Any ACLU card carrying members?

[benj]

I'm thinking about signing up and becoming an ACLU card carrying member.

http://forms.aclu.org/

So who's an ACLU member? I know that we have some very liberal people who post on these forums. Make yourselves known!

:D

[Ben Sones]

I am a member of the ACLU, though I would certainly not describe myself as a liberal.

[Jim F.]

I've made donations to the ACLU and am technically a member. I do not, however, agree with 100% of their views. I'm more of a moderate than a liberal, but I feel very strongly on personal rights and anything that prevents the government from infringing on those rights.

The Patriot Act has been enough to goad me into setting aside a little something for the ACLU again this year when we send out our annual donations.

[SpoofyChop]

My question for the people who are ACLU members is:

How do you feel about the fact that the ACLU fights for the rights it likes but doesn't support the right to bear arms?

[Kalle]

Some rights are more righteous than others.

[DavidCPA]

My question for the people who are ACLU members is:

How do you feel about the fact that the ACLU fights for the rights it likes but doesn't support the right to bear arms?

ACLU's position on Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment:

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25&Type=s&insearch=gun%20and%20control

I also have come close to joining the ACLU and providing monetary support, but haven't worked up the resolve to do so. A Bush victory in 2004 might put me over the edge though.

-DavidCPA

[SpoofyChop]

Thank you David for that link.

Of course, this whole "collective right" bullshit is just the newest way for gun control advocates to try to twist the constitution, but at least your link was informative!

Kalle on the other hand...

Let me ask you this:

Have you ever even read the U.S. constitution? Have you ever studied it in school? You're from Sweden right? I've never looked at the Swedish constitution. Does it give you guys the right to smartasses?

Ir-un-anti-regardless of all that, I don't give a flying fuck what YOU think our rights should be.

My point is that the constitution guarantees certain rights, but the ACLU finds a way to wriggle out of fighting for the ones that they don't like.

[Kalle]

The Swedish constitution does, in fact, give us the right to be smartasses. I do not believe the word 'smartass' is used, but freedom of speech would cover it pretty well. There's a smartass reply for you.

Not that I was really trying to be a smartass. I was trying to be faintly sarcastic, referring to Orwell's "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Once more I learn that subtle sarcasm is hard to communicate in writing.

So yes, an organisation with the outspoken goal of protecting your constitutional liberites really shouldn't pick and choose among them.

[SpoofyChop]

Hey! That was a great reply.

I did read all those crummy George Orwell books in high school, but I misunderstood them and then I had contempt for them for the wrong reasons. Then, finally, I forgot what they were about and replaced the memory of them with something that I made up without realizing it.

I think that's another example of confabulation.

Anyway, I especially like the part of your response where you demonstrate that I didn't understand your post but that you're willing to agree with me and back down from the confrontation that I started even though you hadn't really done anything to warrant getting cursed at.

Yeah. That part was awesome.

I like swedes.

[Mike Cathcart]

Of course, this whole "collective right" bullshit is just the newest way for gun control advocates to try to twist the constitution, but at least your link was informative!
...
My point is that the constitution guarantees certain rights, but the ACLU finds a way to wriggle out of fighting for the ones that they don't like.
They're pretty clear that they don't think the constitution gaurantees what you think it does, but instead of trying to tell us why they're wrong you've decided to call their position "bullshit" and accuse them of "wriggling". Great argument. You really changed my way of thinking on that one.

[SpoofyChop]

You don't have to dance around it...you can just say I'm awesome...I won't mind, honest!

Anyway, here's (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051601.shtml) an article that explains exactly why the collective thing is bullshit, but my experience has been that nobody on this board (except me of course) is actually willing to read posted articles in defense of a point, so I don't bother posting them very often.

Also...I'm awesome.

[Jason Levine]

Thank you David for that link.

Of course, this whole "collective right" bullshit is just the newest way for gun control advocates to try to twist the constitution, but at least your link was informative!



There is absolutely nothing new about this argument. Hugo Black, one of FDR's nominees, was the first Supreme Court justice to effectively advocate an "incorporationist" view of the Bill of Rights, meaning that the fundamental, individual rights contained in the Bill of Rights are incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and, thus, apply to the States. Whether that incorporation includes the Second Amendment has been the subject of debate ever since. The "collective right" argument has always been the basis of the view that it is not incorporated.

And, Spoofy, if you think that view is such bullshit, answer this question for me: The NRA has the Second Amendment mounted in a large quotation on the front of its HQ building in D.C. The quotation, however, omits the subordinate clause. Now just why would that be?

[SpoofyChop]

There is absolutely nothing new about this argument. Hugo Black, one of FDR's nominees, was the first Supreme Court justice to effectively advocate an "incorporationist" view of the Bill of Rights, meaning that the fundamental, individual rights contained in the Bill of Rights are incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and, thus, apply to the States. Whether that incorporation includes the Second Amendment has been the subject of debate ever since. The "collective right" argument has always been the basis of the view that it is not incorporated.

