ACLU refresher. Wonder if this will be coming down soon.

[aileron]

Ahh, yes, defending some of your rights all of the time.

Just a reminder of where they stand, and wondering if they will change their position post heller, if its an individual rights win for us.

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html


Gun Control (3/4/2002)

Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep and bear arms?

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

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
— The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"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)

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.

I like how they take it to the extreme. :rolleyes:

[johnny_22]

Federal Judge blocks Kentucky gun law barred non-citizens from Concealed gun permits thanks to ACLU.

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/348241.html

Also, ACLU and SAF worked together on removing "weapons" from the blocked web sites at libraries last year.

The Montana ACLU has very different comments on the Second...

http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=7994648&nav=menu227_8

ps, I am a member of the ACLU. They're not the Brady's and do some good.

[bulgron]

I think the ACLU is about to undergo a forcible attitude readjustment. It will be truly interesting to see how they respond to a sea change in judicial attitudes regarding arms.

I've noticed that recently the ACLU has been seen taking on some firearms issues, albeit not on 2A grounds. Maybe the adjustment won't be so painful as one might expect?

[tiki]

I love it. I can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule that it is an individual right. I love the ACLU's position on what that would mean for gun regulation. It will be nice to have them on our side. :)

[jrock]

they are the biggest terrorist oraganization inside America today.

[DedEye]

they are the biggest terrorist oraganization inside America today.

:icon_bs: Complete load of crap. That's as dumb as the last paragraph in the quoted ACLU text where they said we'd need to be allowed to own nukes to put up a fight against the military :rolleyes:.




I like a lot of what the ACLU fights for, even if I don't agree with many of the cases they take. It's always annoyed me that they viewed the 2nd Amendment as a collective right, and I have hopes that an individual rights ruling in Heller will force them to change their policy. I don't expect them to become the NRA, bu to at least have them recognize the 2nd as they do the 1st.

[Big O]

:icon_bs: Complete load of crap. That's as dumb as the last paragraph in the quoted ACLU text where they said we'd need to be allowed to own nukes to put up a fight against the military :rolleyes:.




I like a lot of what the ACLU fights for, even if I don't agree with many of the cases they take. It's always annoyed me that they viewed the 2nd Amendment as a collective right, and I have hopes that an individual rights ruling in Heller will force them to change their policy. I don't expect them to become the NRA, bu to at least have them recognize the 2nd as they do the 1st.

While I do think the biggest terrorist organization thing is crap, it's not crap that they say we be allowed to own nukes. The 2nd Amendment is written with no exceptions. I think most of us agree it's a bad idea to let Bubba buy a nuclear warhead, the 2A doesn't discriminate the type of arms allowed. There probably should be an exception to weapons of mass destruction, but there isn't because back then they didn't exist. Therefore, if you want to truly interpret the law which is what they are doing, all arms and all weapons are fair game. Yes, that is a flaw in our beloved 2A. Somehow, we have to figure out how to exempt WMD, but the problem is starting that battle will open up a can of worms because all the antis are going to jump on the band wagon and try to include my grandpa's deer rifle with a scope as a WMD.

[MrTuffPaws]

The ALCU is almost complete hypocrisy when it comes to the second, though at the state level they have been doing some pro 2nd work (mostly in Texas).

Considering their main argument for their stance on the 2nd will be nothing more than smoke after Heller, it will be very interesting if they step up to the plate and change.

[AfricanHunter]

The ALCU is almost complete hypocrisy when it comes to the second, though at the state level they have been doing some pro 2nd work (mostly in Texas).

Considering their main argument for their stance on the 2nd will be nothing more than smoke after Heller, it will be very interesting if they step up to the plate and change.

Think I might send them an email asking what they intend to do if SCOTUS declares an individual right.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

The modern ACLU is quite different from the ACLU of the 1930s. Back then, they at least tried to pretend that they were a wholly American outfit with civil liberties in mind and occasionally retaining Constructivist/Originalist-minded attorneys with a clear understanding of the United States Constitution. They even engaged in strong resistance to the overreaching big government social programs of the Depression era.

Nowadays, they're a bunch of creepy graying hippies engaging in petulant sophistry living in densely populated socialistic metropolitan areas where it should be painfully clear that people haven't got as many civil liberties as the rest of the nation. They also haven't seen a social program they don't like, quite different from their beginnings.

The ACLU used to be welcome in serious debate. Now they're just mostly concerned with getting high and screwing minors. They've devolved.

Yes, I just said that.

[SKG19]

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.

Really ACLU...that's your excuse....So I suppose the insurgents in Iraq, War lords of Somalia, Mujahideen in Afghanistan etc...didn't put up serious resistance to a major military with not much more than small arms? They obviously have not seen Red Dawn;). I don't know 10,000 gorilla fighters with semi-automatics rifles could put up some serious hurting on any military. Especially when they start capturing that military's equipment. A fighting force that can disappear into a population is pretty tough to fight.

