CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Heller Decision and the Second AmendmentSo, 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.
Tags: Civil Liberties News, U.S. Supreme Court
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 1327 Responses to "Heller Decision and the Second Amendment" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Jul 1st, 2008 at 3:18pm
So pretty much, your policy went from “we agree with the decision in US v Miller that gun ownership is not a constitutional right” to “we disagree with DC V Heller and still believe that gun ownership is not a constitutional right”, meaning that despite whatever ruling is laid down, the ACLU will be against the individual right of private gun ownership.
I was really hoping that the ACLU would at least reconsider its stance, now invalidated by the SCOTUS, and come around to the popularly accepted and now legally accepted view that an amendment in the bill of rights (whether it be the Firs, Second, Third or whichever) actually protects an individual’s right.
The ACLU has always claimed to protect the Bill of Rights and American values and its critics (myself included) have always seen it as just a clearing house for left wing legal advocacy that is willing to defend any shitbag with a grudge (be it John Walker Lindh, the Taliban, Al-Qaida, Soviet spies, the CPUSA, etcetera).
Well, now it’s confirmed, you are nothing more that a bunch of left wing hacks who could give a flying fuck about the Bill of Rights.
Q: How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5 . . .
Jul 1st, 2008 at 3:39pm
thank you for this consolidation thread. for conciseness, i will copy over my earlier comment; if the moderators wish, they may delete that earlier comment from the unrelated thread.
the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation
well duh — what else have we been doing around the first amendment all these decades? now the second gets to be taken equally as seriously, that’s all.
yes, there’s a lot of lost time to catch up on; there’s decades of litigation and precedent that’s established a culture of judicial debate around the first amendment’s various clauses that the second has yet to get. but now, it can and hopefully will. is the ACLU going to help or hinder this process? or is it going to play ostrich and pretend none of it is happening?
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.
ostrich it is, i see. news flash: the ACLU is not the supreme court of this country. i’m disappointed in you.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 4:01pm
The ACLU's position was wrong before Heller; to maintain it now is absurd. Not one of the justices in Heller endorsed the "collective rights" viewpoint. If the ACLU believes that it is the best public policy that individuals should not own guns, it should campaign for the removal of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. By instead arguing for a ridiculously narrow judicial interpretation of that amendment, it is undermining its argument for a broad reading of the rest of the Bill of Rights it so treasures.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 4:19pm
Does that mean that I can interpret the constitution as not providing for a right to privacy? That wasn't a dramatic innovation in civil liberties? Now that the Court has decided that, will the ACLU now feel compelled to defend it as a constitutional right? Does the ACLU only defend civil liberties it agrees with?
Jul 1st, 2008 at 4:23pm
I don't know why this the only consitutional right the ACLU doesn't defend. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of INDIVIDUALS, so the idea that the Bill of Rights protects a "collective right" is absolutely preposterous. The ACLU needs to change its position on the Second Amendment from the politically correct orthodox liberal position to the truly civil libertarian position. We cannot pick and choose which rights are worthy of more protection than others.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 4:26pm
Why does the ACLU disagree with the Supreme Court's decision?
Now that the Court has established an individual right, shouldn't the ACLU be celebrating an expansion of rights for more americans, much in the same way that other amendments and cases have.
It seems that the reasoning at the ACLU is being inconsistent when one considers the other amendments and Civil Rights.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 4:41pm
All the rights in the bill of rights are individual rights, A true patriot stands up for all rights, even those they do not like,we can not change the meaning of amendments or allow modified definitions of them. what about slavery? should we allow some slavery? is a ban on slavery an individual right or a collective one should we change the meaning of the 13th amendment? of course not! If the ACLU does not like the second amendment tough, it means what it means and should be fought for as much as any other right.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 5:03pm
If the ACLU wants to maintain its credibility as the defender of the bill of rights then it must endorse the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and not maintain its pathetic stance claiming it disagrees with the SCOTUS. The fat lady has sung. Get with the program.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 5:38pm
seeing as how there has never been a supreme court interpretation embracing 2A as a collective right, i'm unclear as to how the Heller decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 5:45pm
> The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.
