PDA

View Full Version : ACLU spin-off thread


BTF/PTM
05-01-2009, 8:47 PM
I didn't wanna thread jack a previous thread so I'll seek feedback here. This is taken directly off ACLU.org:

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue...

There are some funny contradictions in this:

1) The ACLU is against the Supreme Court changing the direction of the D.C. ruling, and yet when it comes to putting prop 8 back on trial, they're all about having the court redirect the cause.

2) The ACLU claims to believe that the 2A does not apply to individuals, rather it applies to militia and military, and yet they claim to take no stance on gun control. WTF?

3) Do militias even exist anymore? I honestly don't know and I'm sure there are a few underground groups that consider themselves militia, but I thought that there was no such thing as a recognized state militia anymore. Just the military and national guard. Am I wrong? The ACLU seems awfully sure of the fact that the 2A applies to militias.

Your thoughts?

M. Sage
05-01-2009, 8:55 PM
3: Yes, the unorganized militia still exists in the US. It's just pretty much completely unorganized, except for small groups that are unfortunately often fringe nutjobs...

dustoff31
05-01-2009, 9:02 PM
3) Do militias even exist anymore? I honestly don't know and I'm sure there are a few underground groups that consider themselves militia, but I thought that there was no such thing as a recognized state militia anymore. Just the military and national guard. Am I wrong? The ACLU seems awfully sure of the fact that the 2A applies to militias.

Your thoughts?

Both federal and (most every) state law provide for a state recognized militia. They are most often referred to as the unorganized militia and over the years fallen into such disuse and inactivity that most people don't realize that they still exist.

The underground groups are in no way militias. As there is no provision for the militia to exist outside the control of federal or state authorities.

7x57
05-01-2009, 9:24 PM
3: Yes, the unorganized militia still exists in the US. It's just pretty much completely unorganized, except for small groups that are unfortunately often fringe nutjobs...

Among other things, I think that what makes you eligible for the draft is that you're in the unorganized militia.

In any case, the founders were pretty clear that the militia was the entire able-bodied male population, so as long as there are able-bodied male citizens there is a militia.

There are still State Military Reserves, which are a select militia (by definition, not being a sizable fraction of the people themselves) but a clear step closer to the original idea than the National Guard is.

7x57

BTF/PTM
05-01-2009, 9:31 PM
Among other things, I think that what makes you eligible for the draft is that you're in the unorganized militia. An excellent point.

M. Sage
05-01-2009, 9:38 PM
Among other things, I think that what makes you eligible for the draft is that you're in the unorganized militia.
7x57

I almost brought up the legitimacy of this by pointing out Selective Service.

dustoff31
05-01-2009, 9:40 PM
Among other things, I think that what makes you eligible for the draft is that you're in the unorganized militia.

Actually, the Selective Service Act makes one eligible for the draft. But the Governor can call up the unorganized militia in state service as he see fit.

In any case, the founders were pretty clear that the militia was the entire able-bodied male population, so as long as there are [/B]able-bodied male [/B]citizens there is a militia.

Under current federal law, female commissioned officers of the NG are also liable for militia service.

There are still State Military Reserves, which are a select militia (by definition, not being a sizable fraction of the people themselves) but a clear step closer to the original idea than the National Guard is.

The militia is divided into the organized and the unorganized militia. The NG is and the State Military reserves are the organized militia, and everyone else liable for service is the unorganized militia.

7x57
05-01-2009, 10:19 PM
Actually, the Selective Service Act makes one eligible for the draft. But the Governor can call up the unorganized militia in state service as he see fit.


The SSA in fact governs how the feds exercise that power, but they can't obtain the power in the first place from a legislative statute.

To be more precise, my point was that what makes it clear that the feds *have the power* to enact a draft is that the Constitution was written by people who believed that the able-bodied population had a duty to military service. Otherwise, one might object to the draft on the grounds that the power to draft was never delegated. I've heard a disguised version of this, that compulsory military service amounts to slavery and therefore violates the Constitution. I thought I'd heard that argument on Calguns, though I could be mistaken. In any case, my point was about delegation of power, not exercise. (I was also trying to avoid the state/federal issues, thus no mention of the states above.)

I realize that Federalism is dead, or at least on life support, and so few people care about such things, and even if they did the courts would probably ask the magic genie of the interstate commerce clause to grant the legislature the power to do it in spite of whatever the rest of the Constitution says. Still, it's important to me.


Under current federal law, female commissioned officers of the NG are also liable for militia service.


