truly civil libertarian position. We cannot pick and choose which rights are worthy of more protection than others.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Why does the ACLU disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision?
Now that the Court has established an individual right, shouldn’t the ACLU be celebrating an expansion of rights for more americans, much in the same way that other amendments and cases have.
It seems that the reasoning at the ACLU is being inconsistent when one considers the other amendments and Civil Rights.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
All the rights in the bill of rights are individual rights, A true patriot stands up for all rights, even those they do not like,we can not change the meaning of amendments or allow modified definitions of them. what about slavery? should we allow some slavery? is a ban on slavery an individual right or a collective one should we change the meaning of the 13th amendment? of course not! If the ACLU does not like the second amendment tough, it means what it means and should be fought for as much as any other right.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
If the ACLU wants to maintain its credibility as the defender of the bill of rights then it must endorse the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and not maintain its pathetic stance claiming it disagrees with the SCOTUS. The fat lady has sung. Get with the program.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:38 pm
seeing as how there has never been a supreme court interpretation embracing 2A as a collective right, i’m unclear as to how the Heller decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:45 pm
> The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.
The ACLU long based its “collective right” interpretation on the Supreme Court’s ruling in US v. Miller.
The Supreme Court has now clarified what was meant by US v. Miller, that the Second Amendment never concerned a collective right, and that those who read US v. Miller to that meaning were incorrect.
In other words, the very *basis* for the ACLU’s “collective right” interpretation has been invalidated, and the individual right to keep and bear arms has been recognized as a vital liberty of equal standing as all those protected by the Bill of Rights.
I don’t want to hear any more about the ACLU prevaricating on how they “disagree” with this individual right protected by the Bill of Rights. What I (and many other members) now want is for the ACLU to step to the forefront of protecting our Second Amendment rights so that the damned NRA will stop being the only place liberal gunowners can turn to.
Will you just get with the program? Numerous polls show ~ 75% of US voters know the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and ~65% of registered DEMOCRATS agree with that position. We need you to show some leadership and embrace our rights, not leave the Second Amendment neglected for the NRA to continue to wrap in right-wing rhetoric.
Doesn’t your sense of decency demand you treat all of our Constitutional rights equally?
July 1st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
This blog entry is pretty vague - I’d like more detailed information about the ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment. More about why they view the Second Amendment as a collective right, and how this decision affects their position.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:29 pm
How can the ACLU (of which I’m a member) seriously consider the 2nd amendment to be a collective right, when there is not a single amendment in the bill of rights that refers to any collective or state rights, but rather individual rights and freedoms? Maybe this is something that the ACLU should logically address before taking this kind of a stance.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Fortunately it is the Supreme Court and not organizations such as the KKK or the ACLU that is the binding interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.
We now have the ACLU explicitly denying what the Supreme courts calls a specific enumerated right. This is even more egregious than the KKK demanding segregated bus seating, water fountains, and restrooms since the Constitution doesn’t enumerate the right for integration of public and private accommodations.
I had supported the ACLU in their support of the KKK because I thought the issue was one of free speech. Perhaps I was wrong in my assumption. Perhaps the issue was the ACLU enjoys the company of similarly minded bigots.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Your “collective rights” position on the 2A guarantee was justified on the basis of the Miller ruling. Now the court has clarified Miller via Heller … and you still hold to Miller. It’s surely a matter of convenience, for now, but how long can this position last?
ACLU, you have taken the low road on this one. Just how low you can go, and how long you can stay down there and maintain any relevancy, remains to be seen.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I posted on here before pointing out that you were incosistent with your understanding of civil liberties and my comment seems to have not been put up. Apparently you don’t feel strongly about the first amendment either.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Clearly, the ACLU has never bothered to seriously look into the origins and true meaning of the Second Amendment. Considering that all nine justices actually agreed that the Second is indeed an individual right (though the minority disagrees with the majority on the actual scope of the amendment), perhaps it’s actually the ACLU that has misinterpretted the amendment all along. It’s a pity really, when bigotry, prejudice and cognitive dissonnance so easily brushes aside a fundamental human right, and the clear historical facts that support the establishment of that right, when it doesn’t suit one’s taste.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I thought the ACLU’s purpose was to uphold the rights of American citizens, as dictated by the Supreme Court.
Am I missing something?
July 1st, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I just took the money I had slated to re-up my lapsed ACLU membership and used it to re-up my NRA membership.
Sorry ACLU you lost me.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
A “collective” is a group of individuals. How can a collective have a right that the individuals in that collective don’t have? Which of the members of the group gets to exercise that right on behalf of the others? Who decides who that person is?
What about the First Amendment? It talks about freedom of the press, and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” That’s the same “the people” as in the Second Amendment, which you’ve asserted is a “collective right.” Maybe we should limit freedom of speech to registered press members (who will, of course, be required to store their typewriters in a disassembled and locked state, so that they are not able to exercise that collective right at a moment’s notice). We’ll take their fingerprints, run a background check, and make them demonstrate competency at composing headlines. Of course, no press will be allowed to operate within Washington D.C. — to keep illegal typewriters off the streets.
After all, all constitutional freedoms have limits. The government needs to have the power to regulate especially dangerous free speech and typewriters that are capable of performing automatic carriage returns (”assault typewriters”).
July 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
ACLU,
You’ve lost another American here. I will never donate a cent to your organization of crazy, intolerant lefties. The right to “keep and bear arms” as recognized by the 2nd Amendment is very clearly stated in the Bill of Rights. Only those who are either outright liars or power-hungry liars see it differently.You lose and will continue to lose. Your arguments are incredibly lame.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
The ACLU is supposed to stand for civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It’s job is not to pick and choose which rights are or are not worthy of protection. Our founding fathers had already made that decision for us.
If the ACLU had performed any research themselves, reading historical materials from the times to actually discover what the founding fathers meant, they would clearly see that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Instead, it refuses to see what is there and tries to interpret what it wants to be there.
This group, in failing to acknowledge the now clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment stands for, is un-Constitutional is un-American. It is a total disgrace and goes against the principles for which it was founded. It is a danger to itself and a danger to the United States since it refuses to acknowledge the WHOLE Constitution.
I will never join this group and I hope that many leave because of this completely biased decision. I guess the ACLU is starting to show its true colors now.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Ditto SuperNaut. I’ve given to the ACLU in the past, but why would I give money to a group that claims to be a defender of civil liberties, but wants to deny me one of the most basic?
July 1st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
The ACLU is full of fail, this shows it.
What the real name of this organization is, American Civil Liberties that we support Union.
What a joke.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I defended the ACLU in every case taken because I truly believed you were defending the civil rights laid out in the Constitution.
