ACLU's RKBA stance after *Heller*?

[awkx]

For many years, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has held that "the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" (Policy #47). Today the Supreme Court, in *DC v. Heller*, held that this interpretation is incorrect, and instead ruled that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". I wonder whether the ACLU be revising its stance on the Second Amendment to reflect the Court's new ruling.

The ACLU does a lot of good work protecting many of our rights, but it would be nice if they recognized the right to bear to arms and supported it as vigorously as they support many of our other rights.

If you'd like to contact the ACLU regarding their stance on the Second Amendment, they have a contact form at www.aclu.org/contact/general/index.html

[Damage control]

Boy they have a lot to change! See below. Email sent.

DC

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
Gun Control

Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"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 Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."


— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

[Skuggi]

Sent them a message, wonder if they'll reply.

[Brown-Bear]

maybe now people will believe me when I tell them that the ACLU is NOT pro 2A. I have been saying it for years and now maybe they will listen.

Dave

[fingers80002]

I sent a message,asking if they will change their policy.
I'll post a response, IF i get one.

[paul]

I agree that the ACLU is shitty when it comes to the second amendment, but since they are not in a position to prosecute anyone for anything gun related, I value their efforts at protecting the other constitutional rights. To downplay their defense of the first and fourth and ninth etc merely because they are recalcitrant on the second, well that seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Perhaps this decision will lead to a reconsideration of the issue on their parts, but I for one am not holding my breath.

[granuale]

They also refuse to help defend liberty in takings clause cases. In my view they get worse as time goes by, but still occasionally do an extraordinary job.

[ThoughtCriminal]

For many years, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has held that "the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" (Policy #47). Today the Supreme Court, in *DC v. Heller*, held that this interpretation is incorrect, and instead ruled that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". I wonder whether the ACLU be revising its stance on the Second Amendment to reflect the Court's new ruling.

The ACLU does a lot of good work protecting many of our rights, but it would be nice if they recognized the right to bear to arms and supported it as vigorously as they support many of our other rights.

If you'd like to contact the ACLU regarding their stance on the Second Amendment, they have a contact form at www.aclu.org/contact/general/index.html

It says right there "an individual's right", doesn't this statement mean they do recognize an individual's right? As justice scalia said to dellinger "Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This sounds similar to the ACLU's position, am I wrong?

[paul]

They also refuse to help defend liberty in takings clause cases. In my view they get worse as time goes by, but still occasionally do an extraordinary job.

Sorry, I didn't follow that, can you explain "takings clause"? I googled it and came up with more than one possibility. Thanks.

[reels18]

The ACLU is a taxpayer funded organization. When they successfully sue the government, and are awarded a cash settlement, who gets the cash?