The ACLU supports gun rights and Limbaugh---and the righties still whine about them

I don't really recall ACLU ever taking a strong stand for or against guns, but might be wrong about that. They seem more interested in other civil liberties most of the time. I mean, gun control is something government does and ACLU specializes in being against government most of the times it tries to prove a Constitutional point.
But I don't know if the group might have filed friend of the court type briefs in gun control cases in the past.
I do know Ron Kube, William Kunstler's protege and a high profile civil libertarian, is pro gun ownership.

Why, those scum-sucking, lib-loving, patriot-hating, terrorist-embracing, gawdless crypto commie socialistic Obamanationers what be the ACLU, they...oh, no, wait a sec...um...uh...ahummahumma...
.
~The Uniformed Riiiight

The ACLU has historically not supported an Individuals right to bear arms. Rather, they have supported the States collective rights.

For those of us that see the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, the ACLU has not been of much help.

On most issues, I support the ACLU, but not when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

ACLU Supports Gun Rights - Shouldn't this be a given as the second amendment is an individual right that needs protecting?

the case in point is they took a drug dealing criminal's gun away and everybody knows a brother without a gun has no street cred in the hood.

the case in point is they took a drug dealing criminal's gun away and everybody knows a brother without a gun has no street cred in the hood.

#6 | Posted by semtex111 at 2009-07-04 10:12 AM

Send him to Los Angeles. He'll have a gun in an hour sold out of the trunk of someone's car.

from the article

...The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday filed the federal suit on behalf of Errol Houston Jr., who was arrested last year following a traffic stop....

Why is it the ACLU always seems to want to rush to the aid of the scum of the Earth?

Yes, I know all the legalities in play, etc., but still....

I love the way you people take stuff out of context.
The man was never prosecuted. He is not a felon. He can still legally own that hand gun.

Opinion poll from the story:
Which right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights do you value most?
religion ( 21% )
speech ( 30% )
press ( 2% )
keep & bear arms ( 33% )
protection from unreasonable search and seizure ( 8% )
due process (speedy trial or trial by jury) ( 3% )
freedom of assembly ( 3% )
right to petition ( 2% )

Sorting by percentage

keep & bear arms ( 33% )
speech ( 30% )
religion ( 21% )
protection from unreasonable search and seizure ( 8% )
due process (speedy trial or trial by jury) ( 3% )
freedom of assembly ( 3% )
right to petition ( 2% )
press ( 2% )

To paraphrase Mao, all rights derive from the barrel of a gun.

So Zat, although they decided not to prosecute are you saying it was a false arrest by the police?

...A New Orleans man is suing the city and its district attorney for refusing to give back a gun that police seized when he was arrested on drug and firearms charges.

" are you saying it was a false arrest by the police?"

If I was I'd say it.
I'm saying it was theft by police.

"Why would the DA choose not to prosecute?"

Ask him.

""Why would the DA choose not to prosecute?"

Probably can't find the evidence. I hear it happens pretty often. Just can't imagine what happens to it.

I think the ACLU is viewing this as a property rights issue, not a "right to bear arms" issue.

In some localities it is nearly impossible to get anything back once seized by the authorities; i.e. your car is stolen and used in a crime, items burglarized from your house, something illegally seized by U.S. Customs because they thought the item might be illegal or prohibited, cash confiscated by the TSA because they believed it to be a "large amount" and you could not prove you earned it legally and had no evil intent for its use.

~Riiiight

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-07-04 06:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .........

right-hand paralysis ... typical sign of chronic alcohol poisoning

religion ( 21% )
speech ( 30% )
press ( 2% )
keep & bear arms ( 33% )
protection from unreasonable search and seizure ( 8% )
due process (speedy trial or trial by jury) ( 3% )
freedom of assembly ( 3% )
right to petition ( 2% )

#9 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-07-04 10:23 AM

The 3rd amendment is one of my favorites.

"Just can't imagine what happens to it."

Probably went up in smoke.

"The 3rd amendment is one of my favorites."

#17 | Posted by Roy_Batty

The second amendment protects the others.