Whenever you changed your position because a Supreme Court decision changed the understanding of the civil right and you defended people under the new ruling, I agreed and I defended the ACLU with the same rigor and I also adopted the new position established by the Supreme Court.
Now that the ACLU is not defending the established individual civil right to keep and bear arms, the ACLU seems to be partisan, biased and selective in what they see as civil liberties, is therefore not the defenders of civil liberties I hold dear. I am disgusted and repulsed as well as feel betrayed knowing my defense for decades of what I thought was a great institution and my hero in many matters is nothing more than a fraud and run by a mob of hypocrites.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I have previously given money to the ACLU and would like to do so again. In light of the Heller decision, I had thought that the ACLU would revise its stance with regards to the 2nd Amendment (of the Bill of Rights, of the Constitution of the United States… remember that?).
As it stands, I am very disappointed and now consider the ACLU to be a disgrace. You’re willing to take on the cause of some of the worst cases of humanity, simply because they represent the “cutting edge” of encroachment on our liberties. However, you’re willing to sell out millions of law-abiding citizens and their specifically enumerated rights, just because you don’t agree with the ruling.
How again is it that you’re any better than the people you work against?
July 1st, 2008 at 9:51 pm
How completely absurd! I agree with the above comments. If there was any doubt that the ACLU is pushing a left wing political agenda, that argument is over. It’s plainly obvious that the ACLU intends to support only civil liberties that support the left wing liberal agenda.
If you don’t have the 2nd amendment, how do you ever intend on keeping and defending the rest of them?
I will not be renewing my membership.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
ACLU remains Anti-2nd amendment? Perhaps ACLU really stands for the ‘Anti-Civil Liberties Union’!
July 1st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I support virtually everything the ACLU stands for… except for this extremely hypocritical policy. This demonstrates a partisan political bias.
In light of the recent abuses of the 4th amendment by our government, I have plans to donate to civil rights organizations such as the EFF, ACLU, and NRA… but I will now strike the ACLU off that list.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
You lost 9-0 on collective rights. When are you going to start defending our constitutional rights?
July 1st, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I bet if it were any other right, they would be shitting themselves trying to defend it…………..the aclu makes me sick.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I am sorry to say that the ACLU has disappointed me. I have consistently defended you to my firearm owning friends. I pointed out that both you and the NRA are defending the Bill of Rights and our civil liberties, both with equal zeal. The NRA was taking care of defending the one amendment you were not defending. While Miller gave you cover, your ignoring the 2nd Amendment was permissible.
Your are refusing to accept the Supreme Court decision in Heller, which is now the law of the land. There can now be no reason for this outside of the fact that you do not believe Americans deserve to have the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the law is. I no longer find it in my heart to defend you guys. You are just as bad as the Bush Administration, picking and choosing what rights protected by the Constitution they will let us have.
I used to have hope in the ACLU. I am very sorry to discover that I was mistaken.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Wow. I must say the ACLU has managed to completely lose their credibility with me. What a disappointment.
Serioulsy, how can this organization hope to be taken seriously with this stand on the 2A?
July 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Civil libertarians. PFFF!
The ACLU used to like the Constitution.
But with fascist positions like this, it looks no better than the Bush administration.
STOP BOWING DOWN TO LEFTIST OVERLORDS AND START OBEYING ONLY THE CONSTITUTION!
You’re a f***ing disgrace to liberty, ACLU.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:49 pm
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.”
So, since when does the ACLU’s interpretation of the Constitution supercede the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution?
The ACLU needs to recognize that this long running debate has been settled. *ALL* of the articles in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are now, have always been, and always will be *Individual rights.*
To argue otherwise at this point makes the ACLU look foolish, at best.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
So the ALCU believes we have rights, but only those the ACLU recognizes . Now that is a classic arrogant stance, and well worth ignoring your existance for.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
As a former member of the ACLU, who has appreciated much of the work the ACLU has done to preserve our civil rights in this country, I can promise you I will never give you another dime because of your statement on this. Pretty clearly the ACLU has demonstrated they are not a serious civil rights group when, even in the face of Supreme Court precedent, you hold to a discredited notion that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean exactly what it says in plain English.
I don’t expect the ACLU to suddenly start taking up gun rights cases, and putting their energies there. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that it’s an individual right, and there are other organizations out there dedicated specifically to that issue, so that ACLU has decided not to spend resources on it. I have no problem with that.
But to continue to pretend that the second amendment is not deserving of an honored place among the Bill of Rights is disgraceful for an organization that claims to defend it.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Are you for real? I thought the ACLU was in SUPPORT of civil liberties. I guess when it comes to the liberty to keep a firearm for self-defense, the ACLU won’t support civil liberties. Sad.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I’m sorry to say that I’m ripping up my membership to the ACLU and sending it back to your HQ. By calling the Second Amendment a “collective right” when all NINE Supreme Court Justices disagree with that statement, you completely undermine your organization’s moral authority to attack against the MCA, FISA changes, and so on.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:25 pm
As a long time member of the ACLU, I wish the organization’s policy were closer to truly neutral on the gun issue. That is, I’d like the organization to have no official opinion on the second amendment, and simply stay out of those issues. There are plenty of pro- and anti-gun organizations that can handle those cases, so it seems to me that the ACLU can maximize its efficacy by simply staying out of the way and focusing on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments, as they historically have done.
On the other hand, to the pro-gun commenters who express disappointment in the fact that the ACLU hasn’t modified its stance in light of the SCOTUS ruling, ask yourself this: if the ruling had gone the other way, and the court had ruled the 2nd amendment protects a collective right, would you abandon your individual right interpretation? Or would you simply hold that you disagree with the courts ruling?
I strongly suspect it’s the latter. So if you won’t change YOUR views based on what you believe to be a bad ruling, why would you expect others to behave any differently?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:30 pm
If the ACLU would apply the scrutiny to the 2nd amendment that is does the 1st and 4th, we would have no problem. Your organization is a joke, founded by a communist to help out some of his friends who were in legal trouble. You do not understand the idea of a Bill of Rights. Your ignorance knows no bounds in this area. You are just another mouthpiece of the gun control crowd supported by liberal democrats.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:33 pm
So, the ACLU, arguably the most staunch (some might accurately say “rabid”) defender of the individual rights guaranteed under the First Amendment has decided to “disagree” with the highest court in the United States, by which all lower courts and lawmakers must abide, or suffer its wrath.
First, how are the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment so different than those guaranteed by the First, especially in the light of “individual vs. collective”? Why is it that the word “people” should have such disparate and different meanings in two very similar contexts?
Second, how do you intend on going about “disagreeing” with the Supreme Court? Are we talking continued activism against the Second Amendment, or just stuffing your head in the sand and pretending it does not exist?