[tyrist]

Most of those items they object to are impossible to afford for an average person. I am sure bill gates could field a couple of scuds but joe citizen can't. It's getting hard enough to afford standard ammunition in common calibers. I cannot imagine what a scud missle would set me back; or a LAW rocket launcher.

[aileron]

Federal Judge blocks Kentucky gun law barred non-citizens from Concealed gun permits thanks to ACLU.

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/348241.html

Also, ACLU and SAF worked together on removing "weapons" from the blocked web sites at libraries last year.

The Montana ACLU has very different comments on the Second...

http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=7994648&nav=menu227_8

ps, I am a member of the ACLU. They're not the Brady's and do some good.

I am perfectly aware of change in ACLU in certain places in this country. I'm also aware they are not the Brady's. I'm most curious to see what happens post heller as my original post proclaims. My feeling is there is going to be some interesting friction higher up in the administration over this. ;)

Which I'm sure will be news on this board. Could be a free fireworks show for us. :43:

In the long view, this is all good for us and the country.

[Jarhead4]

I am perfectly aware of change in ACLU in certain places in this country. I'm also aware they are not the Brady's. I'm most curious to see what happens post heller as my original post proclaims. My feeling is there is going to be some interesting friction higher up in the administration over this. ;)

Which I'm sure will be news on this board. Could be a free fireworks show for us. :43:

In the long view, this is all good for us and the country.

:lurk5:

[MudCamper]

I have been an ACLU member for 20 years - same length of time that I have been an NRA member. The NRA fights for our 2A rights. The ACLU fights for our 1A and 4A rights. Both fight for something good. Both also do some annoying things, but overall they are both fighting valuable fights. It will be interesting though, to see what the ACLU's position is when the 2A is declared an individual right. I assume the dogma in the org will prevent it from doing anything different.

[jumbopanda]

The modern ACLU is quite different from the ACLU of the 1930s. Back then, they at least tried to pretend that they were a wholly American outfit with civil liberties in mind and occasionally retaining Constructivist/Originalist-minded attorneys with a clear understanding of the United States Constitution. They even engaged in strong resistance to the overreaching big government social programs of the Depression era.

Nowadays, they're a bunch of creepy graying hippies engaging in petulant sophistry living in densely populated socialistic metropolitan areas where it should be painfully clear that people haven't got as many civil liberties as the rest of the nation. They also haven't seen a social program they don't like, quite different from their beginnings.

The ACLU used to be welcome in serious debate. Now they're just mostly concerned with getting high and screwing minors. They've devolved.

Yes, I just said that.


Tru dat.

[dragonbait1a]

Most of those items they object to are impossible to afford for an average person. I am sure bill gates could field a couple of scuds but joe citizen can't. It's getting hard enough to afford standard ammunition in common calibers. I cannot imagine what a scud missile would set me back; or a LAW rocket launcher.

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/awc/systems/dvic541.htm
The AT-4 apparently costs about $1000-1500. Easily within the reach of Joe Average. LAWS should be similar. A 40mm Grenade launcher is $2000-3000. Around the cost of a 50BMG rifle. The ammo is more (40mm Riot ammo is $20-25 per shot, I gotta assume that explosive rounds are at least 2x that) but not outside the realm of possibility for Joe Average. How much are those flat panel TVs that everyone loves?

Yes, cost is a barrier with theater weapons, but for these, the barrier is law. A good discussion of this is in the "I'm curious... what limits on gun ownership/purchasing do you think are acceptable? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=92859)" Thread.

YMMV

RGB

[Patriot]

I have been an ACLU member for 20 years - same length of time that I have been an NRA member. The NRA fights for our 2A rights. The ACLU fights for our 1A and 4A rights. Both fight for something good. Both also do some annoying things, but overall they are both fighting valuable fights. It will be interesting though, to see what the ACLU's position is when the 2A is declared an individual right. I assume the dogma in the org will prevent it from doing anything different.

The First Amendment encompasses numerous rights. The ACLU is hostile toward or selective in its support of several guarantees (including free exercise of religion, freedom of assembly, and free speech).

[Solidmch]

Think I might send them an email asking what they intend to do if SCOTUS declares an individual right.

They will tell you that they think SCOTUS is wrong.:rolleyes: They will side with the ones that vote against the decision and say it is all Roberts fault.

This group screams "we the people" each chance they get. They do it in every way except in the second. Then they ignore it!

[CoinStar]

The First Amendment encompasses numerous rights. The ACLU is hostile toward or selective in its support of several guarantees (including free exercise of religion, freedom of assembly, and free speech).

The local ACLU chapter here in San Diego County is currently defending the Minuteman (men?) on a First Amendment issue against Cal-Trans.