The second amendment protects the others.

tinypic.com

#19 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-07-04 11:14 AM

It's funny you posted that link.

As I sit here in my ham shack, I'm wearing a T-shirt with that very same phrase on it.

And tomorrow I'm going out to a range, and break in my AR-15 :-)

As a former ACLU chapter board chair, I concur with the observation that for the ACLU it's not a gun rights issue but a property rights issue. It seems to be that there's general ACLU agreement that the second amendment authorizes state militias and does not give every macho jerk license to blow away his neighbors. herm

AIt seems to be that there's general ACLU agreement that the second amendment authorizes state militias and does not give every macho jerk license to blow away his neighbors. herm

#21 | Posted by herm at 2009-07-04 11:50 AM

Darn it! I thought the ACLU would support my right to commit murder.

does not give every macho jerk license to blow away his neighbors. herm

And thousands of laws are in place for that scenario.

-----

If he is no longer charged with a crime and allowed to have his property--they should return it to him.

Darn it! I thought the ACLU would support my right to commit murder.

olny if you killed someone in the commission of a crime.

The 2nd Ammendment has got along quite well without the ACLU's support until now.

So who gives a rip.

Duh. Their name is American Civil Liberties Union.

Only fascists oppose the ACLU. It is just about the most pro-American values organization in existence.

never joined but thought about it a few times...then they pissed me off again...

forget what it was now

right-hand paralysis ... typical sign of chronic alcohol poisoning
#16 | Posted by vernon

Hope you get better soon, Vermin. In the meantime, use your left claw or right hoof to stroke your tiny ego to the customary not-so-happy finish.

As a liberal, I support the freedom to own a gun--or guns. However, such right was never written into the Constitution. The framers at the time would have thought writing in such a right would have been foolish, since---at the time---every person could have a gun--it was a GIVEN. It would have been like putting into the Constitution that everyone had the right to own a horse. Why write something that is so obvious into the Constitution---of COURSE everyone has the right to own a gun--just as today it is obvious everyone has the same right to own a car. If we were writing the Constitution today--there would be nothing in it about car ownership---it is a given fact---just as when the Constitution was written, it was a fact that everyone could own a gun--so why make a big deal out of it.

What the citizens COULDN'T do was form up large armies---militias---that could oppose the government. Governments didn't like that sort of thing---they still don't. What the framers meant in the second amendment was to protect the States from a strong central government. The framers knew that there might be some guys taking over that weren't as freedom loving as they were, and those guys might terrorize the States. So, they wrote the second amendment to give the States the right to protect themselves from a dominant central government. A new concept of freedom for the world to see---a balance of military power within one country. Unprecedented.

4 of the judges on the Supreme Court tried to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately, they were overruled by 5 Activist Judges who changed the meaning of every word in the Second Amendment to mean what they wanted it to mean. The words "the people" never means "an individual" in any context I have heard it used---other than people trying to cram it into the Second Amendment.

#30 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-04 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Still failing American history and constitutional law, and still makes up shit.

#31 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-07-04 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Still talking shit and never makes a point.

Buffalo: Yea well. If you've read Thomas Jefferson's personal writings, he wanted the people to have the ability to form a militia if the government ever oversteps its boundaries. He clearly saw the right of an individual to have a gun as more than the right to own a horse

"What the citizens COULDN'T do was form up large armies---militias---that could oppose the government. Governments didn't like that sort of thing---they still don't."

duh...

maybe Data needs MMS, too?:>)

duh...

#34 | Posted by Bani at 2009-07-04 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good point. Taking lessons from Zat?

How many Winger heads will explode when they hear that the ACLU is DEFENDING the 2nd Amendment?

OCU

I just found the perfect gun for California Chris.

Good point. Taking lessons from Zat?

#35 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I guess Quetzcoatl had a pointy head

What the Second Amendment says:

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.

What the gun rights activists wishes it said:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the individual to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What the 5 Activist Supreme Court Judges say it says.

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such rights may be infringed as the government sees fit.

