The ACLU's Opinion on the Second Amendment

[Im Neero]

Quote:

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.

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

Am I the only that sees the problem with that statement?

I wonder what their response would be if I were to make the same argument but substitute bazookas with libel and obscenity.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Im Neero

[The Rabbi]

I guess so.

It seems like grandstanding or something. The gov't regulates every other right we have, under "strict scrutiny." I don't see the problem with subjecting RKBA to "strict scrutiny" type regulation either. In fact I think it's a great idea.

[Im Neero]

I'm not arguing against strict scrutiny, I just thought it was an interesting argument coming from the ACLU.

Strict scrutiny calls for a law to 1) serve a compelling governmental interest, 2) be narrowly tailored, and 3) be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. The above statement seems to be arguing for nothing more than rational basis.

I was just amused to see the ACLU using the very argument that is used against them in free speech cases.

[Fallguy]

Actually I pretty much agree with the part you have quoted. At the time it was written I feel the authors intended for "the people" to have the same arms as the army. To be able to rise up against an oppressive government.

But since it has become common understanding, that it doesn't allow citizens to own "military" style weapons, we have already accepted restrictions on the 2A. So as they say, it now becomes what are "reasonable" restrictions.

[Im Neero]

Am I the only that sees the problem with that statement?

Apparently I am.

[Punisher84]

I have long said that in a harsh times conservative gun owners might find a strange, but friendly bedfellow in the ACLU.

[G27]

I have long said that in a harsh times conservative gun owners might find a strange, but friendly bedfellow in the ACLU.

While more often than not the ACLU's stance causes massive eye-rolling on my part, they try to do exactly what they claim to do. Hell, the ACLU even came to Rush Limbaugh's defense...

[The Rabbi]

I have long said that in a harsh times conservative gun owners might find a strange, but friendly bedfellow in the ACLU.

You're only 20something years old so it can't be that long.

But you're right.

The ACLU however has never, to my knowledge, taken a case involving the 2A. Maybe this will change.

[G27]

The ACLU however has never, to my knowledge, taken a case involving the 2A. Maybe this will change.

I'm not going to hold my breath. From the ACLU website:

"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"

Interesting how they let their bias influence their position so openly. The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 9th amendments use the term 'the people' - all of which are construed to mean individual citizens except the 2nd. We all know how they would feel in 'the people' in the 1st suddenly meant only state-sponsored speech...

[The Rabbi]

Let's see what happens after Heller. I am pretty sure Heller will affirm an individual right. Not sure how far that will go. Let's see if they change their tune.

[G27]

Yah, good point - more wait and see...

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Unfortunately, the ACLU won't change its tune. That boilerplate quote from them regarding the Second Amendment pretty much sums up their stance. I think this stance is simply politically expedient. For decades now, civil liberties have only found their friends on the political left. The left doesn't like guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. This is the basis for the ACLU's stance. The NRA doesn't generally endorse democrats.

It's a shame what's become of the ACLU.

[Guest PapaB]

Don't read this like a strong believer in the 2nd amendment, read it like an average citizen who normally doesn't contemplate such things and doesn't understand those of us that do.

"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."

They are trying to scare people into thinking of us as loons that want to amass WMD's, tying handguns and rifles to missles and nuclear bombs (watch out for people with handguns, they might be stockpiling bazookas). Their statement also drops the word individual from the argument, still trying to tie it to Militia',s.

I think the L in ACLU is for lobotomized.

[Fallguy]

Good points PapaB

[Guest BG38357]

My first time reading about it.

If you really think of this, any government restriction deemed as "reasonable" would be

on a par with letting the fox in the hen house, no?

Let's see how the Heller case comes out.

Edited June 15, 2008 by BG38357

[Marswolf]

Actually, I have thought of this myself. More in terms that it is now impossible to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government as the founding fathers wanted than that being bad. But 2A doesn't say that is the only purpose of the amendment. Another purpose is let us train ourselves for military service. I would argue that letting us protect ourselves from those who would do us harm is also implied in the amendment.

What they are doing is a fallacy of omission.

[Im Neero]

That's a good point Mars, one that was brought up in the amicus brief submitted by many leaders of the military.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCu11GeneralsAHSA.pdf

As far as the ACLU changing their tune after Heller, they are staying away from the case with a ten foot pole. They did not submit an amicus brief, nor have they released any statement whatsoever on it, that I know about.

[Guest Len]

Interesting thread, and without the usual anti-ACLU vitriol one usually sees. The ACLU's position on the 2A is self-serving -it would be hard to get $ from many on the left if they took a broader approach to the 2A. The "debates" the ACLU refers to regarding the 2A on their website included this discussion -in reality, we are PRO 2A, but if we really take a hard stand as such we will lose our funding. Thus the ACLU focuses more on the 1A among others.

The ACLU defends the 1A in many ways like the NRA defends the 2A. It is an unfortunate fact of life in these United States that both organizations are necessary. I find things to admire -and fault- about both organizations. I guess it is easier to be a purist in theory than in reality.

[Marswolf]

That's a good point Mars, one that was brought up in the amicus brief submitted by many leaders of the military.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCu11GeneralsAHSA.pdf

Thanks for that reference. I had not read that one.

[The Rabbi]

My first time reading about it.

If you really think of this, any government restriction deemed as "reasonable" would be

on a par with letting the fox in the hen house, no?

Let's see how the Heller case comes out.

Not at all. There are plenty of restrictions that I think will pass "strict scrutiny". Convicted felons, minors, etc.

What I think will fail are FOID cards, 1 gun a month, etc type of stuff. And good riddance to it too.

[G27]

More in terms that it is now impossible to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government as the founding fathers wanted than that being bad.

I disagree - I think if there were enough folks, it could absolutely be done. If only 1% of the US population armed and rebelled, you'd have a militia of 3 million people.

Unless the military was ordered to basically destroy everything and everyone, it could absolutely happen...

[The Rabbi]

I disagree - I think if there were enough folks, it could absolutely be done. If only 1% of the US population armed and rebelled, you'd have a militia of 3 million people.

Unless the military was ordered to basically destroy everything and everyone, it could absolutely happen...

Yeah, we'd really show them by fielding guys who look like this:

Please, this scenario is so remote as to be laughable.

[Guest nraforlife]

Yeah, we'd really show them by fielding guys who look like this:

Please, this scenario is so remote as to be laughable.

Are those some of the gay Scout Leaders the ACLU is trying to push down the BSA's throats. Pun not intended but if the shoe fits....

[Guest bkelm18]

I disagree - I think if there were enough folks, it could absolutely be done. If only 1% of the US population armed and rebelled, you'd have a militia of 3 million people.

Unless the military was ordered to basically destroy everything and everyone, it could absolutely happen...

Yes but does every single one of those people wish to start a rebellion? No. I'd say far less than 10% of those would actually be willing to make a stand. So that gives you less than 300,000 mostly un-trained, mostly un-organized rebels. Good enough for a guerrilla war in the hills maybe, but not enough to achieve a successful rebellion. Besides, if the gov't saw that a 3 million person militia was forming, I'm pretty sure the gov't would knock the legs out from under it before it got a foothold.

[G27]

I think you may be missing my point. The fact is, if it got bad enough where rebellion was necessitated, you'd likely have much more than 1% of the population acting. Even if it were as little as 15% of the total population willing to arm themselves and fight, the number would be STAGGERING (that's 45 million people!).

Sure, will never happen - the pen IS mightier than the sword, but I'm making the point that the reasoning behind the 2nd (or at least one of the reasons) isn't outdated.