That they defend groups that they generally "abhor" (their words in regard to this particular case), shows that they're at least honest in their mission statement; that is, that they defend issues solely on the basis of constitutionality.

Sure. There's no argument that their position on the 2nd is not "neutral" as they claim; it never has been. I won't debate that. But the question is, in the event that there is a favorable ruling in Heller and the ACLU retracts that current position, would you not want them on our side?

Seeing as they would lend an incredibly mainstream voice of support for our issue, having them on board would be a huge boost just for the purposes of the good PR it would bring.

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion about the ACLU, but it's silly to not recognize that they're a powerful entity that gets things done. And that's just what we could use right about now.

[Patriot]

The local ACLU chapter here in San Diego County is currently defending the Minuteman (men?) on a First Amendment issue against Cal-Trans.

That they defend groups that they generally "abhor" (their words in regard to this particular case), shows that they're at least honest in their mission statement; that is, that they defend issues solely on the basis of constitutionality.

Sure. There's no argument that their position on the 2nd is not "neutral" as they claim; it never has been. I won't debate that. But the question is, in the event that there is a favorable ruling in Heller and the ACLU retracts that current position, would you not want them on our side?

Seeing as they would lend an incredibly mainstream voice of support for our issue, having them on board would be a huge boost just for the purposes of the good PR it would bring.

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion about the ACLU, but it's silly to not recognize that they're a powerful entity that gets things done. And that's just what we could use right about now.

Mainstream? The ACLU can hardly be described as mainstream by either a popular or a jurisprudential standard. I do not dispute that they do some good. They do not receive support from me, however, because I disagree with some of their positions and take issue with their inconsistency on several rights, not just the Second Amendment.

[Nodda Duma]

While I do think the biggest terrorist organization thing is crap, it's not crap that they say we be allowed to own nukes. The 2nd Amendment is written with no exceptions. I think most of us agree it's a bad idea to let Bubba buy a nuclear warhead, the 2A doesn't discriminate the type of arms allowed. There probably should be an exception to weapons of mass destruction, but there isn't because back then they didn't exist. Therefore, if you want to truly interpret the law which is what they are doing, all arms and all weapons are fair game. Yes, that is a flaw in our beloved 2A. Somehow, we have to figure out how to exempt WMD, but the problem is starting that battle will open up a can of worms because all the antis are going to jump on the band wagon and try to include my grandpa's deer rifle with a scope as a WMD.

I always figured it applied to what you'd expect the typical foot soldier to carry. Rifles, sidearms, MG's, etc., but you wouldn't expect an infantryman to be toting a WMD onto the battlefield.

You can also look at the cut-off as being ordnance. In a perfect 2A-world, ordnance would not be covered, but anything else would be ok. Private individuals do own tanks, fighter aircraft, bombers, howitzers, etc.,....just not the ordnance. Heck, even our governor owns a tank. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-27-schwartzenegger-tank_N.htm

-Jason

[CoinStar]

Mainstream? The ACLU can hardly be described as mainstream by either a popular or a jurisprudential standard. I do not dispute that they do some good. They do not receive support from me, however, because I disagree with some of their positions and take issue with their inconsistency on several rights, not just the Second Amendment.

Let me clarify: Mainstream in the sense that they have name recognition.

Part of the problem with the RKBA issue is that we've built a little island fortress in which we're trying to wage an epic battle. One of the biggest issues that we face (IMO) is poor public perception. Let's face it... nobody outside of our tribe is really sympathetic to the plight of the poor, down-trodden "gun nut". The transitive properties of that lack of sympathy extend to the most noted (mainstream) pro-gun lobby group, the NRA. In other words, nobody gives a rat's rump about the poor, down-trodden plight of the NRA either.

Having an organization with a more diversified background like the ACLU on board would give us an edge in that people that generally didn't care, would perhaps begin to take notice that our issue is an issue of civil rights more than one that centers just on the objects in question (guns).

I'm curious as to which conflicting positions concern you most about the ACLU too. Care to elaborate?

[Patriot]

Let me clarify: Mainstream in the sense that they have name recognition.

Part of the problem with the RKBA issue is that we've built a little island fortress in which we're trying to wage an epic battle. One of the biggest issues that we face (IMO) is poor public perception. Let's face it... nobody outside of our tribe is really sympathetic to the plight of the poor, down-trodden "gun nut". The transitive properties of that lack of sympathy extend to the most noted (mainstream) pro-gun lobby group, the NRA. In other words, nobody gives a rat's rump about the poor, down-trodden plight of the NRA either.

Having an organization with a more diversified background like the ACLU on board would give us an edge in that people that generally didn't care, would perhaps begin to take notice that our issue is an issue of civil rights more than one that centers just on the objects in question (guns).

