Posted on 03/28/2002 2:08:03 PM PST by RogueIsland
BACKGROUND
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.
IN BRIEF
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.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
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.
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
ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES
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.
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. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.
In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.
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.
How intellectually dishonest can one be?
Yup. It's delightful, all right.
I dunno, how much restriction does "shall not be infringed" imply?
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.
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
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!
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.
5.56mm
Thanks.
The ACLU has no point except that it would be easier to subjugate an unarmed populace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.