The ACLU long based its "collective right" interpretation on the Supreme Court's ruling in US v. Miller.
The Supreme Court has now clarified what was meant by US v. Miller, that the Second Amendment never concerned a collective right, and that those who read US v. Miller to that meaning were incorrect.
In other words, the very *basis* for the ACLU's "collective right" interpretation has been invalidated, and the individual right to keep and bear arms has been recognized as a vital liberty of equal standing as all those protected by the Bill of Rights.
I don't want to hear any more about the ACLU prevaricating on how they "disagree" with this individual right protected by the Bill of Rights. What I (and many other members) now want is for the ACLU to step to the forefront of protecting our Second Amendment rights so that the damned NRA will stop being the only place liberal gunowners can turn to.
Will you just get with the program? Numerous polls show ~ 75% of US voters know the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and ~65% of registered DEMOCRATS agree with that position. We need you to show some leadership and embrace our rights, not leave the Second Amendment neglected for the NRA to continue to wrap in right-wing rhetoric.
Doesn't your sense of decency demand you treat all of our Constitutional rights equally?
Jul 1st, 2008 at 6:26pm
This blog entry is pretty vague - I'd like more detailed information about the ACLU's position on the Second Amendment. More about why they view the Second Amendment as a collective right, and how this decision affects their position.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 6:29pm
How can the ACLU (of which I'm a member) seriously consider the 2nd amendment to be a collective right, when there is not a single amendment in the bill of rights that refers to any collective or state rights, but rather individual rights and freedoms? Maybe this is something that the ACLU should logically address before taking this kind of a stance.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 6:44pm
Fortunately it is the Supreme Court and not organizations such as the KKK or the ACLU that is the binding interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.
We now have the ACLU explicitly denying what the Supreme courts calls a specific enumerated right. This is even more egregious than the KKK demanding segregated bus seating, water fountains, and restrooms since the Constitution doesn't enumerate the right for integration of public and private accommodations.
I had supported the ACLU in their support of the KKK because I thought the issue was one of free speech. Perhaps I was wrong in my assumption. Perhaps the issue was the ACLU enjoys the company of similarly minded bigots.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 7:07pm
Your "collective rights" position on the 2A guarantee was justified on the basis of the Miller ruling. Now the court has clarified Miller via Heller ... and you still hold to Miller. It's surely a matter of convenience, for now, but how long can this position last?
ACLU, you have taken the low road on this one. Just how low you can go, and how long you can stay down there and maintain any relevancy, remains to be seen.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 7:57pm
I posted on here before pointing out that you were incosistent with your understanding of civil liberties and my comment seems to have not been put up. Apparently you don't feel strongly about the first amendment either.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:06pm
Clearly, the ACLU has never bothered to seriously look into the origins and true meaning of the Second Amendment. Considering that all nine justices actually agreed that the Second is indeed an individual right (though the minority disagrees with the majority on the actual scope of the amendment), perhaps it's actually the ACLU that has misinterpretted the amendment all along. It's a pity really, when bigotry, prejudice and cognitive dissonnance so easily brushes aside a fundamental human right, and the clear historical facts that support the establishment of that right, when it doesn't suit one's taste.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:06pm
I thought the ACLU's purpose was to uphold the rights of American citizens, as dictated by the Supreme Court.
Am I missing something?
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:07pm
I just took the money I had slated to re-up my lapsed ACLU membership and used it to re-up my NRA membership.
Sorry ACLU you lost me.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:18pm
A "collective" is a group of individuals. How can a collective have a right that the individuals in that collective don't have? Which of the members of the group gets to exercise that right on behalf of the others? Who decides who that person is?
What about the First Amendment? It talks about freedom of the press, and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." That's the same "the people" as in the Second Amendment, which you've asserted is a "collective right." Maybe we should limit freedom of speech to registered press members (who will, of course, be required to store their typewriters in a disassembled and locked state, so that they are not able to exercise that collective right at a moment's notice). We'll take their fingerprints, run a background check, and make them demonstrate competency at composing headlines. Of course, no press will be allowed to operate within Washington D.C. -- to keep illegal typewriters off the streets.