Third, who are you to disagree with all nine Justices of the Supreme Court? “But wait,” you say, “Only four other Justices agreed with Scalia!” You are correct… however, *all nine* Justices agreed with the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment… ALL NINE. Just how often do you get a 9-0 ruling, in any Supreme court? And how can you honestly expect to stand up to that bad of a beat-down on the collectivist interpretation?
Every year, the ACLU seems determined to not live up to its name, and considering that the right to bear arms has always been an individual right, this has just been confirmed by the most senior court in our country, and it would therefor seem to be qualified as a “civil liberty”, this situation is no different.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I’ve often found myself defending the ACLU to other conservatives and have supported many of your legal actions, but this I can not abide. You need to explain why you continue to refuse to defend the 2nd amendment as you do the others.
Or is this decision based on a need to protect a source of funds from certain donors?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
The ACLU’s position on this is insanity. First, there are NO collective rights in the Bill of Rights and the very concept is ludicrous. If you want to get particular about word usage, the militia was always separate from army “regulars”, as they were the body of civilians. (The Army and Air Guard, and I belong to the latter, didn’t exist, so that argument is worthless.)
As a Libertarian, and law-abiding citizen, I wish I could count on the ACLU to defend MY civil liberties, but perhaps that’s asking a bit much from an organization that began life with communist roots. After all, the soviets had to disarm their people before keeping them prisoner behind a wall…
July 1st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
The hypocrisy of the ACLU apparently knows no bounds. Picking which “rights” you support based on politics is beneath you (well, actually I guess it isn’t).
July 1st, 2008 at 11:47 pm
“Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage), adopted in 1920.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled”
That’s all from the ACLU front page. Now that the 2nd amendment has been declared an individual right, which STRENGTHENS the control on the majority in the name of the individual, how can the ACLU leave that amendment out of it’s claim to protect civil liberties?
It just doesn’t make sense.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Collective right. Surely you jest!
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 am
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision”
Well aren’t you people just too special. The weenies disagree with the Supreme Court, how sad is that.
Frankly I have always despised you people but I did give you credit for being somewhat honest.
Now I can totally despise you because you now prove that you are just another bunch of dishonest left wing hypocrites.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 am
Simply absurd. You will defend murderers and rapist so that the innocent can also be reasonably defended. We don’t like it, but it is right. You should seek consistency in your views so they don’t all get cast aside as absurd. Your position on the right to keep arms is absurd, rendering all of your positions absurd. You may not like the right, but to be reasonable, you must defend it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:35 am
Wow, my comment was erased. How’s that for freedom of speech? I wonder how long it will be before this one is deleted as well? After all, what kind of civil liberties group would want there obvious hypocrisy shown on the organizations own website?
The ACLU picking and choosing what a Civil Liberty happens to be is the ultimate in hypocrisy. You cannot just choose what is a liberty and what isn’t. The fact that they even take this stand is absolutely laughable.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 am
It would have been so simple to be gracious and nonresponsive to the critics at the same time.
“Yes, it is now clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right. However, we at the ACLU have not developed any litigation expertise in this area, and have no intention to. The Cato Institute and the NRA have developed an intense interest in defending and expanding the scope of individual gun owners’ rights.”
Instead, y’all decided to become the Forrest Gumps of constitutional law–stupid is as stupid does.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 am
‘Collectivism’ is a Socialist Term…it hasn’t any place in the Founding Father Documents nor in The Bill of Rights of Individuals fighting for civil rights that protects from those enemies or powers that are controlled by a tyrannical centralized Government, such as Russia’s. ‘Collectivism’ is a relative new 20th Century term born from Socialism & Marxism.
But since many of the founding ACLU members were members of the American Communist Party. And formed the ACLU for protection from the US Government I can understand how ‘Collectivism’ is a major mindset with those that seek to undermine the very individual rights that give them freedom.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 am
I was always under the impression the ACLU was meant to support and defend our rights….not decide them for us.
How very selective of the ACLU.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 am
I have to say…. I am no lawyer…. but I can read.
And as far as I understand what I have read NOT ONE SINGLE SCOTUS judge agrees with your position that 2nd is “collective right”.
I have to say - way to discredit yourselves…
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 am
The ACLU is showing their true colors by denying the supreme, and recently re-emphasized, law of the land. They are your friend as long as you don’t show them any teeth.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 am
Some people can’t seem to read or comprehend the Second Amendment. The part about “Militias” is double edged. The government (Federal) can’t stop the states from having Militias but to protect the states THEY can control large groups of armed men so they can regulate them. Simple as that.
The second part is clear that that “regulation” shouldn’t interfere with the individual right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The part that everyone discusses but isn’t in the Amendment is the right of self defense. It’s clear from the writings of the Founders that the right to defend yourself is so clear that they didn’t think it needed to be spelled out.
It’s also that the “regulation” of Militias shows they mean to protect the “public” in general from uncontrolled threats so unfettered access to SCUD rockets, Stinger antiaircraft missiles or hand grenades isn’t in the public interest. That can be regulated.
Isn’t it amazing how smart those old dead white guys who wrote the Constitution were?
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 am
Since when it is the job of the ACLU to take the side of the restrictive efforts of the government, against the SUPREME COURT-RECOGNIZED civil liberties of the individual citizenry?
Your illogical stance on the 2nd Amendment places you on a collision course with the basic principles of your charter! Wake up!
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 am
I appreciate the ACLU for standing up for the civil liberties they do for every group or person, despite their politics or ideology. The leadership is tarnishing that record on this one by advocating, possibly for the first time, a restriction on a civil liberty, in possibly a political manner.
The previous statement on the second amendment was a bit different and qualified and things must have changed after Heller.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 am
(Hands held over ears)La, la, la, la, la, I’m not listening.
That, in my mind, describes the ACLU position on Heller and the 2nd amendment. It’s hard to believe any organization that holds itself out to be made up of professionls could behave in such a childish and immature manner, not to mention what appears to be a case of poor sportsmanship on the part of a bunch of loosers.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 am
Dear ACLU,
As a concerned defender of the Top 10 in the Constitution I’m concerned about number three and the statement which always seems to me to cover the other intrusions. Why doesn’t government intrusions into our houses get interpreted as quartering of troops in our houses without our permission. Why has this Amendment never been seen as being violated by the NUMEROUS intrusions into our electronic communications. In my house, I’m ALWAYS aware that BIG BROTHER–BIG BROTHER THE INTRUDER– is in the area. Big Brother would never be stupid enough to quaintly quarter a military unit in your apartment. They, however, have achieved a similar level of intrusion by electronic means. If they only knew the backlash against such intrusions. Nary a voter in this country is unaware of the assault on our senses by the politicos. They dare us to turn down the craziness on the tube. The 3rd Amendment has to be the next battlefield for defending our peace of mind. I’ll help fight that battle with or without a gun which is just a silly battle that should always be up to local jurisdictions anyway. End of controversy. I really never thought there was a controversy worthy of Supreme Court attention anyway.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 am
I have always considered it my civil responsibility to defend myself when attacked.