I wished to avoid any question of whether the power to draft covered the entire population or only something like the 17-45 y.o. male population. The latter is undoubtedly covered as the Founders regarded them as draftable, so no discussion of extending the duty is necessary.


The militia is divided into the organized and the unorganized militia. The NG is and the State Military reserves are the organized militia, and everyone else liable for service is the unorganized militia.

That is one division. A more important one to the founders was the militia as a whole vs. a select militia because it directly addresses the question of whether the militia can be used against the people. The point of avoiding a select militia is that the entire people can't sensibly be used to oppress themselves. These days they're pretty close to synonymous, but that has at least a bit to do with the neglect of the whole militia system and isn't a terminology I plan to use. One could require military training for the entire militia and have it organized without being select, for example, so the distinction can still be meaningful.

7x57

Stan_Humphries
05-01-2009, 11:09 PM
Like any other organization, they can be pressured to change their position.

Here is a brief email I sent:

To Whom it May Concern -

I am disappointed with the "party line" approach to civil liberties that the ACLU utilizes. It bothers me that while I have come to many of the same logical conclusions as the organization about the nature of civil rights and liberties, another glaringly obvious constitutional protection goes unnoticed (or opposed) by the ACLU. I am speaking, of course, of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Rather than debate the merits (or shortcomings) of the ACLU's proffered collective rights position, I wish simply to point out that we have here a right of citizens recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States as being protected within the bill of rights - and yet the ACLU has chosen to say that it is an error, and not a right.

This simply does not comport with the ACLU's other positions. How can the organization justify it's unyielding support of the (penumbra-born) right to privacy for women's health, yet shun (the textual) "right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

The only justification I can imagine is warped conception of party loyalty - that the democratic majority that makes up ACLU patronage would not lightly tolerate the support of this "evil" individual right. It's the same sort of backward-thinking pandering that makes abortion the perpetual issue defining social conservatives.

Honestly, what possible logical justification is there for the ACLU not jumping on the Heller decision and uniting behind incorporation efforts? Here we have a right that the founding fathers not only
fought for, but that provided them with the ability to fight for it and all other rights in the first place! It is intellectually dishonest of the ACLU to continue its current view of the second amendment.

It is this dishonesty that keeps me from supporting the ACLU.

Regards,

/s

Legasat
05-01-2009, 11:28 PM
This is old, but I still think it sum things up pretty well...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1GNu7ldL1LM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1GNu7ldL1LM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Barney Gumble
05-02-2009, 12:01 AM
Since ACLU is four letters, the search function actually works on this one:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/search.php?searchid=4406642

7222 Hawker
05-02-2009, 12:36 AM
I didn't wanna thread jack a previous thread so I'll seek feedback here. This is taken directly off ACLU.org:



There are some funny contradictions in this:

1) The ACLU is against the Supreme Court changing the direction of the D.C. ruling, and yet when it comes to putting prop 8 back on trial, they're all about having the court redirect the cause.

2) The ACLU claims to believe that the 2A does not apply to individuals, rather it applies to militia and military, and yet they claim to take no stance on gun control. WTF?

3) Do militias even exist anymore? I honestly don't know and I'm sure there are a few underground groups that consider themselves militia, but I thought that there was no such thing as a recognized state militia anymore. Just the military and national guard. Am I wrong? The ACLU seems awfully sure of the fact that the 2A applies to militias.

Your thoughts?

The ACLU also sued the California Highway Patrol for racial profiing because they were taking too much dope off the streets. RESULT: They won and now the CHP has to keep race/stop/reason data for every single stop they make. Total BS but they (the ACLU) are out of control.

dustoff31
05-02-2009, 7:37 AM
The SSA in fact governs how the feds exercise that power, but they can't obtain the power in the first place from a legislative statute.

To be more precise, my point was that what makes it clear that the feds *have the power* to enact a draft is that the Constitution was written by people who believed that the able-bodied population had a duty to military service.

OK, I see what you saying.


Otherwise, one might object to the draft on the grounds that the power to draft was never delegated. I've heard a disguised version of this, that compulsory military service amounts to slavery and therefore violates the Constitution. I thought I'd heard that argument on Calguns, though I could be mistaken. In any case, my point was about delegation of power, not exercise. (I was also trying to avoid the state/federal issues, thus no mention of the states above.)


Unfortunately, you are not mistaken. I think that is a most remarkable position for those to take considering this venue and their alledged regard for the constitution.