I'm curious as to which conflicting positions concern you most about the ACLU too. Care to elaborate?

Certainly RKBA could use more diverse support. Whether it would receive that from the ACLU is uncertain to me.

See Post #18

[Big O]

I always figured it applied to what you'd expect the typical foot soldier to carry. Rifles, sidearms, MG's, etc., but you wouldn't expect an infantryman to be toting a WMD onto the battlefield.

You can also look at the cut-off as being ordnance. In a perfect 2A-world, ordnance would not be covered, but anything else would be ok. Private individuals do own tanks, fighter aircraft, bombers, howitzers, etc.,....just not the ordnance. Heck, even our governor owns a tank. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-27-schwartzenegger-tank_N.htm

-Jason

You have a good point. Perfect 2A world is right. But it is only your interpretation that it applies to typical foot soldier arms. I don't really see that because I see the well regulated militia clause and the right of the people clause to be two separate items protected by the same right.

The tanks, fighter aircraft, bombers, etc. that are in private ownership probably have permanently disabled or removed weapons. Tom Cruise owns a P-51 Mustang, but I doubt it has working .50 cal machine guns on it. I think functional cannons and such would need ATF permits because of the NFA.

[MudCamper]

It's ironic that the gun community is so blindly prejudice of the ACLU in the same way that the anti-gun community is so blindly prejudice of the gun community. It get's really old dispellling the same old distorted anti-ACLU propoganda, so I'll just quote myself:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=729921&postcount=13

[Rhys898]

It's ironic that the gun community is so blindly prejudice of the ACLU in the same way that the anti-gun community is so blindly prejudice of the gun community. It get's really old dispellling the same old distorted anti-ACLU propoganda, so I'll just quote myself:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=729921&postcount=13

If your so worried about people demonizing the ACLU maybe you should recommend that they reinterpret their reading of part of the 1stAM. They seem to think freedom of religion means freedom from religion. They are ALWAYS supporting or bringing to court multiple cases brought by atheists against everything even remotely religious. I'm not a very religious person. But the way they attack 10 commandments displays and cross' in government cemeteries is a little annoying to say the least.

Jer

[Big O]

If your so worried about people demonizing the ACLU maybe you should recommend that they reinterpret their reading of part of the 1stAM. They seem to think freedom of religion means freedom from religion. They are ALWAYS supporting or bringing to court multiple cases brought by atheists against everything even remotely religious. I'm not a very religious person. But the way they attack 10 commandments displays and cross' in government cemeteries is a little annoying to say the least.

Jer

The 1st Ammendment absolutely protects freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

When I go to court whether it is for a speeding ticket or divorce proceedings, I don't want religion shoved down my throat in the form of thou shalt not whatever. I don't believe in the 10 commandments and those that do may practice their belief in their personal homes or houses of worship such as a church all they want. Not displaying religious signs doesn't necessarily support atheism, but displaying them certainly supports religion. Government has no business backing religion of any sort.

Let me put on my flak vest. Ok, you may commence fire now.

[CoinStar]

It's ironic that the gun community is so blindly prejudice of the ACLU in the same way that the anti-gun community is so blindly prejudice of the gun community.

It's not so much ironic as it is just stupid.

We gun nuts need allies. Look at the other arguments being advanced on other threads around here. If we're to believe that enrolling more members into the NRA is a solid strategy for success, then the same would apply to gaining support from other outside groups that tackle constitutional issues.

Since the whole premise of their collective rights take on the 2A is based on a poor interpretation of Miller, etc., it will be hard to maintain that position if Heller clearly affirms a strong individual RKBA.

If that happens, chances are that it will be the gun owners who are members of the ACLU that will push them to resolve what will otherwise be a contradictory position in their statement regarding the 2A.

That people who are hung up on the idea that the ACLU is the enemy somehow, for whatever vague here and there reason they cite (or fail to cite), absolutely floor me.

Pick and choose your battles. Yeah... I'm not thrilled by every item that the ACLU takes action on, but I don't believe in chucking cute little babies out with the bath water either.

[aileron]

If your so worried about people demonizing the ACLU maybe you should recommend that they reinterpret their reading of part of the 1stAM. They seem to think freedom of religion means freedom from religion. They are ALWAYS supporting or bringing to court multiple cases brought by atheists against everything even remotely religious. I'm not a very religious person. But the way they attack 10 commandments displays and cross' in government cemeteries is a little annoying to say the least.

Jer

Separation of church and state is a big deal. Most of the time you will be defending against religion in government or religious opression, not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Modern

When its your faith being fought, it sucks, but ultimatly its your freedom to choose for yourself that is more at risk.

[simonov]

It's not so much ironic as it is just stupid.