I have always considered it my civil liberty to learn how to do so, and carry the tools necessary to do so.
Without some guidance on why the ACLU’s position endorses removing that liberty, I must question the “union” that the ACLU claims to represent, because it certainly doesn’t include me.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 am
As he said above. I just took the money I had slated to re-up my ACLU membership and used it to re-up my NRA membership AND my Ohio CCW application.
Sorry ACLU you lost me as well.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:39 am
The ACLU is a joke!!!! Point blank. The ACLU is not concerned about if the rights of a person is “individual” or “collective” but how much money they can get from one group to front their kind of SOCIAL injustice. So who cares if the SCOTUS made the ruling that the Second Amendment is an Individual right like all the rights in the Bill of Rights.
Hey ACLU take a leap of a short peer!!!!!!
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 am
Even if there were any basis for describing the Second Amendment as a “collective right,” a view that most legal scholars and all nine Supreme Court Justices have rightly rejected, such a “right” would be meaningless without a strong individual component enforceable by individuals. No one individual has a right to determine an election or the ability to “peaceably assemble” on his own, so if any constitutional rights can truly be described as “collective,” it would be those two. Imagine a Kafkaesque world in which “the people” purportedly enjoy these cherished rights collectively, but no individual has an enforceable right to cast his individual ballot or come to the assembly. What on earth would this “collective right” protect?
Your organization’s reliance on such sophistry with an eye to literally decimate the Bill of Rights, first by dishonestly pretending to “agree” with a cryptic 70-year old ruling that said no such thing, and now by openly disagreeing with the Supreme Court for unanimously endorsing a view that an overwhelming majority of Americans has taken for granted all along, is proof positive that you are not now, nor have you ever been, a civil liberties union.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:21 am
I find it harder and harder to justify giving your organization my money, if you’re going to spend it shooting down my other civil liberties.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:44 am
After this statement regarding the 2nd by he ACLU, their right to exist as a org. should be denied.
Your political agenda is showing.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:51 am
Earth to ACLU: The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. Grade-school grammar led them to reach the only logical conclusion they could. Any Fifth-Grader knows that in a complex sentence the clause that can stand on its own as a complete sentence is the main thought. Remedial grammar may be in order for you.
How is it that the phrase “the people” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to you and me, but in the Second Amendment - and only in the Second Amendment - it refers to the state?
I guess there’s some truth to the old joke, “How does the ACLU count to ten? 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.”
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:04 am
Shame on you ACLU - the one amendment put in place to be able to defend all the others is the one you shun and pretend doesn’t mean what it says, what most people think and what the Supreme Court has now said it means. The Bill of Rights applies to all individuals and all rights. Your stance is illogical and smacks of an agenda that is Socialist as opposed to Libertarian. Try changing your name to the ASU - American Socialist Union - because that’s what it appears your agenda is all about.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 am
So when SCOTUS said: “but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” they are wrong and the ACLU has decided to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. I was wondering; did you take a vote of the members, some type of lawyer poll or in some other way try to find out how all of your members feel or did you just get a few phone calls from some of the anti-gun foundations and George Soros telling you that if you started taking gun cases they would drop your funding?
You need to change your name to American Some Civil Liberties Union
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:21 am
The ACLU’s mission statement is and I quote..
The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.
Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage), adopted in 1920.
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
It is therefore ACLU’s avowed intent to support the Bill of Rights in it’s entirety and not as a pick ‘n mix buffet.
The BoR addresses the inalienable and inherent rights of individuals and the Second Amendment remains one of them.
Consider the historically shameful and odious race and gender based basis of firearms controls.
Firearms law were, in the main, created to disarm and oppress people of colour and the economically disadvantaged.
I find it incomprehensible that the ACLU not only does not support the 2nd Amendment but interprets the constitution in such a racist manner.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:23 am
American Civil Liberties Union - now farther from reality, yet closer to the Union’s founders intent…the path to Collectivism.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 am
ACLU: Stop!!! No…the world is flat!!! Go neither east nor west via thine ship. Surely thine arse shall fall o’er the edge of the earth!! Come hither surf!!! Oh bloody fuck! Let them eat cake!
ACLU Supporter: But Sir, they shall fall off the earth and die a bloody, gruesome, horrible and miserable death!!!
ACLU: Bloody fool! The world isn’t flat…we just say that so people will not leave. If all the bloody fools left, who would we control?! Fear and ignorance are all we have left!
ACLU Supporter: Bloody brilliant. Observe the facts, and deny their existence by playing on people’s collective fears! Bloody brilliant!! Now I see why thine wife calls you the “impotent one”!
ACLU: Omnipotent, fool, not impotent!
ACLU supporter: Oh no, sir…she said “impotent”. She was quite clear. She said she wished you could fuck her like you fuck with people’s rights!
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:52 am
I used to be a member of ACLU. A few years ago I let my membership lapse because of their position on the 2nd amendment. It looks like it will be a long time before I send the ACLU any more money.
By the way, ALL NINE of the SCOTUS judges agreed that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. That’s right, even the four dissenters said it is an individual right.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:55 am
Because of this ridiculous policy, I will be withdrawing from the guardians of liberty monthly contribution program. You can’t pick and choose which rights you are going to support. As long as your head is buried in the sand, you won’t see any of my money.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the ACLU stand for “American Civil Liberties Union”. Which unless I’m mistaken would strive to defend the constitution and amendments. Or more realistically in this case defend which ones fit your agenda.
Not recognizing the ruling of the Supreme Court flies in the face of one of this countries basic principles, and frankly since just about everyone already “knew” that the 2nd was an individual right, your position is just childish.
Perhaps you should just defend the rights you want to defend and have no opinion on the other ones. And when the time comes, I’ll renew my NRA membership.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 am
The ACLU was wrong, is wrong, and now defiantly trumpets it will continue to be wrong.
Given that setup:
(1) Why does the ACLU persist in stating it supports individual rights?
(2) What else is the ACLU patently wrong about that it won’t admit?
(3) Why should patently wrong behavior be supported, by word, deeds, or funds?
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:11 am
Effective family planning being economically advantageous to the republic, the right of the people to obtain abortions shall not be abridged.