4 of the judges on the Supreme Court tried to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately, they were overruled by 5 Activist Judges who changed the meaning of every word in the Second Amendment to mean what they wanted it to mean. The words "the people" never means "an individual" in any context I have heard it used---other than people trying to cram it into the Second Amendment.

#30 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-04 03:24 PM

You may wish to look at the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Using your assertion that the People refers to the states, the 1st amendment only gives the states the right to assemble.

The right to own a gun existed before the constitution was even written, what the 2nd amendment guarantees, is the the government cannot make a law to take that right away.

Here's another one:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I guess the states have nothing to worry about when the police come to search.

The rest of us individuals don't have this right according to Bbob.

Kitty rifle ...

#40 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2009-07-04 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

I never said the Poeple refers to the States--wtf are you talking about. I said the people does not mean an individual.

As stated---"the people" does not refer to an individual in any context. In the 1st amendment, refers to more than one individual.

What you are trying to say is that the first amendment gives an individual the right to peaceably assemble alone. No---it gives groups of people the right to assemble peaceably.

And I see you ignore post #39.

I guess the states have nothing to worry about when the police come to search.

The States have the State Militia--the National Guard as it's known now--which is why the Second Amendment was written--to allow the States to protect themselves from a strong central government as stated in post #30.

The rest of us individuals don't have this right according to Bbob.

Don't speak for me--you aren't bright enough. As stated in post #30---I support the right to bear arms. I just state it is not in the Constitution--and why. Try to address that facts before your speak---read what I have said before you tell others what I have said or think.

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms because it ISN'T in the Constitution. The Constitution only gives the States the right to unrestricted weapons and the right to raise an army, in order to protect the States from a strong, evil, central government.

What isn't in the Constitution is left to the States. That would mean the individual right to bear arms.

#41 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2009-07-04 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Send him to Los Angeles. He'll have a gun in an hour sold out of the trunk of someone's car.

#7 | Posted by CalifChris

If he can fake a Mexican accent, he can get whatever he wants closer to home-like Texas.

"Texas"

Not here.
He needs to check with the Houston cops.

Maybe BLT is paying for his library card as a straw man gun buyer.

Just look at whats been going on in Iran where guns are banned to civilins. If the protesters had weapons it would make the gov think twice about how they have delt with this BS election. I admire the protesters zeal and resolve, but lets ship them some AK's.

Hey Zat, always fun reading your wisdom.

Rodeglide

The protesters there are the same as the protesters here. Maybe you'd be happy if the protesters here started a shooting war with the government. That you think the Zit has wisdom shows your lack of it.

Someone should bring a RICO charge against the mayor of NOLA and his goon police force.

No doubt the Constitution was written by people who had just fought a revolution a few years before. They certainly meant "militia" as they had understood the term: organized, armed revolutionaries. They wanted to enshrine the right to revolt.
But I concur with the recent court decision, which brings to issue the evolution of weapons since muzzle loaders. Few protest the 2nd Amendment is violated if one can not own an unregistered Thompson .45 machinegun. It can be owned in some places, but not without oppressive federal oversight.
Just a thought to all the Lincoln worshipers out there. Before the Civil War, a state had the power to prohibit firearms ownership. After the "Radical Republicans" altered the Constitution, it became a guaranteed right on the state level. The founders did not want that state right eclipsed by federal guarantees of individual freedoms, which were to apply only to the federal government under our original system.
I agree with the founders. Let the states compete for loyalty. Make the feds stay out of the way.
That way, the gays will stay in their states, the evangelicals in others and we can stop having morality campaigns every two and four years on the federal level.

I never said the Poeple refers to the States--wtf are you talking about. I said the people does not mean an individual.

As stated---"the people" does not refer to an individual in any context. In the 1st amendment, refers to more than one individual.

What you are trying to say is that the first amendment gives an individual the right to peaceably assemble alone. No---it gives groups of people the right to assemble peaceably.

And I see you ignore post #39.

#44 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-04 04:56 PM

I think you should twist your logic some more. If you twist it hard enough, it might actually make sense.

Now enough of this, I'm off to the rifle range, for a day of shooting... As is my right.