We gun nuts need allies. Look at the other arguments being advanced on other threads around here. If we're to believe that enrolling more members into the NRA is a solid strategy for success, then the same would apply to gaining support from other outside groups that tackle constitutional issues.

Well said.

Sadly, the gun nut community includes far too many people with the tinfoil screwed on too tightly.

[MudCamper]

If your so worried about people demonizing the ACLU maybe you should recommend that they reinterpret their reading of part of the 1stAM. They seem to think freedom of religion means freedom from religion. They are ALWAYS supporting or bringing to court multiple cases brought by atheists against everything even remotely religious.

Here's are just a few of dozens of cases where they support your religion:

ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School (http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.html)

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html)

ACLU of Louisiana Files Lawsuit to Protect Free Speech Rights of Christian Protestor (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/27266prs20061027.html)

They go on and on and on. The ACLU treats Christians, nazis, NAMBLA all the same. They are all, like it or not, American Citizens, equally deserving of their Constitutional rights. And therein is where the hate comes from. People don't like that they support some other group that they hate. The Bill of Rights is a ***** isn't it.

[rbgaynor]

The 1st Ammendment absolutely protects freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

When I go to court whether it is for a speeding ticket or divorce proceedings, I don't want religion shoved down my throat in the form of thou shalt not whatever. I don't believe in the 10 commandments and those that do may practice their belief in their personal homes or houses of worship such as a church all they want. Not displaying religious signs doesn't necessarily support atheism, but displaying them certainly supports religion. Government has no business backing religion of any sort.

Let me put on my flak vest. Ok, you may commence fire now.

Well said.

[Patriot]

Look what happens when I'm off being studious and gainfully employed instead of shooting off my mouth on the internet... :p

The 1st Ammendment absolutely protects freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

When I go to court whether it is for a speeding ticket or divorce proceedings, I don't want religion shoved down my throat in the form of thou shalt not whatever. I don't believe in the 10 commandments and those that do may practice their belief in their personal homes or houses of worship such as a church all they want. Not displaying religious signs doesn't necessarily support atheism, but displaying them certainly supports religion. Government has no business backing religion of any sort.

The First Amendment does not provide absolute protection according to the courts. Although saying "absolute" is fair enough as a figure of speech, it is not particularly accurate. Nowhere does the 1A guarantee freedom from religion. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Talk about hypersensitivity. I guess we should tears down all the statues of white people then because they clearly express government preference for a specific race, violating the Equal Protection clause. On second thought, tear down all male statues as well because they are gender discriminatory. :rolleyes: If all it takes to quote "shove religion down your throat" is posting a set of moral rules which you deem "religious signs," you need to lighten up a bit. It is neither law nor policy. It symbolizes law and morality, and is there out of deference to our history and tradition as much as anything else. I don't hear complaints about the statues of the goddesses Libertas or Justitia [lady liberty and the blind justice lady with the sword for the culturally illiterate]. Thanks to the Establishment Clause, the first four commandments are unenforceable (even if they were law) and the latter six are pretty universally recognized as moral principles.


We gun nuts need allies. Look at the other arguments being advanced on other threads around here. If we're to believe that enrolling more members into the NRA is a solid strategy for success, then the same would apply to gaining support from other outside groups that tackle constitutional issues.

Since the whole premise of their collective rights take on the 2A is based on a poor interpretation of Miller, etc., it will be hard to maintain that position if Heller clearly affirms a strong individual RKBA.

If that happens, chances are that it will be the gun owners who are members of the ACLU that will push them to resolve what will otherwise be a contradictory position in their statement regarding the 2A.

That people who are hung up on the idea that the ACLU is the enemy somehow, for whatever vague here and there reason they cite (or fail to cite), absolutely floor me.

Pick and choose your battles. Yeah... I'm not thrilled by every item that the ACLU takes action on, but I don't believe in chucking cute little babies out with the bath water either.

When you convert the ACLU from the inside, perhaps us naysayers will reconsider. Said eventuality seems unlikely to me, hence my reluctance to fund the bad with the good in the meantime. In the foreseeable future, I'd imagine ACLU support for the 2A will be pro forma and grudgingly lent given the ideological bent of many within the organization.

Separation of church and state is a big deal. Most of the time you will be defending against religion in government or religious opression, not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Modern

When its your faith being fought, it sucks, but ultimatly its your freedom to choose for yourself that is more at risk.

I must be missing all this religious oppression on the part of the government. IMO credible arguments to that effect went out with blue laws. Now if by religious oppression you mean trying to purge any religious expression down to and including the personal level in any public arena, perhaps. Please note that only government representatives can violate the Establishment Clause. Talking religion may offend you; talk of guns may offend others. But speech by private persons is and should be broadly protected, including religious speech.