Now if an amendment said that, do you think the aclu would say that is an “absolute, individual right” to obtain an abortion?
As usual, the aclu only supports those rights that agree with its agenda.
Anyway, I think I will go out and celebrate Independence day by ordering a new semi automatic pistol.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 am
Before Heller, the ACLU had a principled neutral stand on the Second Amendment. Namely, that the ACLU was unable to articulate a civil-liberty rationale for supporting the 2A. OK, fair enough; I disagree but I understand.
Now, though, the ACLU has actually expressed OPPOSITION to the 2A. This is a dramatic change in policy and should only be addressed by the Board. You should withdraw this statement of opposition to the Heller decision until the full Board can address the matter.
I joined the ACLU with the expectation that it was an organization that supported ALL of the Articles of the Bill of Rights, not just those that the Left finds congenial.
You have defended Nazis and the KKK, but you draw the line at the NRA? That is indefensible!
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:17 am
The ACLU’s position of the 2nd amendment has consistently shown that this organization pick and chooses which liberties it wants to defend, and those which it wants to bury.
The ACLU is more interested in social engineering, instead of preserving individual liberties. This recent Heller opinion simply confirms many people’s long held belief.
Just out of curiousity, which other rights preserved by the constitution are “collective?”
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 am
Your position regarding the SCOTUS decision on the 2nd seems at odds with
your stated reason for your existance.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 am
All things being equal, I’ll take being a member of a Second Amendment rights group with no protection or recognition from the ACLU over being a member of NAMBLA with ACLU protection & recognition.
The ACLU has rightly sought to protect Civil Rights, but has always taken the position that the Second Amendment and it’s place in the Bill of Rights doesn’t really add up - it’s a collective rather than individual right (as other posters hae noted, ALL the Amendments in the B.o.R. refer to individual rights) and now that the Supreme Court has finally ruled on the side of individual Second Amendment rights, the ACLU cries “foul” - shame on you!
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 am
I think all of the commenters on this blog, by kool-aid drinking ACLU staff, Suzzane Ito, got it right. If the ACLU can’t find the individual right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd ammendment, then they are just typical delusional leftists. To them it seems that the right to self defense, a basic human right, is not one that an individual posseses. They have no trouble finding all types of elaborate “rights” that don’t even exist in the constitution and labeling them as “constitutional rights” so matter of factly. Their proclaimed “constitutional right” to kill an unborn human is just one of their fascist stances. Its about time people realize that the ACLU and their logically blind and brainwashed follwers oppose the bill of rights and later individual rights ammendments. Because they don’t see them going away any time soon, they have decided to twist them to use them for their extremist anti-freedom agendas to achieve rights for foreign enemies (terrorists), scumbag criminals (child rapists, murderers, etc.), illegal alien criminals, and for “doctors” that kill babies. But if your not a fanatical Muslim, illegal alien, sadistic pedophile, rapist or murderer, then your rights are thrown to the wolves. Look at the torture imposed on Terri Schaivo by their beloved leftist courts, against her will, that inflicted her with severe pain for two weeks before killing her. It was sanctioned by the ACLU because Terri had the “right to die” according to those fascists. If only Terri was some sicko serial killer threatened with painless lethal injection death, she would have had the full resources of the ACLU working to save her life. I challenge ANYBODY from the ACLU to e-mail me and tell me I’m wrong and why. They’ve never taken me up on this before because they are WRONG and they don’t care for the truth.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 am
I have always thought that the ACLU’s stated position on the Second Amendment was based on hypocrisy. To claim to champion the Bill of Rights and then just ignore the amendment you dislike is sad and pathetic.
Previously the ACLU could at least pretend to base its stance on Miller. Now the curtain is parted and the truth is revealed. If the ACLU is going to pick and choose from the Bill of Rights, then what little credibility they held is gone.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 am
I think all of the commenters on this blog, by kool-aid drinking ACLU staff, Suzzane Ito, got it right. If the ACLU can’t find the individual right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd ammendment, then they are just typical delusional leftists. To them it seems that the right to self defense, a basic human right, is not one that an individual posseses. They have no trouble finding all types of elaborate “rights” that don’t even exist in the constitution and labeling them as “constitutional rights” so matter of factly. Their proclaimed “constitutional right” to kill an unborn human is just one of their fascist stances. Its about time people realize that the ACLU and their logically blind and brainwashed follwers oppose the bill of rights and later individual rights ammendments. Because they don’t see them going away any time soon, they have decided to twist them to use them for their extremist anti-freedom agendas to achieve rights for foreign enemies (terrorists), scumbag criminals (child rapists, murderers, etc.), illegal alien criminals, and for “doctors” that kill babies. But if your not a fanatical Muslim, illegal alien, sadistic pedophile, rapist or murderer, then your rights are thrown to the wolves. Look at the torture imposed on Terri Schaivo by their beloved leftist courts, against her will, that inflicted her with severe pain for two weeks before killing her. It was sanctioned by the ACLU because Terri had the “right to die” according to those fascists. If only Terri was some sicko serial killer threatened with painless lethal injection death, she would have had the full resources of the ACLU working to save her life. I challenge ANYBODY from the ACLU to e-mail me and tell me I’m wrong and why. They’ve never taken me up on this before because they are WRONG and they don’t care for the truth. Email is mrmackey797@comcast.net
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 am
Hmph. I didn’t know the ACLU liked to cherry pick it’s favorite amendments.
Some “defender” of constitutional freedom you are.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:44 am
The ACLU’s position on the 2nd Amendment, before or after “Heller” should come as NO surprise. After all, a BIG chunck of their funding comes from the Joyce Foundation. You won’t see them give up their lattes or limos over something as insignificant as principles.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
Hello,
I am conflicted about the ACLU’s position on the Heller case. In the past, I donated to the NRA to protect my individual Second Amendment rights and to the ACLU for everything else. I personally would like the assurance that none of my donations to the ACLU will result in opposition to “the ancient right of self-defense” inherent in the individual right to keep and bear arms before I consider making any further contributions. I think you will have to rely solely on your more politically correct and orthodox donors until then. Sorry.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
These are some strong and serious criticisms leveled at the ACLU.
It’s abundantly clear that the ACLU’s position on the 2A, especially now, defies logic and defies their core mission. Post-Heller, their position on the 2A cannot be reconciled with their core mission. This represents a SERIOUS conundrum for the ACLU.
ACLU simply must realize that something has got to give. They either acknowledge the 2A as protecting an individual civil right, or they fundamentally restructure their core mission.
