Ravings of a Mad Tech: Blogburst: Death to the ACLU

The ACLU does not really defend your civil rights as they claim to do, rather they pick and choose their cases based on the political agenda that they pretend does not exist. There is no greater example of their blatant double standard then the 2^nd Amendment that we all enjoy. According to the ACLU, the 2^nd Amendment is only meant for the preservation of a state militia and not the individual right that the rest of the country knows to be true. Here’s what I was about to find on the Internet since the ACLU has no documentation on their website, this information comes from a cached page of the ACLU’s website and has since been taken down by the ACLU.

The following excerpts are taken from the ACLU web site at http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

"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."

"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)

"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."

"The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia."

Here’s another example of the ACLU’s indifference towards the 2^nd Amendment, again from a cached page since they have seen fit to take down the position paper. This is the original URL: http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html and the text is below.

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.

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.

Their extreme double-standard on this portion of the Bill of Rights is further cemented by this form letter response that I recently received; the full text is below, minus my personal information of course.

-----Original Message-----
From: ACLU Correspond
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 7:13 AM
To: XXXXXXXXX
Subject: Your Feedback (Message #120150)

Dear Mr. XXXXX,

Thank you for the question about the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment. 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. 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.

You can find more about the ACLU's positions at http://www.aclu.org

If you are not already an ACLU member, we encourage you to help support our aggressive work on the issues you care about. To join please visit http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm or call 1-888-567-ACLU.

Sincerely,

D. Barber
Correspondence Manager, American Civil Liberties Union

The interesting part of their response is that I was directed back to their website which has absolutely no information on their position regarding the 2^nd Amendment, here is my search results on the ACLU website. It is very interesting to me that a group that is all about individual rights and regularly interprets the phrase “the people” found throughout the Bill of Rights to represent each and every American on an individual basis but when the phrase is used in the 2^nd Amendment the ACLU recognizes it as a collective group right rather then the right of the individual. While researching this post I came across this outrageous letter to editor from an ACLU wacko at Ohio University, enjoy. Just another example of the ACLU trying to have it both ways when dealing with the Bill of Rights.

Government reserves right to regulate distribution of firearms

Editor,

I am appalled by the audacity with which the leadership of the Second Amendment Club has attacked Ohio University's Student Senate.

They do so on the premise that student senate's resolution banning guns on campus somehow limits our "civil liberties." Exactly what version of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment Club reading?

Indeed, the Second Amendment, in its entirety, states "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."

Proponents of the Second Amendment, more often than not, seem to abandon the first provision of a "well-regulated militia" altogether for their constant rants of a "right to bear arms." Moreover, the Constitution grants no specific individual right to gun ownership but a collective right of a people to rise up in arms in times of conflict. For anyone to argue otherwise would be foolish. Government — be it federal, state, local or campus-wide — has every right to regulate the sale, distribution and ownership of handguns as it is not specifically prohibited from doing so in our Constitution.

Because there was no violation of the Bill of Rights, student senate could not possibly have ignored any of the "civil liberties" the Second Amendment Club claimed it did. Before resorting to petty name calling and making false accusations, the Second Amendment Club should study our Constitution. The only remedy for ignorance is, after all, education.

– Larry Hayman,
Executive Director,
American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio University
lh392199@ohio.edu

Well the Department of Justice who is tasked with the execution of this nation’s laws begs to differ with the ACLU’s view of our 2^nd Amendment right, read about it here. The rights of Americans to keep and bear arms is just as important as any included in the Bill of Rights. If the ACLU was holding true to its mission statement then it at the very least would have an actual opinion on the issue. I guess since they are now the legal arm of the Democratic Party they have adopted the party’s policy of promoting their double standards. Here is a fantastic treatment of the 2^nd Amendment by Sanford Levinson at the Austin School of Law, University of Texas. Fortunately for those of us to choose to exercise our 2^nd Amendment rights we have organizations such as the NRA and the Institute for Justice that are willing to defend those rights for all Americans. Have a wonderful day everyone.