Establishment Clause issues
-'In God We Trust' motto on coinage
-10 Commandments on public buildings
-Congress opening with a chaplain
-Cross statues on public land
-Equal funding of faith-based charities

Free Exercise issues
-Being threatened with soliciting charges for distributing literature on public property (unwarranted per SCOTUS rulings)
-Being singled out and denied fair use of public facilities such parks and government buildings
-Arbitrary discrimination against religious topics, clubs, or paraphernalia on public campuses
-Not being allowed to say anything about faith or religion in a valedictorian speech

One of these groupings, IMO, is quite obviously more substantial when it comes to actual harms or infringement.

Here's are just a few of dozens of cases where they support your religion:

ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School (http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.html)

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html)

ACLU of Louisiana Files Lawsuit to Protect Free Speech Rights of Christian Protestor (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/27266prs20061027.html)

They go on and on and on. The ACLU treats Christians, nazis, NAMBLA all the same. They are all, like it or not, American Citizens, equally deserving of their Constitutional rights. And therein is where the hate comes from. People don't like that they support some other group that they hate. The Bill of Rights is a ***** isn't it.

:confused: Select anecdotes proving what? Asserting that the ACLU treats all groups the same is just silly. They take cases that further their interests. Yes, the ACLU has taken a handful of 2A and free exercise cases. That doesn't change the big picture, namely that the ACLU takes a hyperexpansive view of certain rights while their support of others is anemic at best.

Constant litigation is a great way to mess with balance of powers BTW IMO. Power sharing becomes power leeching as the judiciary accrues more power by being asked to legislate from the bench. It also tilts things toward federal influence since cases get bumped up to SCOTUS, whose rulings become federal law.

To quote myself (O vanity... :p):

If I understand this whole "civil libertarian" thing correctly, they usually end up championing the right things (fundamental rights, liberty) but going about it the wrong way ("living document" judicial activism, overextension of federal power, etc.), with a result that isn't really that compatible with my ideas regarding republican government and true libertarianism

To quote a selection from SCOTUS I am rather fond of:

It seems to us that reflects the erroneous view that there is only one side to this controversy -- that one disposition can expand a "liberty" of sorts without contracting an equivalent "liberty" on the other side. Such a happy choice is rarely available. [...] [This] approach chooses one of them as the constitutional imperative, on no apparent basis except that the unconventional is to be preferred.

IMO, the ACLU takes such strong stances on certain issues (if not unilaterally - as you point out - then for the most part) that they leave little room for the freedoms or rights of the other side.

The ACLU's public reputation is not exactly stellar (and really, which down-and-dirt advocacy group's is?).

Positive connotations - Perceived as supporting:
-Free speech
-4th Amendment
-Separation of church/state (we'll throw that one in there)

Negative connotations - Perceived as supporting:
-Pedophiles
-Child pornographers
-Extremists/radicalism

[Big O]

The First Amendment does not provide absolute protection according to the courts.
I'd like a reference please.
Although saying "absolute" is fair enough as a figure of speech, it is not particularly accurate. Nowhere does the 1A guarantee freedom from religion. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, am I wrong to interpret this to say religion does not exist in the eyes of the law (other than protecting one's right to it)? Since there is no law establishing it, nor prohibiting it, it must be fair game, up to the every person to choose for themselves if they want to practice religion, what religion they want to practice, where they want to practice it and when they want to practice it. When you hang something up on a wall, it is usually a symbol of guidance, conduct, something you promote, something that whoever looks at it should be looking up to, reminding everyone passing by it that this is what we want to be known for, remembered for, recognized for. I'm not saying thou shalt not kill is wrong and opposite of what I believe in, but it represents the bible, it comes from the bible and I don't want the bible to influence how the law applies to me or the sentence I should receive, or claim I should win. If you want to hang excerpts of the penal code, Bill of Rights, the Constitution, I'd be all for it. But it is naive to accept excerpts from a book which promotes murder, rape and slavery. Few of humanity's many magnificent accomplishments.

As far as morality, the role of the government is not one to decide what is moral and what is not. You can't legislate morality so there is no reason for it to be displayed in legislative or judicial buildings. For the most part, it should be irrelevant to the decisions made in those institutions.

[Patriot]

I'd like a reference please.


If Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, am I wrong to interpret this to say religion does not exist in the eyes of the law (other than protecting one's right to it)? Since there is no law establishing it, nor prohibiting it, it must be fair game, up to the every person to choose for themselves if they want to practice religion, what religion they want to practice, where they want to practice it and when they want to practice it. When you hang something up on a wall, it is usually a symbol of guidance, conduct, something you promote, something that whoever looks at it should be looking up to, reminding everyone passing by it that this is what we want to be known for, remembered for, recognized for. I'm not saying thou shalt not kill is wrong and opposite of what I believe in, but it represents the bible, it comes from the bible and I don't want the bible to influence how the law applies to me or the sentence I should receive, or claim I should win. If you want to hang excerpts of the penal code, Bill of Rights, the Constitution, I'd be all for it. But it is naive to accept excerpts from a book which promotes murder, rape and slavery. Few of humanity's many magnificent accomplishments.