I cannot help but think there must be (at least) a few on their Board of Directors who will save the organization from the intense embarassment, criticism, and eventual irrelevancy that would result from this current hypocracy. I predict that the ACLU will, just as Sanford Levinson did, eventually accept that “embarassing second amendment” as a meaningful individual civil right, and make it fit within their longstanding core mission.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 am
I have to agree with SuperNaut, as well as numerous liberty-minded bloggers. As much as I appreciate all the good work the ACLU has done over the years, I cannot fathom _financially_ supporting an organization who is this hypocritical. The ACLU cannot claim to promote and protect all of my rights, then choose which rights I am worthy of.
Should the ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment be changed to sync up with reality, I will happily put an ACLU card in my wallet next to my NRA card.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 am
Most unfortunate to hear of the ACLU’s stance. For the past eight years I have been donating money to the ACLU above the basic annual membership dues. Now that money will go to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the division pursuing litigation to enforce the Second Amendment. Previously, my ACLU extra donations matched my NRA life membership installment payments ($100/year, have the checkbook entries to prove it). Now $200/year will go to the NRA. Nice job ACLU! Your action is the equivalent of saying Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because the 4th Amendment protection from “unreasonable search and seizure” is a “collective right” and protects no individual zone of privacy.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 am
One more proof that ACLU = Anti Christian Liars Union. You have become an enemy of everything true and good in this country.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 am
I have been a supporter of the ACLU for over 20 years. I have been a member, provided financial support and have repeatedly explained the importance of many of it’s controversial legal defense activities as protecting ALL the rights of the people of the United States regardless of the individual repulsive positions of the people it defended.
The SCOTUS has now clearly stated the 2nd Amendment is an individual and not a collective right. Until the ACLU officially supports the individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment I will no longer provide financial or moral support to this organization.
All the individual rights guaranteed by the BOR should be supported by the ACLU or none of my support will go to the ACLU.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:32 am
If the ACLU cannot - and will not - abide by settled law in this case, what possible credibility does it have? You’ve undermined your entire mission with this ill-considered statement.
I, like so many others, will find other organizations more deserving of my financial support.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 am
Why don’t you folks just change your name to the “Civil Liberties We Approve Of Union”? It would be more accurate. You certainly don’t represent the majority of Americans.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Face it, ACLU: The days of plausible deniablity are gone. Miller’s confusing language gave you some cover, Heller stripped it away.
You either accept that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right, or stand revealed as, not a neutral in this fight, but an *enemy* of this particular civil liberty. Because only an enemy of this civil liberty would persist in denying it’s existence at this point.
I’d be content with you admitting the right exists, and leaving it to the NRA to defend. You don’t have to be the one stop for defending all civil liberties.
But if you’re going to be a *civil liberties* union, you’ve got to at least refrain from ATTACKING any of them. And that’s what you’re doing at this point.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 am
This position is disingenuous, since the Heller case has articulated an individual right, the ACLU is in reality stating, “Yes, an individual right would serve the purposes of the militia, but we don’t think that’s a good individual right, so we’re going to ignore it. We hope it will go away.”
I’m extremely disappointed that the ACLU would hold to a premise that has been so thoroughly discredited.
This has damaged my opinion of the ACLU - with the ambiguous Miller decision; it was at least an arguable stance. But with Heller and the modern scholarship about the 2nd amendment, it is simply intellectually dishonest to continue pretending that it’s a collective right.
I was hoping that we could finally close the gap - that the ACLU would protect all my rights, and that I wouldn’t be forced to choose between which rights I wanted protected.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 am
The answer here is simple. The ACLU should defend the 2nd Amendment collective right by suing the federal government to vindicate the rights of homosexuals who have been excluded from the National Guard under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” These people’s 2nd Amendment rights are being collectively infringed by their exclusion from the militia system under federal law. This could best be remedied in California, where state law prohibits discrimination against homosexuals.
This would 1) prove the validity of the “collective right” 2) strike a blow for gay rights 3) vindicate the 2nd Amendment in the form preferred by the ACLU’s board 4) be perfectly consistent with the ACLU’s mission.
To overcome the apparent technical difficulty that the National Guard system operates on a funding mandate rather than an express federal imperative, the ACLU can argue from the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine”, wherein Congress cannot make funding conditional on deprivation of a constitutional right.
The ACLU would only have to prove that the 2nd Amendment allows each state to establish its own standards for militia enrollment, in order to sponsor the collective right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This should be simple to accomplish — see J. Steven’s dissent in _Heller_, pp.19 n.20.
JNH
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 am
Any credability you once had is now gone! You have shot yourself in the foot! (pun intended) Just think , if you had done the proper thing, all these people mould have been supporters. You are no longer a valid entity, and your demise will be swift. You cannot say you support the BoR but not in its’ entirety…….Hipocrits!!!!This is exactly what you deserve….On the side of the American people my ASS!!!
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 am
I just renewed by NRA membership and will never put any money towards the ACLU.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:02 am
Boy !! People have a Constitutional right to an abortion, but do not have a right given to them by the Constitution? These guys are at best Socialists and at worst Nazis. Vote against any liberals you can, guys and gals, or this is what you will end up with.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am
Re. tgirsch, @ #39:
to focus on only certain few civil liberties would be appropriate for an organization with a more explicitly limited scope. but the ACLU has never before represented itself as any American Handful of Cherry-Picked Liberties Union. besides, that logic is not consistent; should the ACLU no longer concern themselves with establishment clause cases, simply because there is now an Americans United for Separation of Church and State? surely not.
on the contrary, the ACLU has a long and honorable history of taking principled stances for the liberties of all Americans, even in cases where the particulars seem distasteful. everyone understands that when the ACLU defends pariahs ranging from the Klan to Fred Phelps by way of the Nazis, they’re not defending the positions of those groups, but their rights and the principle that rights are for everybody, even if we may not like it in any given case.
against that background, their stance on the second amendment has always been a bit odd. reading a “right of the people” to mean rights of individuals except if it’s the right to own weapons was ever illogical, but lacking any Supreme Court pronouncement to the contrary, tolerable. now, however, it has become jarring. now, it raises the question of just what principles the ACLU really stands for, and just where they think our rights are to be settled.
the ACLU has a storied history of litigation in defense of our rights, but now they seem to be blatantly ignoring a Supreme Court decision because… well, why exactly are they brushing it aside? does the judicial system of this country no longer matter to them? or do they simply think they know better?
it’s understandable that large organizations can sometimes take a while to change long-held, probably cherished, positions. but in the face of a sea change in the laws of the land, organizations concerned with the law must change in response. at this point, i had expected the ACLU to at very least understand and admit that they need to reevaluate their position — i had not thought they would simply reiterate it and pretend nothing had happened.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
I am an ACLU member, and have been for many years.
The Bill of Rights isn’t a buffet, you can’t just pick and choose what Amendments you like and don’t like.