Don't believe the people have a right to have guns, just look at Iran and you should then question your belief.

Roy Batty

You take too many words to say nothing. You can't refute what I say, so you turn it into a personal attack. Get some logic and get back to me when you can use words to express your thoughts rather than insults.

#54 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-07-05 08:55 AM | Reply | Flag

What could possibly make you think guns would make things better in Iran? Do you think if our protesters started shooting up our country that it would make things better too?

Yes, the ACLU supports gun rights. IF it means returning a gun to a criminal. What a joke.

The ACLU goes out of it's way to help criminals, but not law abiding citizens. Has the ACLU filed any lawsuits to support law abiding citizens carrying guns? In a word: No.

The ACLU goes out of it's way to help criminals, but not law abiding citizens.

One of the many reasons i believe rightwingers are stupid is based in their knee-jerk opposition to the ACLU. They don't seem to understand that the Constitution protects everyone, not just people who are socially popular or acceptable. The ACLU has no hesitance to represent rightwingers when Constitutional rights are being threatened. But being stupid sheep, rightwingers just don't get it.

Um, YAV, the link that you cited about the ACLU helping Rush? Well, that just further made my point. The ACLU filed a motion in the criminal investigation against Rush. The ACLU was once again helping a criminal, not a law abiding citizen. This is not about Republican or Democrat, and the fact that you keep saying it is doesn't make it so.

The ACLU supports gun rights

#1 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Yaaaaaaaaa. They have been a real champion of the second amendment in the past. Get real buf.

well good for them but I am still skeptical of it

and they should be for it

look at almost every instance of people being beaten and killed while protesting a government and you will see that many more times than not, that country has no 2nd amendment or anything like it
in other words..the dictatorial governments wont allow people to have that right..

mmm no wonder obama wants to do away with this right...

I never said the Poeple refers to the States--wtf are you talking about. I said the people does not mean an individual.

#44 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Amendment I
; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

Amendment II
, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

Amendment X
, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I don't know how you can say they are NOT individual rights. Society is made up of individuals and you can't give a group some freedom without giving it to each individual. A group can not have more rights that the people that make up the group.

I bet you that the man whose gun was seized and nokt returned was "a minority," and that the guns seized from minorities were "disproportionately" retained. The odds are great that the subtext has a racial element in it.

Sniper

All those things you listed talk about groups of people. Not an individual. They talk of generalities.

The founders never gave the right to own a firearm to an individual---they would have considered such a law incredibly stupis and not worthy of putting it in the Constitution. Just like they didn't put in the right to swords or knives. Everybody already had such a right--why put it into law. What the people DIDN'T have a right to do was to raise a militia that could challenge the Central Government is it went bad. The founders knew that individuals could never stand up to a strong--evil--central government army. So they gave the people the right to raise their own militia for the protection of the States. The founders never intended for individuals to have an unrestricted right to arms--they would never have said such a thing--they wouldn't allow individuals to load up with cannons and guns and form their own defensive compounds and in time their own little kingdoms. No--they always wanted restrictions on individual rights to weapons---but that isn't what the second amendments says is it---the second amenments says the right to bear arms shall NOT be resricted. That only makes sense if they are talking about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Not a mob of untrained shooters who would do more damage than good.

What the Second Amendment says:

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.

What the gun rights activists wishes it said:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the individual to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What the 5 Activist Supreme Court Judges say it says.

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such rights may be infringed as the government sees fit.

look at almost every instance of people being beaten and killed while protesting a government and you will see that many more times than not, that country has no 2nd amendment or anything like it
in other words..the dictatorial governments wont allow people to have that right..

I guess you missed the protests of the sixties--do you think that racial equality would have been more easily achieved had the blacks shot the police and their dogs? Do you think that would have integrated the schools and given them jobs faster?

mmm no wonder obama wants to do away with this right...

See if you can pull a link out of your ass as easily as that statement. You'll need a lot more lube.

#63 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-07-05 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

once again buf, how can you give 'rights' to a group without giving 'rights' to the members of the group?