As far as morality, the role of the government is not one to decide what is moral and what is not. You can't legislate morality so there is no reason for it to be displayed in legislative or judicial buildings. For the most part, it should be irrelevant to the decisions made in those institutions.

Okay, fine. Roberts v United States Jaycees (1984)

The right to associate for expressive purposes is not, however, absolute. Infringements on that right may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.

1A is compromised of multiple clauses, none of which can be said to be absolute, as there are well recognized limits to freedom of speech, of press, of assembly, of religious exercise, and so on and so forth.

You are welcome to interpret it however you want, but I'd have a hard time finding that meaning in a plain reading of the text.

If you really think 10 commandment decor is violating your right to a fair trial, sue and see how far you get...

The government decides for the most part what is lawful and unlawful. Laws most certainly impose a version of morality.

[Big O]

Okay, fine. Roberts v United States Jaycees (1984)
This case has to do with the right to freedom of association. The Supreme Court found that "the Jaycees organization is a business in that it sells goods and extends privileges in exchange for annual membership dues." We are talking about legislative houses such as state capitol buildings and courts. Even though related, the freedom of association and freedom of religion (as well as from religion) are not the same. If you are saying that the freedom of religion is not absolute, just like freedom of speech is not absolute (like yelling fire in a crowded theater), I may be able to accept it even though I can't think of anything that doesn't justify the word absolute. Perhaps if one decided to follow the bible's word and actually stone to death a woman who is not a virgin when she marries, that person would be guilty of murder and his freedom of religion would be violated insofar as not being able to follow his religion's instructions and carry out a heinous crime.


You are welcome to interpret it however you want, but I'd have a hard time finding that meaning in a plain reading of the text.
If a word for word straight copy and paste from the bible to the courtroom wall is not enough for you to see the relationship, I don't know what is. I don't know how to put this lightly, but consider the possibility of ignorance.


The government decides for the most part what is lawful and unlawful. Laws most certainly impose a version of morality.
Yes, the government does do that. Who elects the government? Of the people, for the people.


If you really think 10 commandment decor is violating your right to a fair trial, sue and see how far you get...
And we come full circle. I haven't sued, but many have. Successfully.

[Patriot]

This case has to do with the right to freedom of association. The Supreme Court found that "the Jaycees organization is a business in that it sells goods and extends privileges in exchange for annual membership dues." We are talking about legislative houses such as state capitol buildings and courts. Even though related, the freedom of association and freedom of religion (as well as from religion) are not the same. If you are saying that the freedom of religion is not absolute, just like freedom of speech is not absolute (like yelling fire in a crowded theater), I may be able to accept it even though I can't think of anything that doesn't justify the word absolute. Perhaps if one decided to follow the bible's word and actually stone to death a woman who is not a virgin when she marries, that person would be guilty of murder and his freedom of religion would be violated insofar as not being able to follow his religion's instructions and carry out a heinous crime.

I selected that example because it had a nice turn of phrase. My point is that no First Amendment guarantees are absolute (with generic free speech probably coming the closest). Even free speech has limitations such as obscenity, defamation, fighting words, etc. You stated "The 1st Ammendment absolutely protects freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion." Reading an absolute guarantee to/from religion into the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses seems implausible to me - others objections temporarily aside - because of their [frequently] inverse relationship. You cannot have anything approaching an absolute right to both.

If a word for word straight copy and paste from the bible to the courtroom wall is not enough for you to see the relationship, I don't know what is. I don't know how to put this lightly, but consider the possibility of ignorance.

I see. It follows that, because I disagree with you, I am ignorant. Your view is plainly superior, prima facie. Now about this issue of transcription...

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/cgpatriot/moses.jpg

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/cgpatriot/05TenCommandmentsfloorNationalArchi.jpg

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/cgpatriot/Copy20of20Carving20of20Ten20Command.jpg

Back to the topic of ACLU 2A litigation, be careful what you wish for. The ACLU has been known in the past in instances where its support could best be described as grudging to file amici or otherwise muddle things in a case in a manner similar to the Solicitor General in Heller. That is, they weigh in promoting a damaging standard that isn't very helpful and undercuts existing efforts. Sklar v Clough (GA federal district court) is a recent case in point - the ACLU filed an amici undercutting the free speech side and proposing a pro forma adjustment of the "margins" of the policy at question. BTW, I do not personally agree with the free speech at question here, but it is certainly a valid free speech claim.

And we come full circle. I haven't sued, but many have. Successfully.