That is one division. A more important one to the founders was the militia as a whole vs. a select militia because it directly addresses the question of whether the militia can be used against the people. The point of avoiding a select militia is that the entire people can't sensibly be used to oppress themselves. These days they're pretty close to synonymous, but that has at least a bit to do with the neglect of the whole militia system and isn't a terminology I plan to use. One could require military training for the entire militia and have it organized without being select, for example, so the distinction can still be meaningful.

I agree completely. In many cases it isn't just neglect of the militia system as the founders saw it, but active ursupation of it, through legislation, funding, and organization.

7x57
05-02-2009, 8:26 AM
Unfortunately, you are not mistaken. I think that is a most remarkable position for those to take considering this venue and their alledged regard for the constitution.


To be fair, however, the required information is not contained in the Constitution, except cryptically (to us!) in references to "the militia." What makes those references clear is the context--as they say, "a text without a context is a pretext" (for whatever you want it to mean). A long time ago I suspected there might be a problem with the draft too--because I didn't possess enough context to make the references to the militia clear.

Whose fault is this? Well, in some sense, the ultimate problem is the left's destruction of real education in this country. US history and civics is supposed to teach you these things, because you must know them to do your duty as a citizen. But that duty is quite contrary to the liberal agenda, and so it is simply impossible to expect it to be taught by them. But the rest of us have abandoned education to them.


I agree completely. In many cases it isn't just neglect of the militia system as the founders saw it, but active ursupation of it, through legislation, funding, and organization.

Yes, "neglect" is sometimes polite. I'm supposed to have the right to purchase the standard US military infantry kit (Congress has the power to "regulate," so they can specify the rifle I show up with--in fact, the founders discussed the advantages of standardizing lead ball caliber during the ratification debates) and show up for militia service with my kit. I'm supposed to have the right to drill voluntarily, under the direction of my local officers (this is key to their thinking), whether or not the US calls me up--but of course it is all at local expense in that case. Every citizen was to be soldier in time of need, and the government wasn't to deny training to the entire body of elgible militiamen. Though it wouldn't be a right, they imagined that people would be proud to have their militia men drill in the town square--all those select-fire weapons would be both a comfort and a source of pride in the citizen-soldiers, not a source of irrational fear.

OTOH, the state has the power to *require* me to purchase my kit and to show up, should it deem that necessary, and I can't refuse the duty except (I think, it was an issue at the time as well) for reasons of conscience (and probably has the right to demand a fee in lieu of service). And the feds have the power to specify the drill, the kit, and so on, and to federalize that militia, and I can't refuse that duty either.

Notice that the only parts that still seem to work are those that involve federal and state power, and none that involve my rights as a citizen. :mad:

7x57

laguns
05-02-2009, 9:34 AM
It's quite amusing to me how this is debated over and over. It's obvious to anyone with an IQ over 50 that the second amendment is the right of the people to own guns so they can form a militia if needed. Anyone claiming the 2A means something else is either a moron or a liar

Ted

HowardW56
05-02-2009, 9:55 AM
I didn't wanna thread jack a previous thread so I'll seek feedback here. This is taken directly off ACLU.org:



There are some funny contradictions in this:

1) The ACLU is against the Supreme Court changing the direction of the D.C. ruling, and yet when it comes to putting prop 8 back on trial, they're all about having the court redirect the cause.

2) The ACLU claims to believe that the 2A does not apply to individuals, rather it applies to militia and military, and yet they claim to take no stance on gun control. WTF?

3) Do militias even exist anymore? I honestly don't know and I'm sure there are a few underground groups that consider themselves militia, but I thought that there was no such thing as a recognized state militia anymore. Just the military and national guard. Am I wrong? The ACLU seems awfully sure of the fact that the 2A applies to militias.

Your thoughts?

This is what offends me about the ACLU... I do believe that they serve a useful purpose in some areas of the law. Without them or others like Alan Gura, who would take the government to task for what they do...

We have entered an era where there is not much doubt that "Big Brother" is watching, or trying to...

I am not saying that I agree with the ACLU’s positions, but I have always believed it is good to keep an eye on the government, we know that the government is keeping an eye on us... Without a well-funded organization to challenge the government, there are few who can do it.

The NRA works in the background most of the time, lobbying and endorsing “friendly” candidates. It has not been very long that you did not hear much about the NRA challenging laws in court, let alone doing it successfully. I don’t know if they are now more active in the courts now, or if I was just unaware of their earlier efforts.


That’s enough for my commentary…

HunterJim
05-02-2009, 10:54 AM
The right to keep and bear arms predates the Bill of Rights, which the ACLU seems not to recognize.

I didn't know that the ACLU gets to trump the Supreme Court in any case.

jim