ACLU And The Second Amendment
Posted on August 4, 2005
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!
Thanks Indepundit
» Filed Under 2nd Amendment
Trackback URL
Comments
31 Responses to “ACLU And The Second Amendment”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
This is a great post–I cross posted over from my site. Good work, as usual, Jay.
From “Policy #47″
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual’s right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
CL, I said they are not active on their position. I hope they continue to stay inactive on their stance, cuz I could only imagine. They’d be defending the rights of terrorist to have nukes. I can see it now.
I was merely providing the rational thought behind their stance. Previously, your opinions tend to believe the ACLU is defending terrorists. We both agree with the potential outcome in this particular case.
A literal translation of the 2nd amendment, of course, only gives the right to keep and bear arms to regulated militias. Proponents of the 2nd amendment tend to overlook the militia part of the equation. Terrorists bearing weapons, is a moot point, first, they would have to become a militia, which secondly, and most likely, would violate a number of other laws.
Hey, in NC, the ACLU is now after oath taking on the Bible, which of course, I agree shouldn’t be the standard.
It is a right for individuals. The people.
And while they are attacking oath taking on Bibles they are trying to put the Koran in its place. Don’t worry, I will write about this.
Interesting the words they use. I was not aware that “Individual” was synonymous with Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Military, or Police Force et al.
What’s the first thing Hitler did when he came into power? He took away all the fire arms from the people, so their wouldn’t be an uprising.
Nothing wrong with throwing in a line from the “Father of the Constitution” James Madison.
Great post as always. I put mind up. It’s different, but I’m sure you will approve.
Well good thing Hitler didn’t just get elected President then, don’t ya think?
Without the 2nd Amendment, it is said that you cannot have a 1st Amendment.
Thanks, cl, for the post.
Seriously, guys, how do you read the 2d Amendment to bar government from interfering with an individual’s right to bear a gun, but not a bomb or a missle? The language would seem to protect all these rights, or none. I don’t see how the language lets us pick and choose here.
What to find out who the militia is? Tear the yellow pages out of your phone book and throw them away, then read whats left.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic
Good grief, what nit-picking. Under the circumstances everyone is talking about the 2nd Amendment.
At the time it was written the new country was still under the threat of a possible attack (they had just finished fighting for 6 years without a real central government being even established nor was weapons provided by the government – those who fought brought their own guns) from both France and Spain at which time the recipients of their wrath would have to be able to defend themselves on the spot. Not only did the framers of the Constitution have to worry about outside attack they had to worry about sedition and revolt. There was one in 1786 called Shay’s Rebellion. This event led to the 2nd Amendment freedom to have and hold guns. Every landowner and freeman had guns to provide food for his table at the time. The framers had to take that into consideration while drafting the Constitution to enable the country to feed itself. To offset the right to bear arms and prevent an internal overthrow of the government Congress instituted the Sedition Act of 1798.
As far as bombs and missiles go that is not even a consideration to be addressed in the Constitution – the common man did not have access to that kind of technology at the time the Constitution was written – you all are not taking into consideration the “arms” available to the common man at that time which were muskets, single shot pistols, and swords.
Kathy, now aren’t you loosely interpreting the constitution, which is what you attack me for doing? Make up your mind. If Amendment II says that everyone can have guns, then the 10 C’s and crosses establish religion (Amendment I). At least I’m consistent with my loose interpretation. You are now using the same tactics you ridicule me for.
“Seriously, guys, how do you read the 2d Amendment to bar government from interfering with an individual’s right to bear a gun, but not a bomb or a missle?”
Does anyone know the difference between arms and armament?
cl…
“A literal translation of the 2nd amendment, of course, only gives the right to keep and bear arms to regulated militias.”
Based on what and by whom?
cl – actually I wasn’t talking to you at all. Or haven’t you noticed you are not the only disenfranchised person posting here?
“As far as bombs and missiles go that is not even a consideration to be addressed in the Constitution – the common man did not have access to that kind of technology at the time the Constitution was written – you all are not taking into consideration the ‘arms’ available to the common man at that time which were muskets, single shot pistols, and swords.”
Very good. One way to read the 2d Amendment to protect the rights of individuals to bear arms, but not necessarily ALL arms, is to apply an “original intent” interpretation. That is, we could give the word “arms” only the meaning that it had for the Founders: “muskets, single shot pistols, and swords” (and spears, I think.)
Under this interpretation, government could not bar suspected gang members from boarding public transportation bearing large knives or specialized, single-shot, smooth-bore guns, but government could take away almost any firearm in use today. Whatever the theoretical merits of this interpretation, I don’t think anyone would be happy with the conclusion.
loboinok
Based upon the words written in the Constitution. I sit here laughing because continually, I’m deemed a liberal for not taking the Constitution literally, here, I take your stance (reading verbatim) and you still criticize me. Actually, I was merely mocking you for using the same logic as me. I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no method to your madness other than a do as I say and not what I do attitude. Either follow us or leave. One thing I have to say for the ACLU and myself, is at least we are consistent with out perspective on liberty.
