« Website for Chicago gun case | Main | Prof. Keller on Heller, Justice Breyer and culture wars »
ACLU's thoughts on Heller
Press release here. Interesting how they treat different rights.
Habeas for Gitmo detainees: a blow to the Bush mad dogs:
"NEW YORK - The Supreme Court ended its 2007 Term by rejecting a centerpiece of the Bush administration's crumbling Guantánamo policy for the third time in four years while recognizing, for the first time in American history, an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment."
Heller: a bit of a constitutional straightjacket for our elected leaders:
"he Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create."
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...
13 Comments | Leave a comment
It's indicative of the political views of the ACLU leadership taking precedent over any concern for the Constitution or civil liberties that they refer to this ruling as a "constitutional straightjacket". I don't seem to recall any similar concerns voiced by them with respect to Miranda, Roe or other decisions that constrained long established public policies.
An EXPANSION of rights is a constitutional straightjacket? Coming from an organization whose stated purpose is to protect constitutional rights, this comment is straight out of the Bizarro world.
On this issue, you can't take the ACLU seriously. They don't seem to understand that their foolish stubbornness on this issue hurts them overall.
The irony is that the ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
They need to amend that slightly to append ", except the right of individuals to own firearms, because that's too scawy."
Ah, but you stepped over the best part.
"Washington D.C.’s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation."
This falls under rule 12 of things you must believe to be a good leftist...
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
Looks like the ACLU overlooked a right or two on their way to liberalize America.
I'm a good Leftist who supports the NRA, GOA *and* the ACLU. Go put that in your pipe and smoke it.
"On this issue, you can't take the ACLU seriously."
On THIS issue? I can't barely think of ANY issues where they can be taken seriously. Well, I do take them seriously, but not as a 'civil rights' organization. They are a serious, agenda driven, progressive (or leftist, liberal, whatever you like to call them) organization.
If the Heller decision restrains gun control laws like a straight jacket. And straight jackets usually restrain crazy people. Then it seems the ACLU thinks gun control laws are like crazy people. That's so hilariously appropriate.
Below is from the ACLU web site (About the ACLU). Anyone care to wager whether this Heller decision is giving them pause, in regard to those individual rights that are outside the scope of the democratic majority?
The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.
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.
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
- Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
- Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
- Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
- Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
JJR: So which ones do you support in this case? Must be hard to support the NRA *and* the ACLU on the same subject when they have opposing views. Or do you support both sides, like some of the flip-flopping politicians?
"recognizing, for the first time in American history, an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment."
Oh, BS. Yes, this is the first time the court has ruled directly and squarely on the question, but it surely is not the first time the court has "recognized" the notion that the 2A protects an individual right.
The ACLU can kiss my entire, fat, hairy, warthog.