Sorry, ACLU - you just lost my renewal and any future chance for funding from my family.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 am
Wow. 100% of the comments take the position that the ACLU is WRONG on it’s view against the 2nd Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Hello? Anyone listening? ACLU, get your head out of the ground, shake the sand out of your ears and get your morals back on track. Support ALL Civil Rights, not just the ones you like.
SELF DEFENSE is a BASIC RIGHT. Bearing Arms for self defense is a BASIC CIVIL RIGHT.
Help us, please?
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 am
“The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision”
It is not the place of the ACLU to contravene the decisions of the SCOTUS. ALL of the Supreme Court Justices - even the dissenters - agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right.
For years the ACLU has had the luxury of hiding its true colors regarding firearms behind the Miller ruling. Now, with Heller, that prop has been knocked out from under you, and you are going to have to explain yourselves.
The ACLU has taken a position directly contrary to the Constitution as interpreted by the highest court in the land.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 am
It was said perfectly above:
“If the ACLU wants to maintain its credibility as the defender of the bill of rights then it must endorse the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and not maintain its pathetic stance claiming it disagrees with the SCOTUS. The fat lady has sung. Get with the program.”
I was going to join the ACLU until I realized it was just a liberal group using the Constitution as a veil of fraud.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:32 am
As a working journalist on five continents I have defended the ACLU against all comers for the past 48 years. Even when I didn’t agree with you I defended you for I _knew!_ that your only client was the Constitution.
I’ve been betrayed.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
I posted this to one of the forums I vist. I figured you should see it:
OK….
I rarely comment on the activities of the ACLU. I don’t particularly like some of the stances they take, but I do get it– based directly on thier own comments in interviews.
I have the ability to disagree with someone or an organization, but still respect that they have conviction of thier beliefs and integrity. I can actually despise a group or person based upon thier views, and still respect their convictions– as long as they show integrity.
Now, I say the above as a prelude for this:
From an interview that I saw regarding the ACLU NAMBLA case, they explained that they did not support or assert the notion that a person’s civil rights were being infringed upon by laws preventing them from having sex with underage boys. They explained that they were taking the case because they felt that legal precedent was lacking and it would be beneficial to establish a more codified position.
OK. So what they are telling me is that SC interpretation is needed and that they respect the rulings of the SC. In fact, much of the activities of the ACLU has been bringing cases in order to establish legal precedent through cases. At its foundation, they are deferring to the rulings of the legal system as being the final arbitrator of precedent and the rule of law.
And then we get this….
[Quote:
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. ]
They have literally stated that they disagree with the SC and that they are therefore– by dissenting– suggested a fallibility of the very entity which they have touted and relied upon as the final arbitrator of codified rights.
What they are saying is that the SC is the final word– unless it goes against our viewpoint.
By the statement I have quoted, the ACLU has now identified itself as an organization who is more interested in social engineering rather than codification of rights.
Many defend the ACLU for not having a position on the 2A as stating that they do not have to defend ALL of the BOR. I reject this notion. If they are to have as thier mission statement that they defend Civil Rights, they do not have the luxury of picking and choosing. They should amend thier mission if that is the case.
As it is, I see the ACLU as having lost ALL integrity on this issue. Along with it goes the very last vestige of respect that I may have held for the organization.
I suppose it is liberating for me.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
As a minor note, the ACLU has long claimed that the Miller court case from the 1930’s supported a collective right.
To my understanding, the Miller case did NOT find in favor of any kind of collective right. The USSC (erroneously) found that the gun Miller had used was not a gun normally used by the military or militia, and thus not covered by the 2nd Amendment.
(I say the finding was erroneous because Miller was charged with illegally owning a sawed-off shotgun under the restrictions laid out in the 1934 National Firearms Act. Strangely, no one told the Court that sawed-off shotguns did have military use during World War I…this strange fact may be connected to the fact that Miller’s attorney was unable to travel to DC to argue the case…for more details, see Wikipedia.)
However, it is perfectly possible to argue that Miller supports some firearms restrictions…but it is also possible to argue that Miller supports ownership of military-use firearms (ranging from 1911-style pistols with high-capacity magazines to Springfield rifles and M-16’s…).
It is very hard to argue that Miller supports a collective-right interpretation.
As a curious aside, there was this one case from the 1850’s, in which the Supreme Court noted that the rights extended to all legally-recognized persons in the United States included the right to own guns. (At the time, most personal guns were indistinguishable from standard infantry weapons.)
That case was the Dred Scott case, in which the Supremes found that Blacks were not persons…because if they were, then they would have all the individual rights guaranteed by Amendments 1-10 of the U.S. Constitution.
Next time you think about Civil Liberties and firearms, think about Dred Scott and whether he was a person under U.S. law.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
As a former member of the ACLU who let my membership lapse because I came to the conclusion that the Bill of Rights must be protected in its entirety, I am very dismayed at your response to the Heller decision.
My donations will go to the Cato Institute in the future, and I will suggest the same to my family, friends and acquaintances as well.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
I don’t know why I was actually disappointed to see the ACLU’s position post Heller. I guess I’d thought that maybe they actually believed in the word “Liberty” in their name. Clearly, they wouldn’t know liberty if Sam Adams smacked ‘em across the face with the Declaration of Independence.
What’s interesting, is the volume of revenue the ACLU is losing because of their position. So, so many gun owners would join if they recognized such a clearly worded individual right both in the BoR and so many state constitutions.
But no. They shove their fingers in their ears and yell “nananananan we’re not listening nananananan collective right nananananana don’t care what SCOTUS says nananananana our socialist agenda is at direct odds with personal liberty and responsibility nananananna”
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Where do I send my cut up membership card?
I’ve been a member since 1990 but your behavior in the wake of the clear Heller decision is unacceptable.
Should you ever become a civil rights organization again I will consider rejoining.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Perhaps the name, A.C.L.U. (American Civil Liberties Union) should be changed to A.C.L.T.W A.W.U. (American Civil Liberties That We Agree With Union) as it is unbelievable that you would “cherry-pick” which parts of the Bill of Rights that you support from those that you don’t… What gall!
Even if you formerly beleived that the right was a collective one, you now have NO EXCUSE to continue with that belief. Eat your crow, swallow hard, and SUPPORT ALL THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS!
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:18 am
If you don’t change your position, you will loose a good deal of financial support over it….not to mention your intellectual honesty.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
I’m a former member of the ACLU. I let my membership lapse during law school precisely because I believed that the ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment was hypocritical and unworthy of the legacy of the institution.
The ACLU had the opportunity with the Heller decision to win back people like me, who value what the ACLU does in other areas but cannot accept that the ACLU completely denies a fundamental freedom of the American people.