My turn to ask for references. I would be intrigued to see a case in which the plaintiff won a "fair trial" suit on the grounds that 10 commandments decor violated their right to a fair trial, due process, etc.

[Big O]

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case in 2005 regarding the 10 Commandments in a Kentucky courtroom. The displays were removed. You wanted somebody that won based on fair trial and due process. I don't think that's how this case was argued, but the result is the same. Here is a link (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-1693).

Another link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_s1.htm) to a page that lists several cases. This goes more into the separation between church and state, religious displays other than 10 Commandments. There have been wins on both sides. This really takes this thread into new territory, not sure if it's within forum rules.

You're right on the absolutism. It was poorly used on my part. I should have said 1st Amendment certainly guarantees the right to freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

I apologize for the ignorant comment. I went back and looked and realized what I was referring to as ignorant was a response to another post. I thought you meant you could not find a similarity between 10 Commandments on a courtroom wall versus 10 Commandments in the bible, which the only way I could not see similarities would be if I ignore one, hence the harsh comment.

[Scarecrow Repair]

To all those who think posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses is ok, I say the same thing as to those who claim prayer in schools is illegal:

Put "In Buddha We Trust" on coins. Bring in a satanist for city council prayers. See how happy you are when the local voodoo witch wants to slaughter a chicken. Put Zen koans on courthouse walls.

Until you are absolutely ecstatic with those changes, don't preach to me how the current examples aren't tied to a specific religion.

[Patriot]

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case in 2005 regarding the 10 Commandments in a Kentucky courtroom. The displays were removed. You wanted somebody that won based on fair trial and due process. I don't think that's how this case was argued, but the result is the same. Here is a link (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-1693).

Another link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_s1.htm) to a page that lists several cases. This goes more into the separation between church and state, religious displays other than 10 Commandments. There have been wins on both sides. This really takes this thread into new territory, not sure if it's within forum rules.

The "Lemon Test" is kind of ambiguous, contributing - as you note - to "wins on both sides." I don't think we're breaking any forum rules so long as we remain civil and don't go too far afield. There is room for discussion on the extent to which symbols which have a religious origin constitute establishment, but when they become part of history/tradition and are fairly unobtrusive... Now if you had something that solely religious, such as a "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life" sign or a crucifix in the courthouse there would be much stronger establishment grounds IMO. Anyhow, I feel the ACLU is a bit reactionary in this regard.

Why something was decided usually matters almost as much as what was decided when it comes to court cases with an eye to precedent. When you said

When you hang something up on a wall, it is usually a symbol of guidance, conduct, something you promote, something that whoever looks at it should be looking up to, reminding everyone passing by it that this is what we want to be known for, remembered for, recognized for. I'm not saying thou shalt not kill is wrong and opposite of what I believe in, but it represents the bible, it comes from the bible and I don't want the bible to influence how the law applies to me or the sentence I should receive, or claim I should win.

I just assumed you were concerned with its influence on a fair trial as opposed to pure establishment concerns.

[Patriot]

To all those who think posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses is ok, I say the same thing as to those who claim prayer in schools is illegal:

Put "In Buddha We Trust" on coins. Bring in a satanist for city council prayers. See how happy you are when the local voodoo witch wants to slaughter a chicken. Put Zen koans on courthouse walls.

Until you are absolutely ecstatic with those changes, don't preach to me how the current examples aren't tied to a specific religion.

Which religion would that be? Judaism? Christianity?

I for one wouldn't really care if that was on coinage. I dislike FDR but still use dimes, e.g. You're disregarding the fact that Buddhism doesn't really have much of a basis in the history/traditions of our country. Furthermore, "god" may be considered generic but "Buddha" certainly is not.

As I pointed out previously, vestiges of pagan religiosity have been preserved in public buildings as part of culture/traditions:

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/symbols/justice.html

[CoinStar]

When you convert the ACLU from the inside, perhaps us naysayers will reconsider. Said eventuality seems unlikely to me, hence my reluctance to fund the bad with the good in the meantime. In the foreseeable future, I'd imagine ACLU support for the 2A will be pro forma and grudgingly lent given the ideological bent of many within the organization.

For the record, I didn't, nor am I now encouraging anyone to "fund" anything, including the ACLU.
To each their own.

I can understand your dismissive attitude regarding the idea that the ACLU might change its not-so "neutral" position on the 2A if a favorable ruling in Heller is handed down. But it's beside the point.

What I'm saying is that if that were to happen, it would be a plus for us gun nuts. Further, if it indeed came down like that, anyone who was unwilling to accept the help of the ACLU in future RKBA endeavors would be doing a disservice to the cause. That would include those who weren't willing to look past the other issues they take with the ACLU on non-RKBA subjects.

I'm more than willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with people that I do not like if they at least share the same sentiments that I do on the RKBA.

As I said, we need allies, not more enemies.