And, Spoofy, if you think that view is such bullshit, answer this question for me: The NRA has the Second Amendment mounted in a large quotation on the front of its HQ building in D.C. The quotation, however, omits the subordinate clause. Now just why would that be?

So the individual right to bear arms has been around since the creation of the Constitution and the false "collective right" has been around since some FDR flack invented it? Gotcha.

As for your question, the reason the main clause is mounted and the subordinate clauses isn't is clearly explained in the article I posted which you obviously didn't read like I said you wouldnt:

Because the main clause confers the right and the subordinate clauses only explains it.

[Shawn Metcalf]

By that logic, Spoofy, the NRA can be faulted because it only defends gun rights and doesn't defend free speech issues (except as they pertain to guns).

In any case, who cares if the ACLU doesn't fight for gun ownership? The NRA has that well taken care of. It's not hard to legally obtain a gun in this country. My stepfather bought a gun the other day, and The Man did not stop him.

[SpoofyChop]

No. The ACLU claims to defend the bill of rights and personal freedoms but they do it selectively.

The NRA only claims to defend the 2nd amendment and that's all they do.

The ACLU's approach is hypocritical but the NRA's isn't.

[Jason McCullough]

What is it about guns that makes people so goddamn paranoid? Christ, the ACLU isn't out to take your guns.

I suppose I should actually sign up now that I have a job.....

[Shawn Metcalf]

The ACLU's about page (http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm) makes it pretty clear what they get worked up over. I doubt anybody ever signed up with the ACLU in order to fight for gun rights.

In short, anybody already looking at this organization and thinking about joining it already knew your point ('the ACLU advocates some form of gun control') before you made it.

[Ben]

Only a intentional and gross misreading of the second amendment allows for gun control, however. There isn't a clause in the world that makes the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" mean anything other than no infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It's bizarre the loops liberals will go through to ignore the explicit wording and obvious intent of the founders when I'd respect them a lot more if they just admitted they wanted the amendment amended. I'd oppose such an amendment amendment, but it'd at least be honest.

Really, there's nothing sacred about the Bill of Rights, we really should change it if we want gun control that badly. It's a fucking joke that we just flatly ignore a whole tenth of the thing, it sets real bad precendent.

"Well, you see, they only meant good speech was protected. Uh, yeah."

[Jason McCullough]

That would imply that private individuals could own functional artillery pieces and military-class gunships in the 18th century, Ben. To my knowledge, this isn't true.

Another bit: the ACLU doesn't file briefs in favor or opposing gun-related cases. That's what "neutral" means. Only in NRA-world is someone not involved your enemy. Though I have my own theories about why the NRA would try to intentionally sabotage cross membership.....

[SpoofyChop]

That would imply that private individuals could own functional artillery pieces and military-class gunships in the 18th century, Ben. To my knowledge, this isn't true.

You're always creating straw men made out of non-sequiters. You gotta stop that.

[EDIT: nade = made. What happened to my spelling?]

[Jason McCullough]

Uh, as I see it:

Gunboats are arms.
Artillery pieces are arms.

Therefore, an unrestricted right to own "arms" implies you can own the above. Mind you, I don't actually care about gun control; have all you want.

[MikeJ]

You're always creating straw men nade out of non-sequiters. You gotta stop that.

So THAT'S why the scarecrow didn't have a brain.

[Jason Levine]

So the individual right to bear arms has been around since the creation of the Constitution and the false "collective right" has been around since some FDR flack invented it? Gotcha.

As for your question, the reason the main clause is mounted and the subordinate clauses isn't is clearly explained in the article I posted which you obviously didn't read like I said you wouldnt:

Because the main clause confers the right and the subordinate clauses only explains it.

Nope. You haven't got it at all. The Second Amendment right (whatever it may be) indeed has been around since the Constitution was ratified. But who does the Second Amendment prevent from infringing whatever the right to bear arms may be? The answer is the Federal Government. Very early on, the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights (all of it) does not apply to the states. So when we speak of "gun control," it's crucial to ask who is doing the controlling. If it's the Federal Government, indeed you have Second Amendment issues, because no doubt the amendment applies. But then you have to ask what it means, which I'll put aside for the moment. If it's a state gun control law, we have a whole different ball game.

Which brings us to the incorporation arguments that I mentioned in my eariler post. The 14th Amendment, which was ratified following the Civil War, applies directly to the states. Its due process clause says that no State can deprive you of your life, liberty, or your precious property, SpoofyChop, without due process of law. But what does "due process" mean. That's a question the Supreme Court has struggled with ever since. Justice Black advanced the "incorporationist" argument. He said that the proper way to give the due process clause content was to look to the Bill of Rights. Now dismiss his as an FDR Flack if you want (fine with me, since FDR was our greatest president after Lincoln), but Black was a strict constructionist to his core. He believed that the due process clause swept in the entire Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, you ignoramus. :twisted: However, he was never able to convince a majority of the justices to buy that argument in its entirety, and the Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment applies to the States.

