The Fair and Balanced ACLU. These guys are SO funny!

[Toad]

Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
As always, we welcome your comments.

So, the ACLU supports all of your liberties and rights except the ones with which they don't agree. These guys are too funny!

If you want to pass a little time, here's the link to their blog with comments on that statement.

They're getting blistered by all posters, including ACLU members.

If you ever needed any more evidence that the ACLU was not an impartial defender of the Constitution, I don't see this can fail to be that evidence.

[Kaw1000]

ACLU           

[Fulmar]

[midnight Target]

Soooooo...

Since the ACLU disagrees with the SC they are hypocrites? Funny Toad. There are many many people in this country who disagree with the SC. They may be wrong, but they are not idiots nor are they hypocrites. They are well meaning intelligent people with a point of view that differs from your own. I guess that means we should hang 'em.

[Hornet33]

Well considering that the Bill of Rights are there for ALL citizens, how can one, the 2nd, only be a collective right? That makes absolutely no sense at all, and yes anyone who cannot understand common sense is an idiot.

[Mojava]

 I agree with the ACLU, the SC did leave the amendment too vague.

[moot]

I don't recall the exact wordings and who said what, but IIRC the SC ruling was only a little vague.  The comments (sorry, can't recall the exact name for it) by one of the Justices that went with the ruling were anything but vague, though.  Nothing ambiguous anywhere in his statement.  Charon and Toad (if not others too) covered it pretty well, probably lumped in the general gun thread now.

[Toad]

MT, excuse me for clipping a succint summation of the problem. This from the ACLU blog.

From an interview that I saw regarding the ACLU NAMBLA case, they explained that they did not support or assert the notion that a person’s civil rights were being infringed upon by laws preventing them from having sex with underage boys. They explained that they were taking the case because they felt that legal precedent was lacking and it would be beneficial to establish a more codified position.

OK. So what they are telling me is that SC interpretation is needed and that they respect the rulings of the SC. In fact, much of the activities of the ACLU has been bringing cases in order to establish legal precedent through cases. At its foundation, they are deferring to the rulings of the legal system as being the final arbitrator of precedent and the rule of law.

And then we get this….

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.[/color]

They have literally stated that they disagree with the SC and that they are therefore– by dissenting– suggested a fallibility of the very entity which they have touted and relied upon as the final arbitrator of codified rights.

What they are saying is that the SC is the final word– unless it goes against our viewpoint.

By the statement I have quoted, the ACLU has now identified itself as an organization who is more interested in social engineering rather than codification of rights.

[ZetaNine]

"...... unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation...........""

their collective campaign of frivolous lawsuits over the last few decades is in itself, sickening.  they are a burden on our courts.

[Maverick]

I'm curious, what are the other "collective rights" in the Bill of Rights? Secondly what are the defining points of the "collective" so that an individual knows if they qualify to be protected under the collective's right(s).

[Yeager]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed = Individual Right.

Will not surrender this right ever.

[Shamus]

I agree with the ACLU's position on most of the Bill of Rights, I have however always felt that their stance on the 2nd amendment was wrong.

I have searched all my life for a group or individual whose opinions matched mine 100%, have yet to find one.

shamus   

[Anaxogoras]

Just what exactly is a "collective right?"  By definition a right is something that belongs to an individual.

[Toad]

Shamus, it's not if they are an exact match for YOUR opinions in legal cases.

It's whether or not they can profess that a SC decision is the final say in cases where the ruling goes their way and then totally ignore the SC decision when they don't agree with it.

If they are truly there to defend our rights then they have to defend the SC individual right in the 2nd as vigorously as they defend the free speech of NAMBLA.

But we all know they won't.

Anyone want to make a wager on the ACLU defending the individual right in the next court case? Think they'll be on the side of the plaintiff in the new Chicago 2nd Amendment case just filed?

[BGBMAW]

ACLU should be put in prison for treason