For Republicans, their first obligation is to make the NRA happy

[Jw2]

The ACLU is populated with real strict constructionists of the United States Constitution.


youse phony conservatives are just pretenders.

[D2D]

The ACLU is populated by far leftists!

The fact is no matter what the say their actions indicate they want a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms!

Otherwise they would be in court fighting restrictions on the Second Amendment as often as they are fighting restrictions on abortion!

Are they?

Hell NO!

[August West]

All amendments have restrictions. Do you think we should be selling guns out of vending machines or do you favor that restriction dd?

[sweetwater5s9]

 The ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.
 
ANALYSIS
 
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.


Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.


https://www.aclu.org/second-amendment-0

[sweetwater5s9]

 The ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.
 
ANALYSIS
 
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.


Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.


https://www.aclu.org/second-amendment-0

[Jw2]

Well thank you sweetipie  for posting the information I linked to earlier.


I stand by my statement - the ACLU has a strict constructionist position regarding the US Constitution.


It's convenient for biased losers to argue otherwise.  They are willing to ignore the hundreds of instances where the ACLU takes positions that support right wing/conservative positions - like the confederate battle flag - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-history-of-the-aclu-defending-confederate-veterans-the-kkk-and-rush-limbaugh/ - and individuals - taking the side of Rush Limbaugh in court filings, for instance - https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-asks-court-protect-confidentiality-rush-limbaughs-medical-records


but, that won't stop ignorant a-holes from claiming:  The ACLU is populated by far leftists!

[WWV10MHZ]

Obviously, Jizz-Wanker2 has NO idea about Republicans.  His first obligation is to make himself happy with his hand!!!

[caserio1]

as soon as we can get the millenials politically active

down goes the second amendment and the country will be safer

[sweetwater5s9]

The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned Miller in only 7 subsequent cases: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010); Heller (2008); Printz (1997); Lewis (1980); Adams (1972); Atlanta Motel (1961); and Konigsberg (1961). Justice James Clark McReynolds authored the decision in United States v. Miller which was the only Supreme Court case that directly involved the Second Amendment until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.

So, what does the Miller case tell us about the National Firearms Act and the 2^nd Amendment? It tells us that, at least on the surface, the NFA is legal in that it is not a ban, but rather a revenue collecting measure (a tax) that the government has the power to enforce, and therefore does not infringe on our rights to own a firearm. Also, the 2^nd amendment protects the ownership of military style weapons used by all able-bodied men who, when called for service in a militia would be able to bring their own firearms.

[wxzyw]

I usually stay out of gun rights arguments, but can anyone be more despicable than jw for faking concern for the victims of gun violence?

When activist liberal judges let gun totting criminals go scot free... well, there you have it----  a ploy by the liberals to make gun violence so bad that everyone will want them banned.

Yes the left wants them banned, their motives are very transparent.... anyone remember 0bama's Fast & Furious and how he tried to shift public opinion on weapons?

[D2D]

Law abiding gun owners save a minimum of 392,500 lives annually!

Proving guns are not a public health problem but a contributor to good public health!

An average minimum of 1075 lives are saved by law abiding gun owners every day!

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an

estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.243 Of these

instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved

their lives by doing so.
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.




243 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Kleck and Gertz, Fall 1995
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc
Reply