So why doesn't it apply to the States? We come back to the collective right argument again. The Court has never been willing to hold that the right to bear arms is a fundamental, individual right incorporated against the States by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. And so the States remain free to enact whatever gun control laws they wish.

And as for the subordinate clause, "explaining" the right to bear arms. Damned right, it does. It explains it by giving it context; a context that the NRA obviously would rather not acknowledge.

[SpoofyChop]

Ok. I haven't got it at all but I'm exactly right.

Cool.

:D

[Jason Levine]

Ha! You're exactly right, if you buy Justice Black's argument. The flip side, of course, is that, if you acknowledge that he's right about the Second Amendment, you have to acknowledge that he's also right about separation of church and state, freedom of speech, the right to counsel, and those other little rights that right-wing yahoos like you find so damned inconvenient. :P

[Daniel Morris]

That would imply that private individuals could own functional artillery pieces and military-class gunships

Jason McCullough is correct, and offers the most concise argument against a "literalist" interpretation of the Second Amendment.

[Ben Sones]

The ACLU's approach is hypocritical but the NRA's isn't.

Spoofy, every right guaranteed in the Constitution is subject to interpretation by the judiciary. The fact that the ACLU does not endorse the interpretation of the second amendment that you like hardly makes them hypocritical. The first amendment uses even clearer language than the second, for instance, and yet the ACLU does not oppose some reasonable restrictions on free speech, as laid out by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court interprets Constitutional law all the time, because that's its job. The ACLU doesn't oppose Supreme Court rulings that they consider reasonable; how does that make them hypocrites?

Hell, even the NRA has a selective interpretation of the second amendment, unless they endorse private ownership of, say, nuclear weapons. I think all reasonable people would support some sort of restriction on what arms private citizens should be allowed to own; the only difference between you and the ACLU is where you draw the line.

[XPav]

That would imply that private individuals could own functional artillery pieces and military-class gunships

Jason McCullough is correct, and offers the most concise argument against a "literalist" interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Is there a National Gunship Association I can join?

And yes, I'm a member of the ACLU, although I have seem to have lost my card somewhere. :lol:

[DennyA]

Crap. A perfectly good discussion of the ACLU where I might have learned more about the organization (which I had ZERO interest in joining until Ashcroft and friends started getting laws passed) is derailed right out of the station by the gun lobby. Thanks for nothing.

As for the second amendment:

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.
The paranoid gun crowd always accuse "liberals of reintepreting the second amendment," yet they ignore the BASIS of the second amendment. That whole "well-regulated militia" aspect.

Sounds to me that you are indeed guaranteed the right to bear arms by the Constitution, but buying a gun should also get you an enlistment in the Reserves...

[Ben Sones]

Sounds to me that you are indeed guaranteed the right to bear arms by the Constitution, but buying a gun should also get you an enlistment in the Reserves...

Actually, that would be the National Guard. The Consitution was referring to state militias.

[DennyA]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Got my weekend warriors confused.

About a year ago I got membership junk mail from both the NRA and the ACLU on the same day...

[antlers]

You know, the NRA has the 2nd amendment so locked up the ACLU probably doesn't want to intrude on their turf. They've got enough to do just protecting the others with Ashcroft & Co. in office.

[Supertanker]

Since I do a lot of statutory interpretation, I've always been partial to looking at the language the framers chose to use at different points. Most of the time, it is clear that they understood the difference between the rights of a person and the rights of a state:

First Amendment: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"
Tenth Amendment: "nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively"

The Second Amendment is where they used both terms, and made the interpretation more difficult. Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

The subordinate opening clause seems like it is just explanation to me. It does not mention a right granted to a state. Because of that, it doesn't seem like it is enough to overcome the use of the "right of the people" term of art.

Now, even clear rights like the First Amendment are subject to reasonable limits. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, no slander, etcetera. So, I don't see why there could not be reasonable limits on the right to bear arms. Some are obvious - we want to keep them out of the hands of criminals & the insane. Others are less obvious - should there be an age limit, and what should it be? If we had a body of law for the Second Amendment that was as extensive as the body of law for the First and Fourth Amendments, then we would have a much better idea of the limits of weapon ownership. I'm mostly upset that the Supreme Court gives this portion of the law such short shrift. We need some well-considered opinions. It has been 200 years since Marbury v. Madison. Get cracking.

[Ben]

Denny- That's practically intelligence-insulting. It's not a collective right, it's not a catch where you have to join the National Guard. It's freaking explicit. And your quote is missing two commas, one of which is pretty important(between militia and being).

Most of the serious work I've seen on this is heavily on the NRA's side of the interpretation(it being, after all, the "literate" side), though founders' intent and (most importantly) current policy recommendation has great variation among them. Current pro-gun control types give reasons to ignore the amendment or why it may not be relevant or what the founders really wanted, it's small fry to quibble over how "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" can somehow possibly be perverted into infringment is allowed.


Supertanker- It appears they are using "state" in a the political science sense in the 2nd amendment rather than the civics sense used in the others. Excellent post, by the way.