The ACLU clarifies

The ACLU has a blog posting explaining their position on the 2nd Amendment in a post Heller world:

So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.

As always, we welcome your comments.

My comment is awaiting moderation. I wonder just how welcome it will be. I give it to you here in case it doesn’t see the light of day:

Fortunately it is the Supreme Court and not organizations such as the KKK or the ACLU that is the binding interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.

We now have the ACLU explicitly denying what the Supreme courts calls a specific enumerated right. This is even more egregious than the KKK demanding segregated bus seating, water fountains, and restrooms since the Constitution doesn’t enumerate the right for integration of public and private accommodations.

I had supported the ACLU in their support of the KKK because I thought the issue was one of free speech. Perhaps I was wrong in my assumption. Perhaps the issue was the ACLU enjoys the company of similarly minded bigots.

Update: They posted my comment along with many others. The last time I looked all the comments were very critical of the postion the ACLU has taken.


8 thoughts on “The ACLU clarifies

  1. Here is my comment (awaiting moderation):

    Your “collective rights” position on the 2A guarantee was justified on the basis of the Miller ruling. Now the court has clarified Miller via Heller … and you still hold to Miller. It’s surely a matter of convenience, for now, but how long can this position last?

    ACLU, you have taken the low road on this one. Just how low you can go, and how long you can stay down there and maintain any relevancy, remains to be seen.

  2. It has been my understanding that the Miller decision said nothing about any “collective right” at all– that that term is a much more recent invention.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but as I recall, the issue in Miller centered around the type of arm, and the Court, without the presence of any defense or argument, mistakenly or erroneously defined a short shotgun as a type of arm that did not have any relevance or application in the organized militia. That Miller as an individual had a right to bear arms was not questioned. Had Miller been “caught” with a BAR or a Browning water-cooled, the case might have gone very differently.

    In any case, the ACLU, and many others, have painted themselves into a corner on this one. They’ve been in essence asserting that there is a “right” to restrict what has been enumerated in the Constitution as a right. A simple change in personnel might very well fix that little conundrum.

    It’s funny how nearly identical the antis’ responses have been in calling Heller a “reinterpretation” of the 2A, or the “granting of a new right” and so on. They definitely have circled the wagons on this one, and they’re searching desperately for ammunition, finding only dirt clods and buffalo chips on the empty plain (like the metaphor?). Are they really that ignorant, or is this willful obfuscation on their part? I’ll call it “willful ignorance” just to be polite.

  3. Didn’t the 19th century gun controllers create the “militia arm” requirement? They wanted to ban knives and cheap revolvers, so they decided that only militia-related (and expensive) revolvers would be acceptable.

  4. Lyle, you are correct. The Parker vs. D.C. Court gave a wonderful view of Miller. This is overlooked in the giddy reading of Heller. Parker is still very interesting reading, right up there with the recent SCOTUS smack-down.

    The ACLU is showing its true colors with their Heller take. They are ignoring a key portion of the Constitution.

    Now why would they do that, I wonder?

    Never mind. We already know why.

  5. As of this morning, 88 comments posted and not ONE supporting the ACLU position. They even let my comment go through, although I hinted that maybe their decision is based on funding sources.

  6. …mistakenly or erroneously defined a short shotgun as a type of arm that did not have any relevance or application in the organized militia.

    IIRC, they did not “define” it as not having relevance; they said they did not have any evidence in front of them to say that it _did_ have relevance. A subtle but important distinction for the particular weapon in question and possibly for most weapons in general. They seemed to duck the issue of whether the 2nd barred the government from prohibiting weapons but left it open to be decided either way: just show that _all_ weapons of a particular type _would_ have relevance to a militia and such weapons _would_ be protected.

  7. Good point, bob r.

    As for the funding sources– this is an issue that any business should consider. Clinging (bitterly?) to a few established sources of revenue, to the possible exclusion of many new sources, could be deemed an unwillingness to change with the markets. Maybe it’s a lack of imagination, or blind fear, or both. I’m sure there’s also an element of plain old-fashioned dogma at play. It sure as hell isn’t leadership and it sure isn’t fighting for civil liberty. Maybe the ACLU should look at the revenue streams going to the NRA, SAF, GOA, et al, and think a little bit.

    I know– it won’t happen, at least not before they have a major “reorganization” of their current management. Maybe I’ll call it a needed “revitalization” just to drive the point. My checkbook awaits it.

  8. MadRocketScientist,

    Yeah, I saw that too–including your comment. One person was mostly neutral but everyone else was unhappy with them. I wonder if that will make a difference. My guess is no. Follow the money and all that…

Comments are closed.