ACLU "new" old position

[Indy Lurker]

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html



ACLU POSITION
"Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view."

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."


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

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

1. How stupid is that highlighted statement?

[bossy22]

2. the ACLU have become hypocrites

there unofficial motto was always "we may not agree with you, but we will defend your rights to the gates of hell"

now we can throw that out the window- they will only fight for rights they agree with

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

4. Ignore the 2nd for a moment

would the ACLU ever dream of calling any other amendment in the bill of rights a "collective right"? Of course not. They all clearly refer either to what we may, or the government may not, do.

So why do some people believe the 2nd amendment makes such a radical break from the others, conferring not individual rights or federal limitations, but actually granting the government the right to do what no one in history would ever deny the governments right to do: organize some form of military for a common defense.

If you refuse to stand up for all our civil liberties then you aren't a champion of freedom, you're a special interest group. Not that there is de facto something wrong with that, but it means they lose some of their moral highground.

Like saying you defend our freedoms, except for the freedom of speech. Doesn't work that way.