I guess you are saying that I have to be a member of some group to enjoy the first amendment right of assembly and free speach.

What group do I have to join to enjoy the fourth amendment?

What militia did a person have to belong to back in 1776 to enjoy the second amendment?

When the bill of rights says 'the people' they are refering to individuals.

When the bill of rights says 'the people' they are refering to individuals.

#68 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-07-05 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry--they mean people in general. Many individuals are denied gun rights. People in prison--felons--children. Aren't they "people" also?

I see you are still dodging the logic of posts #30 and post #39, and still sticking to the same nonsense over and over again. Unless you can address those posts--don't waste my time. You've made your statement about it being an individual right and I refuted it. You should be satisfied that 5 Activist Judges on the USSC agreed with you and effectively changed the second amendment to mean an individual right---as shown in post #39

What group do I have to join to enjoy the fourth amendment?

The group of humans known as US Citizen---not in prison or a mental hospital. Lots of unreasonable search and seisures going on there.

What militia did a person have to belong to back in 1776 to enjoy the second amendment?

Gun rights were a given--no need to apply even for a license---no licenses in 1776. The second amendment doesn't apply to individuals. To answer your question--to enjoy the second amendment--you needed to join a well-regulated militia, regulated by the State it was supposed to protect. Individual gun rights are protected because they ARE NOT listed in the Constitution. If it isn't in the Constitution, it is up to the States.

When the bill of rights says 'the people' they are refering to individuals.

Nope--the are talking about citizens of the United States in general---but not all citizens qualify for those rights--as shown.

#68 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-07-05 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag

So you are saying that a person has no rights at all here in the US?

I have to be a US citizen to be elgeble for the 4th but that doesn't get me into the 1st or 2nd amendment? I think you suffer from selective reading.

What milita existed in 1776 for all thoes fine men to join so they could benifit from the 2nd amendment. It wasn't the National Guard. It wasn't the Army Reserve. What was it buf? You say there wern't any gun laws? You are nucking futs. If you recall your history, England was trying to lock up all the US arms.

Sniper

So you are saying that a person has no rights at all here in the US?

Nope--you are the only one saying such a thing. Why would you say that? All rights come from the government.

I have to be a US citizen to be elgeble for the 4th but that doesn't get me into the 1st or 2nd amendment? I think you suffer from selective reading.

You have to be a citizen to be affected by the Constitution. However citizenship does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms---it is a restricted right as stated--do you remember who is restricted? Has it been that long that you forget? Not all members of society are elegible.

What milita existed in 1776 for all thoes fine men to join so they could benifit from the 2nd amendment.

There was no Constitution in 1776. Your point is moot.

It wasn't the National Guard. It wasn't the Army Reserve. What was it buf? You say there wern't any gun laws? You are nucking futs. If you recall your history, England was trying to lock up all the US arms.

Only after the revolution started. Before that--no gun laws.

#71 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-07-05 10:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Okay, okay! Stop. Let's pose a hypothetical situation for the ACLU.
a) If I smoke a joint in my home, is that a civil liberty?
b) If I do it naked, is that as well?
c) If I smoke a joint naked on my porch, is that a constitutional guarantee?
d) If I walk down friggin Main Street with my ACLU lawyer at my side smoking a Jamaican torpedo, butt nekkid with a .50 caliber Israeli Desert Eagle at my beck, how the hell is anyone else affected and that's my damned right, asshole?
Multiple choice with answer E "all of the above."

buf, your whole arguement is based on the assumption ahat all rights come from the government. I don't believe that to be true so we are going to get nowhere fast. If your rights come from the government then you are a slave to that government.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is clear that the people formed the government to serve the people, not formed a government to enslave the people.

Yes, sniper. True. Now try to convince the left or right "domestic tranquility" is a national value.

Sniper

You quote a government document written by the government to tell me that the government does not give us rights. "The People" didn't write that.
But how about that phrase--promote the general welfare? Don't you think that means taking care of the poorest, and looking after the health of the sick of the nation? Or do you think that means---make sure business is taken care of first, and let everyone else look out for themselves?