ACLU on the 2nd Amendment

[Spider]

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."

[G30man]

I believe the 2nd is for the individual right to be able to protect yourself from enemies, both foriegn and domestic. However, I have to agree that access to explosives, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft weapons should be for govt only.
Quite honestly, some people I know shouldn't even have a sharp stick. Both leo's and non-leo's. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif
So basically I agree with part and disagree with part of the supreme courts ruling.

Just my 2 cents,
Mikey

[Niteshift]

If the ACLU agrees, that should raise a red flag right there!

The SC is wrong. Dozens and dozens of legal scholars agree with me. However, since the SC hasn't really re-visited the issue in a very long time, I don't put a whole lot of stock in Miller. Times change and so does the court. That same court would have found segregation was ok and wouldn't have let an 18 year old vote.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Don]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Niteshift:
[B]If the ACLU agrees, that should raise a red flag right there!

AMEN Brother!

------------------
Stay safe out there,
6P1 (retired)

[Spider]

"If the ACLU agrees, that should raise a red flag right there!"


From the ACLU home page;"The mission of the ACLU is to assure that the Bill of Rights -- amendments to the Constitution that guard against unwarranted governmental control -- are preserved for each new generation. To understand the ACLU's purpose, it is important to distinguish between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution itself, whose bicentennial we celebrated in 1987, authorizes the government to act. The Bill of Rights limits that authority."

I am very suspicious of anyone who does not like the ACLU. What's wrong with protecting the Bill of Rights?

"The SC is wrong."

That's your opinion.

" Dozens and dozens of legal scholars agree with me."

That's their opinion. Your opinions don't matter when it comes to constitutional issues. The framers of The Constitution decided that the opinion of The USSC was the only one that should matter. If you disagree with them, then you are the one who is "wrong", constitutionally speaking.

"However, since the SC hasn't really re-visited the issue in a very long time, I don't put a whole lot of stock in Miller. Times change and so does the court."

But you forget that the USSC has had numerous oportunities to reverse Miller over the years. If they felt any different than they did in 1939, they could have said so many times. They always choose not to. In 1983, they let stand a Federal Court decision supporting a city ordinance banning all possession of handguns within it's city limits.



[This message has been edited by Spider (edited 08-08-2000).]

[retired]

Spider,
Your're a cop and don't understand why anyone is suspicious of the ACLU? http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif What "big city" are you in?

Retired

[The Cynic]

I think the reason most people are suspicious of the ACLU is because their hypocrites. They agree with parts of the constitution but not others and this applies to both liberals and conservatives. The goal of the ACLU is to preserve our constitution. But what bothers people is sometimes that means things happen they disagree with. For example, according to our constitution we have freedom of speech and like it or not freedom of speech includes marches by the KKK, pornography, and other things a lot of people hate. The constitution also outlines a lot of legal stuff that becomes controversial with police. The 4th amendment clearly states no searchs and seizures without a warrant and over the years we've reduced the meaning with numerous exceptions. I'm a cop so I like having exceptions because getting a warrant is a pain the a*s and sometimes not practical. But I'm also willing to admit that those exceptions undermine the 4th amendment. So call me a hypocrite too if you want. There are numerous other issues out there that people don't like but which are protected by the constitution. So don't attack the ACLU for upholding the very foundations our country was built on. If you don't like something in our constitution then lobby your politicians to amend the constitution. I don't agree with the ACLU on every issue because I don't always think a 200 year old document is sufficiently adequate to govern a totally different country than when it was written but nonetheless I can't fault the ACLU for standing up for it.

[Niteshift]

Spider, you're right, it is my opinion. Since I'm not the only person with this opinion, I don't think we can attribute it to mental defect or anything like that.

Cynic, I am wary of the ACLU, yet I agree with you on the things you listed. Want proof? I have posted on this forum regarding flag burning, attempts by the govt. to limit websites containing drug info etc. I support the Constitution, yet do not believe the ACLU is what they try to portray themselves as. One can be suspicious of the ACLU without being a hypocrite. Perhaps you just made that remark in haste.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[This message has been edited by Niteshift (edited 08-09-2000).]