We know the Constitution is interpreted by SCOTUS upon precedents set by the court.
Now, with that said, you should agree with everything I say, but you still fight most of what I represent. I don’t know what else to do except laugh at hypocrisy. I understand that if you can’t understand this, there is no way you could ever understand the ACLU or me.
It always seemed to me that the intent of the second ammendment was to provide a check and balance on our militia. Armed, lawful citizens with the right to bear arms and defend their freedoms fulfils this intent.
Arming the militia isn’t the purpose of citizens having guns, regulating it is.
Thank you for helping me make my point. No one interprets anything the same way, not even it you read something literally.
I like the interpretation, if President Bush suddenly decided to use the military to force us to go to church on Sunday, I like having a way to defend myself.
Of course, you would have to be reading into the 2nd amendment to draft such a conclusion because the 2nd amendment makes no mention of protecting us from the militia, just that we need a militia for protection. Let me help, the only argument I see against me is the comma in the amendment. Does that mean we need a militia and people to arm themselves or like I said previously, the militia, who were ordinary people at the time, were able to bear arms?
cl…
This Liberal, card-carring member of the ACLU ststes it better than I could: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html
Or even worse, if BushHitler suddenly mandated we had to attend Gloria Alred seminars… Now THAT’S a good reason to have guns!
Good point, cl!
“Does anyone know the difference between arms and armament?”
Some dictionaries distinguish between the two. Here’s some excerpts from Dictionary.com:
> ar ma ment, n. 1) The weapons and supplies of war with which a military unit is equipped. 2) All the military forces and war equipment of a country. Often used in the plural. 3) A military force equipped for war. 4) The process of arming for war.
[Latin "arma menta" (tools), from "arma" (arms). See > arm(2).]
> arm(2), n. 1) A weapon, especially a firearm: “troops bearing arms”; “ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms”….
[From Middle English "armes" (weapons), from Old French, pl. of "arme"(weapon), from Latin "arma" (weapons); see "ar-" in Indo-European Roots. V., from Middle English "armen" from Old French "armer," from Latin "arma re," from "arma."]
> arms, n. 1) weapons considered collectively [syn: weaponry, implements of war, weapons system, munition]
Thus, according to Dictionary.com, a “right to bear arms” would appear to mean a right to bear weapons collectively; to bear weaponry; to bear implements of war; to bear weapons systems; to bear munitions, including “nuclear arms.”
“to bear munitions, including “nuclear arms.”…”
Got one for sale that I could pick-up cheap?
arm… L.arma, implements, weapons, akin to armus… see also small arms
armament…3. all the guns and military equipment of a warship, warplane, tank, fortification, etc.
Your blog is realy very interesting. http://www.g888.com
The first two clauses of the 2nd Amendment are similar to a preamble. Assume the right to vote were stated this way:
A well-educated citizenry, being necessary for an informed electorate, the right of the people to vote shall not be infringed.
Would that mean before a citizen can vote they would have to have a college degree? Remember, we’re trying to achieve an informed electorate. Of course, it would mean no such thing. Because the third clause says the right of the people, which means everyone.
Understanding the 2nd Amendment is SO easy. However, when you have the brain donors at the Athiests, Criminals and Leftists Union doing the “thinking” for lawmakers and judges, you get just what we have. Marxism in all its “glory.”
Wow. I’ve never seen such rantings…much of it from morons who don’t
know the ACLU from Adam.
WOW Roy! It’s hard to counter such wisdom and wit, so why don’t you dazzle us with your brilliance and teach us “morons” about the ACLU?
Then when you’re done…come up front where current events are being discussed!
In an apparent effort to preserve individuals’ rights to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, a new site opened last week (11-11-07) dedicated to helping people buy or sell firearms from/to people IN THEIR OWN STATE. As it turns out, it’s legal in many states to buy/sell/trade firearms between INDIVIDUALS without having to register the transaction nor to report it to any government agency. There is no charge to post to, or browse, the site.
It can be found at http://www.internet-grocer.net/cgi/classif/classifieds.cgi
The second amendment was put in place to “regulate” the militia. That is what is neccessary to secure a “free” state. That is what the amendment states. Why educated people cannot read this amendment with understanding is confusing to me. It has nothing to do with sport. It has nothing to do with feeding the family. It has nothing to do with securing “the” state. It has nothing to do with arming the state. People need to read the Constitution. In it they will find provisions for establishing and arming the militia. Read the Declaration of Independance and tell me how we Americans could write that document without being able to stand up to an army? There aren’t any free rock and bottle chuckers… and you can quote me on that.