The ACLU on Guns

www.aclu.org ^ | ACLU

[RogueIsland]

This has no doubt been posted in the past, but I thought it deserved a new airing, fetid thing that it is.

[RogueIsland]

bang

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[RetiredArmy]

Ok, what part of "Bill of Rights" does it mention that it is STATES rights. Just like the old argument that it meant National Guard when the Guard was not even around for another 150 years. INDIVIDUAL rights people! Not states rights. If that is states rights, then the STATES have the right to SHUT UP THE PRESS and CONTROL RELIGION as well.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

How many of the first Ten Amendments refer to a collective right? It seems to me that they all refer to an individual right, with the exception of the 10th amendment.

I like their selective interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It reminds me of how some of the Kool-Aid drinkers around here make excuses for anything that President Bush does, regardless of whether it's constitutional or not.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I guess by what the ACLU says, the 1st Amendment is in place to protect the state legislatures and executive branch from being prosecuted by the federal government?

How intellectually dishonest can one be?

[Free the USA]

The first amendment is a collective right and since there are more than enough licensed media outlets and newspapers the ACLU can be permanently silenced with out violating the Constitution.

[Alberta's Child]

If, as the ACLU maintains, pornography is protected by the First Amendment, then personal firearm ownership is certainly protected by the Second.

[RogueIsland]

I like their selective interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Yup. It's delightful, all right.

[lelio]

...maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic ...
Hmmm, in one sense they say that the central government is all nice 'n stuff so you won't need to protect yourself against them, but then they defend to the death the 1st amendment.

[Eagle Eye]

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it.

I dunno, how much restriction does "shall not be infringed" imply?

[Shooter 2.5]

Bottom line is that they support the right of the government and National Guard to have weapons. I feel safer already.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

RE: the Supreme court decision and the fact that the court won't take 2nd Amendment cases. Didn't the Supreme Court rule at one time that black people could be restricted from white train cars?

I would like to hear a FReepers argument regarding the ACLU's point that if it is an individual right then we should be able to have SCUD missles, bazookas and grenades.

[AAABEST]

According to the Supreme Court in Verdugo-Urquidez, "the people" does not denote the National Guard, or States. 
(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" [494 U.S. 259, 260]   refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 264-266.
Text from U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, Sup. Ct. case No. 88-1353 (1990).

Perpich v. Dept. of Defense established that the National Guard is not a Militia. It is ultimately under federal control.
Article one's plain language, read as a whole, establishes that Congress may authorize members of the National Guard of the United States to be ordered to active federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States without either the consent of a State Governor or the declaration of a national emergency.
U.S. Supreme Court, Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) on establishing the National Guard under federal contorl. 

'Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints. 
The Militia Act of 1792, which was passed one year after the 2nd Amendment and declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were members of the militia. 

Courtesy of gunfacts.org

[Hot Tabasco]

If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns

Actually, I dont have to register or license my car unless I choose to drive it on their government road. My neighbor has an old pickup in his front yard that will prove my point!

[45Auto]

Since the attorneys at the ACLU are not dumb, then the only answer to this insipid little piece of trash is that they are active Enemies of Freedom. They could not be so stupid as to misquote Miller, and then to not even include Emerson. No, the ACLU is just part of the socialism problem facing the US. Their true motive is the destruction of the Republic.

[RogueIsland]

I would like to hear a FReepers argument regarding the ACLU's point that if it is an individual right then we should be able to have SCUD missles, bazookas and grenades.

There's been a lot of debate about it, and it generally breaks down into two camps here: 1) those who contend that they are in fact allowed, under the 2nd, to own those things, and 2) those who maintain that "arms" refer to man-portable weapons that are not weapons of mass destruction (in other words, no biological weapons that can't be employed discriminately).

The debate at that point usually devolves into debates on Letters of Marque and personal ownership of canon during the early years of the nation.

[M Kehoe]

...it deserved a new airing, fetid thing that it is.

5.56mm

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Thanks for the great response! I'd like to hear more about this: The debate at that point usually devolves into debates on Letters of Marque and personal ownership of canon during the early years of the nation.

Thanks.

[45Auto]

would like to hear a FReepers argument regarding the ACLU's point.

The ACLU has no point except that it would be easier to subjugate an unarmed populace.