StopTheACLU: Isn’t the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights?
One would think that an organization that claims it’s purpose is to protect our Constitutional rights would readily defend our second amendment. Sadly, this is not the case. The ACLU is completely absent in defending this right, and while it has not become active in fighting it, its policy clearly shows why they don’t defend it….they don’t believe in it!
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
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.”
Can anyone see the contradiction between the Constitution’s actual text with that of the ACLU?
“Gun prohibitionists often cite this case for the proposition that the court held that the Second Amendment only protected the right of the states` National Guard to have government issued arms (i.e., the “Collective Rights” theory). This is an untruth. In fact, the court held that the entire populace constituted the “militia,” and that the Second Amendment protected the right of the individual to keep and bear militia type arms.”Source
So the ACLU wants to use dated cases to back up its purely politically biased policy? How about this:
“All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.”
“We conclude that the phrase ‘bear arms’ refers
generally to the carrying or wearing of arms. . . [The] argument that
‘bear arms’ was exclusively, or even usually, used to only refer to the carrying or wearing of arms by a soldier or militiaman must be
rejected.”
“We find that the history of the Second Amendment
reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects
individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or
not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.” Fifth Circuit of Appeals 2001
The Supreme Court therefore views the words “the people” in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. If “the people” really meant the right of states to maintain a militia, then we would be left with the absurd notion that only the states have the right to peaceably assemble, only the states have the right to be secure in their persons and property, etc. The Supreme Court’s position is indisputable: the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. Also instructive is the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary,
United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982)
These are much more current sources to use for interpretation than one from 1939! As a matter of fact, see what the Supreme Court has said in 35 other cases on gun rights here.
You will find that in an overwhelming majority of the cases they have
said that the second amendment protects an “individual’s” right to bear arms.
So, if you follow the rationale of the ACLU….I guess
those fine pilgrims who settled this great nation had no right to hunt for food using a gun, or protect their families from wild animals and criminals! As a matter of fact I wouldn’t have those same rights today!
Throughout our history Americans have never been denied their right to own a gun as an individual. Don’t you think Congress would have intervened early in our history if their intentions were as the ACLU believes?
This issue isn’t even about gun control, according to the ACLU we don’t even have the right to own one. What more control do you need?
Any intelligent person who wants to study or debate this issue seriously should start with S. Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment. Professor Levinson of the University of Texas was a devoted liberal who set out to prove that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual’s right to bear arms. To his great embarrassment, he found the evidence to be overwhelmingly to the contrary. He had the integrity to admit it, for which he deserves utmost respect. He does not like gun ownership, any more than I like flag-burning, but he recognized that the right does exist, and is an important inclusion to our rights protected by the constitution, despite whether one likes it or not.
Even the majority of democrats that fight for gun control would not go as far as the ACLU has in it’s philosphy towards the second amendment. Criminals would obtain their weapons illegally anyway, and it would leave the rest of us two choices; go defenseless or become criminals ourselves in the process of securing our own means of protection.
Thank God for the NRA,
and thank God that the ACLU has not been active in pushing it’s
interpretation of the second amendment. Let’s hope it stays that way.
In parting I leave you with some quotes.
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves….all men capable of bearing arms
….”…..Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, Additional Letters, from the Federal Farmer, 1788
“The
advantage of being armed…the Americans possess over the people of all
other nations…. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the
several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public
resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people
with arms.”
–James Madison,Federalist No. 26
“The
constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent
in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times
armed.”
– Letter to John Cartwright, 1824. (The
Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (ME), Lipscomb and
Bergh, editors, 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04, 16:45.
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
–Thomas Jefferson
Petition To The ACLU To Change This Policy
This was a Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join please register here
Help us raise money to fight the ACLU. Buy a bumper sticker from Our Store!
Related Posts:
Amen!
Seems easy enough to understand to me..
Good Job!
Stop the ACLU !!!
Comment by Brad | August 4, 2005
Thanks for posting this!
Comment by Jay | August 4, 2005
Shouldn’t a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment and its purpose put a whole range of weapons into the hands of the populace? You have to remember that in the late 1700s flint rifles and cannons were the modern weapons of war (along with horses and ships) - and all were in the hands of individuals or groups of invidiuals (militia). There is little chance a modern militia with only the weapons protected by the 2nd amendment’s current interpretation could protect a state’s freedom from tyrannic government or foreign invaders, who would have modern military weapons - tanks, missiles, grenades, etc. So to preserve the intent of our founding fathers I believe any military technology should be made available for individual and militia usage.
Come on, here we are squabbling over clip capacities when we can no longer possess working cannons, let alone their modern equivalents. Something is very wrong here!
RESPONSE:
Even with free speech there can be some regulation. You can’t threaten people and call it free speech, for instance. They can restrict where you protest. No one is complaining about clip capacities… People are worried about not being allowed to have anything that uses a clip to begin with. There is room for sensible regulation.
Comment by AmmoFromGod | August 5, 2005
“Shouldn’t a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment and its purpose put a whole range of weapons into the hands of the populace? You have to remember that in the late 1700s flint rifles and cannons were the modern weapons of war (along with horses and ships) - and all were in the hands of individuals or groups of invidiuals (militia).”
No, you are technically incorrect.
The 2d Amendment protects the ownership of “arms.” In the context of the times, this included firearms and edged weapons.
Cannon, while they were privately owned, were not “arms”, but ordnance. The 2d Amendment doesn’t address the ownership of ordnance. Probably, if for no other reason, because private ownership of ordnance, while not unheard of, was fairly rare. At least on land.
If you took this forward you could construct the argument that the modern development of arms remains protected. However, the items descendant from 18th Century might not be.
Comment by Yeoman | August 6, 2005
I’d note that, having too long of day, and not enough sleep, I like misinterpreted the 8/5 03:14 comment.
I see he’s not arguing, I think, for further restrictions.
And, by the way, the point about the ACLU not complaining about violations of the 2d Amendment are excellent. If they were true to their word, they’d be opposing gun control.
Comment by Yeoman | August 6, 2005