After all, all constitutional freedoms have limits. The government needs to have the power to regulate especially dangerous free speech and typewriters that are capable of performing automatic carriage returns ("assault typewriters").
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:21pm
ACLU,
You've lost another American here. I will never donate a cent to your organization of crazy, intolerant lefties. The right to "keep and bear arms" as recognized by the 2nd Amendment is very clearly stated in the Bill of Rights. Only those who are either outright liars or power-hungry liars see it differently.You lose and will continue to lose. Your arguments are incredibly lame.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:22pm
The ACLU is supposed to stand for civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It's job is not to pick and choose which rights are or are not worthy of protection. Our founding fathers had already made that decision for us.
If the ACLU had performed any research themselves, reading historical materials from the times to actually discover what the founding fathers meant, they would clearly see that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Instead, it refuses to see what is there and tries to interpret what it wants to be there.
This group, in failing to acknowledge the now clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment stands for, is un-Constitutional is un-American. It is a total disgrace and goes against the principles for which it was founded. It is a danger to itself and a danger to the United States since it refuses to acknowledge the WHOLE Constitution.
I will never join this group and I hope that many leave because of this completely biased decision. I guess the ACLU is starting to show its true colors now.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:28pm
Ditto SuperNaut. I've given to the ACLU in the past, but why would I give money to a group that claims to be a defender of civil liberties, but wants to deny me one of the most basic?
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:40pm
The ACLU is full of fail, this shows it.
What the real name of this organization is, American Civil Liberties that we support Union.
What a joke.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:41pm
I defended the ACLU in every case taken because I truly believed you were defending the civil rights laid out in the Constitution.
Whenever you changed your position because a Supreme Court decision changed the understanding of the civil right and you defended people under the new ruling, I agreed and I defended the ACLU with the same rigor and I also adopted the new position established by the Supreme Court.
Now that the ACLU is not defending the established individual civil right to keep and bear arms, the ACLU seems to be partisan, biased and selective in what they see as civil liberties, is therefore not the defenders of civil liberties I hold dear. I am disgusted and repulsed as well as feel betrayed knowing my defense for decades of what I thought was a great institution and my hero in many matters is nothing more than a fraud and run by a mob of hypocrites.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:45pm
I have previously given money to the ACLU and would like to do so again. In light of the Heller decision, I had thought that the ACLU would revise its stance with regards to the 2nd Amendment (of the Bill of Rights, of the Constitution of the United States... remember that?).
As it stands, I am very disappointed and now consider the ACLU to be a disgrace. You're willing to take on the cause of some of the worst cases of humanity, simply because they represent the "cutting edge" of encroachment on our liberties. However, you're willing to sell out millions of law-abiding citizens and their specifically enumerated rights, just because you don't agree with the ruling.
How again is it that you're any better than the people you work against?
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:51pm
How completely absurd! I agree with the above comments. If there was any doubt that the ACLU is pushing a left wing political agenda, that argument is over. It's plainly obvious that the ACLU intends to support only civil liberties that support the left wing liberal agenda.
If you don't have the 2nd amendment, how do you ever intend on keeping and defending the rest of them?
I will not be renewing my membership.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:00pm
ACLU remains Anti-2nd amendment? Perhaps ACLU really stands for the 'Anti-Civil Liberties Union'!
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:08pm
I support virtually everything the ACLU stands for... except for this extremely hypocritical policy. This demonstrates a partisan political bias.
In light of the recent abuses of the 4th amendment by our government, I have plans to donate to civil rights organizations such as the EFF, ACLU, and NRA... but I will now strike the ACLU off that list.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:09pm
You lost 9-0 on collective rights. When are you going to start defending our constitutional rights?