The ACLU became great by defending our rights even when the right or the client was unpopular. The hard cases the ACLU fought in the name of freedom demonstrated moral courage.
Today’s ACLU has lost that moral courage. By abandoning the protection of our Second Amendment rights, the ACLU has abandoned its claim to stand for our freedoms, and transformed itself into simply another partisan advocacy group.
In this day and age, that is a tragic loss.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
Are there any other Amendments in the Bill of Rights that are “collective”?
Why would the authors of the Bill of Rights put one, and only one, “collective” right in the middle of the greatest statement of INDIVIDUAL rights ever written?
The “collective right” theory was a desperate attempt to twist reality to achive a desired outcome. It was based on a convoluted interpretation of US v Miller to make Miller cover ground it didn’t cover. It was absurd from the beginning and to cling to it now that it has been officially debunked is ludicrous.
Change your name to the American Capricious Liberals Union.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
The ACLU only supports what will make it look good in headlines.
Our rights are not a buffet for you to pick and choose from. Let me know when you actually care about rights more than you care about media image.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
OK
I read the bad comments on Heller stance.
Where is the good comment forum located?
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
I am a member of the ACLU. I can tolerate a neutral stance on the 2nd because of the work the ACLU does for the other amendments, but this statement is not acceptable.
I guess the big donors who want gun control are more important than people like me.
If the ACLU is going to serve as a front organization for the Joyce Foundation just tell us, so we can cancel our memberships.
If their anti-gun donations are more important than my membership I can accept that, but don’t expect to be effective as a civil rights organization if your real goal is socialism.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Congratulations, my donations will now be directed to the CATO Institute. Reading your duplicitous policy release was unnecessary. One merely has to browse your “Issues” topics to observe your priorities and lack thereof:
Criminal Justice, Death Penalty, Disability Rights, Drug Policy, Free Speech, HIV/AIDS, Human Rights, Immigrants’ Rights, Lesbian & Gay Rights, National Security, Police Practices, Prisoners’ Rights, Privacy & Technology, Racial Justice, Religion and Belief, Reproductive Freedom, Rights of the Poor, Safe and Free, StandUp/Youth,
Voting Rights, Women’s Rights
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Given your assumption that the Second Amendment is a collective right, and given the identical language elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, do you also consider Freedom of Speech to be a collective right?
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
JNH - I don’t think it would help my opinion of the ACLU if they were to defend the Second Amendment via a collective rights argument. The “collective right” theory, which has been academically dead for years now, is now legally dead as well. I hate to say it, but at this point those who espouse the “collective rights” theory in regard to the Second Amendment are either dense, stupid, or intellectually dishonest.
In addition, while the “collective right” as they view it isn’t a right at all, and it certainly does not address anyone’s right to join the “militia”.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
You need to remove American and Liberties from the organizations name. You have exposed yourselves as a political agenda organization. American Liberties come from the constitution. To ignore, no, to repudiate the Supreme Courts decision shows the ACLU is nothing but a bunch of hacks with an agenda.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Unfortunately, at least for this liberal (a title I am proud to wear), the ACLU’s position on the 2nd Amendment is simply pandering to the majority of the liberals (certainly not me) who send you money. Seems the ACLU only supports those individual rights that will get them the most money. Too bad. Very sad.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
What scares you the most ACLU? That individuals have the right to own weapons to protect their lives from life threatening offenses? Or the fact that your “collective” stance means that whatever your agenda was, you can no longer arbitrarily proceed with it without the justified threat of getting a .45 ACP in the chest?
To deny human beings the individual right to self-defense is the same as condoning slavery. I find the ACLU’s position on the Heller decision quite disturbing in the least, especially considering how hard they have worked to undo the “Master” and “Slave” relationships in the 20th Century.
It’s quite obvious the ACLU is in fear of losing money from its large benefactors should it support the Heller decision, or even that these very benefactors make policy decisions for the group.
I find the hypocrisy going on here quite grotesque. It seems that according to the ACLU, slavery should still exist in the United States, just under your own terms.
Its refreshing that you’ve finally shown the public the true face of your organization.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The Bill of Rights is a document that protects the individual from excesses of government power. How is it that your take on the second ammendment only recognizes a collective right in defense of the state?
Words fail me.
I guess the supreme law of the land as established by the Supreme Court means nothing to you. I guess your communist history begins to show through.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The question before the Supreme Court in Heller was whether an individual right to keep and bear arms existed outside of membership in a militia. The answer was that, yes, the individual right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the 2nd Amendment, and that government was limited in its ability to legislate away that right. The necessity of an enumerated right to keep and bear arms was explained as being in support of the unenumerated but inherent, individual, inalienable right to self defense.
So what is the ACLU position on the individual right to self defense, considered so fundamental that it remains unenumerated in the Constitution?
This individual right to self defense exists (like the unenumerated right to privacy) as a well-recognized basis for an awful lot of law.
So what says the ACLU in regards to the individual right to self defense, which is supported by the existence of the 2nd Amendment?
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I want my $50 back.
I could tolerate your absenteeism on the Second Amendment when you took a neutral stance, but now that you’re in actual opposition to the fact that this is a pre-existing, enumerated, individual right, I can no longer support you with my donations, or tell people that you’re not actually a bunch of socialists.
Please give me a call whenever you realize that this is going to decimate your member base. We’re in open revolt now, and I expect you to receive my cut up membership cards within the week. I’ll include a copy of the Heller opinion for further review, with the words ‘individual right’ highlighted wherever they occur.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Thank you for confirming your hypocrisy, by claiming to be for civil liberties, yet you won’t stand for one of the most important. It IS the SECOND Amendment for a reason. It was important to the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Bill of Rights.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I’m a libertarian who has long believed that the right-wing critique of the ACLU was overstated but not without merit. I have long believed that the ACLU does worthy work, but adheres to a definition of “civil liberties” that comports with elite liberalism first and an honest and robust reading of the Constitution second.
I had hoped that the ACLU would demonstrate some moral courage and dispel those criticisms by embracing the Heller decision. I find it very sad, and very telling, that you’ve decided that you’ll have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accord the Second Amendment the same respect as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Gregory Morris –
You are right, of course. I simply suggest the ACLU put its money where its mouth is. If the legal experts advising the board believe there exists a colorable argument for a collective right, the board should put that knowledge to constructive use.
And just because there is an individual right in the 2nd Am does not exclude the possibility of a simultaneous collective right. Right?
My own (published) research on militia caselaw indicates that Congress has plenary over the militia, via Art.I Sec.8 cl.15 and the Supremacy Clause, and that Congress may preempt state militia laws that conflict or interfere with implementation o