The ACLU on Guns

www.aclu.org ^ | ACLU

[RogueIsland]

and then to not even include Emerson

The charitable thing to suggest is that they just haven't gotten around to updating their site. But we know they're really just ignoring it and hoping no one notices.

[spqrzilla9]

Indeed, ACLU policy #47 is an overtly dishonest reading of Miller v. US.

[muawiyah]

Whether the right to keep and bear arms, as well as the right of self defense, is a collective or individual right, these are the sort of rights and privileges that should be eternally denied the ACLU, its members and supporters.

The ACLU gang is a clear and present danger to the liberty and safety of every American.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I don't doubt what you say, however, I've heard the question as to whether we should be able to carry grenades, SCUD missles etc. I want to know what the different thoughts are on this subject.

On one hand I want to say that we should be able to carry/own anything that we can control. In other words, a grenade will injure anyone around, regardless of who we throw it at. However, if the 2nd amendment is in place to help us protect ourselves from tyranny, we should be able to own anything that we want.

[dead]

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

Same goes for printing presses and websites, I presume.

[RogueIsland]

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.

Here's a succinct definition of Letters of Marque and Reprisal I found at http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/gen5.htm.

LETTERS OF MARQUE were official licences issued on behalf of the head of government in time of war to private citizens which gave them limited legal protection to act as PRIVATEERS. That is, to use their own ships, at their own expense, to make war on the merchant shipping of countries with which their own county was at war, and to profit from the sale of any ships and cargoes they could capture. Without this protection they would simply be treated as pirates if captured.

Basically, it authorized private citizens to own and operate warships against enemy shipping.

[Stat-boy]

Many appellate courts interpreted Miller to mean that the 2nd amendment is a collective right. They did it without any real analysis of either the 2A or Miller. The beauty of Emerson is that the Emerson court wrote about 70 pages (that’s right, 70 pages) of discussion, including a detailed discussion of Miller. I recommend that anyone who is interested in the 2A read Miller. It’s a brilliant read, not overly full of legalize, and a very interesting history lesson.

[Stat-boy]

errr... I meant to recomment reading Emerson. Miller is a poorly written case.

[RogueIsland]

Many appellate courts interpreted Miller to mean that the 2nd amendment is a collective right. They did it without any real analysis of either the 2A or Miller.

One of the more interesting interpretation of Miller, if one were of a literal mind, is that the only weapons the Government can't prohibit us from owning are military weapons. I don't think the anti-rights-coalition cares for that interpretation.

[spqrzilla9]

The Emerson case is a good primer.

Prof. Eugene Volokh has written several detailed papers on the issue showing that the Second Amendment isn't, and couldn't, be what the ACLU claims. Here is a link. I recommend his articles as he addresses the bogus argument about the preamble definitively.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Interesting. Thanks.

[Hot Tabasco]

I'd like to hear about batman94....

[Squantos]

Lets see, Let's see.........hummmmmmm (thumbing through copy of constitution) the right to license cars , the right to license cars.............nope can't find it !

ACLU ain't at all..........One more band of self serving socialist's practicing sedition IMHO.

Stay Safe !

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Does someone have a link to the US v. Warin decision? And who was the judge if the quote in the article is true?

[syriacus]

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one,...

• For the sake of argument let's accept the statement above as true.

• Then why not look at some of the other amendments and interpret them collectively, too?

• How about Article 4? " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

• Since Article 4 must be interpreted collectively only people who live in buildings with other people are to be secure against unreasonable search.
• Therefore, people who live alone in a house may legally be subject to unreasonable search.

Geee...interpreting the constitution collectively sounds dumb to me. Unarmed individuals would be subject to the whims of a bullying militia as much as to the whims of a national government. Who is willing to guarantee the good intentions of the collective militia?

[RogueIsland]

Does someone have a link to the US v. Warin decision?

Ask and ye shall receive:

US v. Warin

P.S. to <1/1,000,000th%: did you know you can't be replied to with the new software?

[gfactor]

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

as much as "well regulated".

[aught-6]

If it doesn't have to be trailered behind your pickup, then it's a personal arm protected by the constitution.

[Redcloak]

They're a might selective about which rights they get worked up about. They're still not listed as opposing CFR with a lawsuit.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

A good rule of thumb lol. I am looking for historical precedent though.