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:24pm
I bet if it were any other right, they would be shitting themselves trying to defend it..............the aclu makes me sick.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:39pm
I am sorry to say that the ACLU has disappointed me. I have consistently defended you to my firearm owning friends. I pointed out that both you and the NRA are defending the Bill of Rights and our civil liberties, both with equal zeal. The NRA was taking care of defending the one amendment you were not defending. While Miller gave you cover, your ignoring the 2nd Amendment was permissible.
Your are refusing to accept the Supreme Court decision in Heller, which is now the law of the land. There can now be no reason for this outside of the fact that you do not believe Americans deserve to have the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the law is. I no longer find it in my heart to defend you guys. You are just as bad as the Bush Administration, picking and choosing what rights protected by the Constitution they will let us have.
I used to have hope in the ACLU. I am very sorry to discover that I was mistaken.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:43pm
Wow. I must say the ACLU has managed to completely lose their credibility with me. What a disappointment.
Serioulsy, how can this organization hope to be taken seriously with this stand on the 2A?
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:45pm
Civil libertarians. PFFF!
The ACLU used to like the Constitution.
But with fascist positions like this, it looks no better than the Bush administration.
STOP BOWING DOWN TO LEFTIST OVERLORDS AND START OBEYING ONLY THE CONSTITUTION!
You're a f***ing disgrace to liberty, ACLU.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:49pm
"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right."
So, since when does the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution supercede the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution?
The ACLU needs to recognize that this long running debate has been settled. *ALL* of the articles in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are now, have always been, and always will be *Individual rights.*
To argue otherwise at this point makes the ACLU look foolish, at best.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:57pm
So the ALCU believes we have rights, but only those the ACLU recognizes . Now that is a classic arrogant stance, and well worth ignoring your existance for.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:00pm
As a former member of the ACLU, who has appreciated much of the work the ACLU has done to preserve our civil rights in this country, I can promise you I will never give you another dime because of your statement on this. Pretty clearly the ACLU has demonstrated they are not a serious civil rights group when, even in the face of Supreme Court precedent, you hold to a discredited notion that the Second Amendment doesn't mean exactly what it says in plain English.
I don't expect the ACLU to suddenly start taking up gun rights cases, and putting their energies there. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that it's an individual right, and there are other organizations out there dedicated specifically to that issue, so that ACLU has decided not to spend resources on it. I have no problem with that.
But to continue to pretend that the second amendment is not deserving of an honored place among the Bill of Rights is disgraceful for an organization that claims to defend it.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:12pm
Are you for real? I thought the ACLU was in SUPPORT of civil liberties. I guess when it comes to the liberty to keep a firearm for self-defense, the ACLU won't support civil liberties. Sad.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:17pm
I'm sorry to say that I'm ripping up my membership to the ACLU and sending it back to your HQ. By calling the Second Amendment a "collective right" when all NINE Supreme Court Justices disagree with that statement, you completely undermine your organization's moral authority to attack against the MCA, FISA changes, and so on.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:25pm
As a long time member of the ACLU, I wish the organization's policy were closer to truly neutral on the gun issue. That is, I'd like the organization to have no official opinion on the second amendment, and simply stay out of those issues. There are plenty of pro- and anti-gun organizations that can handle those cases, so it seems to me that the ACLU can maximize its efficacy by simply staying out of the way and focusing on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments, as they historically have done.
On the other hand, to the pro-gun commenters who express disappointment in the fact that the ACLU hasn't modified its stance in light of the SCOTUS ruling, ask yourself this: if the ruling had gone the other way, and the court had ruled the 2nd amendment protects a collective right, would you abandon your individual right interpretation? Or would you simply hold that you disagree with the courts ruling?
I strongly suspect it's the latter. So if you won't change YOUR views based on what you believe to be a bad ruling, why would you expect others to behave any differently?
Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:30pm
If the ACLU would apply the scrutiny to the 2nd amendment that is does the 1st and 4th, we would have no problem. Your organization is a joke, founded by a communist to help out some of his friends who were in legal trouble. You do not understand the idea of a Bill of Rights. Your ignorance knows no bounds in this area. You are just another mouthpiece of the gun control crowd supported by liberal democrats.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:33pm
So, the ACLU, arguably the most staunch (some might accurately say "rabid") defender of the individual rights guaranteed under the First Amendment has decided to "disagree" with the highest court in the United States, by which all lower courts and lawmakers must abide, or suffer its wrath.
First, how are the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment so different than those guaranteed by the First, especially in the light of "individual vs. collective"? Why is it that the word "people" should have such disparate and different meanings in two very similar contexts?
Second, how do you intend on going about "disagreeing" with the Supreme Court? Are we talking continued activism against the Second Amendment, or just stuffing your head in the sand and pretending it does not exist?
Third, who are you to disagree with all nine Justices of the Supreme Court? "But wait," you say, "Only four other Justices agreed with Scalia!" You are correct... however, *all nine* Justices agreed with the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment... ALL NINE. Just how often do you get a 9-0 ruling, in any Supreme court? And how can you honestly expect to stand up to that bad of a beat-down on the collectivist interpretation?
Every year, the ACLU seems determined to not live up to its name, and considering that the right to bear arms has always been an individual right, this has just been confirmed by the most senior court in our country, and it would therefor seem to be qualified as a "civil liberty", this situation is no different.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:35pm
I've often found myself defending the ACLU to other conservatives and have supported many of your legal actions, but this I can not abide. You need to explain why you continue to refuse to defend the 2nd amendment as you do the others.
Or is this decision based on a need to protect a source of funds from certain donors?
Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:38pm
The ACLU's position on this is insanity. First, there are NO collective rights in the Bill of Rights and the very concept is ludicrous. If you want to get particular about word usage, the militia was always separate from army "regulars", as they were the body of civilians. (The Army and Air Guard, and I belong to the latter, didn't exist, so that argument is worthless.)
As a Libertarian, and law-abiding citizen, I wish I could count on the ACLU to defend MY civil liberties, but perhaps that's asking a bit much from an organization that began life with communist roots. After all, the soviets had to disarm their people before keeping them prisoner behind a wall...
Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:41pm
The hypocrisy of the ACLU apparently knows no bounds. Picking which "rights" you support based on politics is beneath you (well, actually I guess it isn't).
Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:47pm
"Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled"
That's all from the ACLU front page. Now that the 2nd amendment has been declared an individual right, which STRENGTHENS the control on the majority in the name of the individual, how can the ACLU leave that amendment out of it's claim to protect civil liberties?
It just doesn't make sense.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 10:56pm
Collective right. Surely you jest!
Jul 1st, 2008 at 11:07pm
"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision"
Well aren't you people just too special. The weenies disagree with the Supreme Court, how sad is that.
Frankly I have always despised you people but I did give you credit for being somewhat honest.
Now I can totally despise you because you now prove that you are just another bunch of dishonest left wing hypocrites.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 11:20pm
Simply absurd. You will defend murderers and rapist so that the innocent can also be reasonably defended. We don't like it, but it is right. You should seek consistency in your views so they don't all get cast aside as absurd. Your position on the right to keep arms is absurd, rendering all of your positions absurd. You may not like the right, but to be reasonable, you must defend it.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 11:35pm
Wow, my comment was erased. How's that for freedom of speech? I wonder how long it will be before this one is deleted as well? After all, what kind of civil liberties group would want there obvious hypocrisy shown on the organizations own website?
The ACLU picking and choosing what a Civil Liberty happens to be is the ultimate in hypocrisy. You cannot just choose what is a liberty and what isn't. The fact that they even take this stand is absolutely laughable.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 11:48pm
It would have been so simple to be gracious and nonresponsive to the critics at the same time.
"Yes, it is now clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right. However, we at the ACLU have not developed any litigation expertise in this area, and have no intention to. The Cato Institute and the NRA have developed an intense interest in defending and expanding the scope of individual gun owners' rights."
Instead, y'all decided to become the Forrest Gumps of constitutional law--stupid is as stupid does.