Why doesn't the ACLU defend the second amendment?

Question

Why does the ACLU defend to the end the first amendment but never has defended thesecond amendment. The right to bear arms?

Answer 1

See the following: But you won't like it.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

Answer 2

Magpieix, that would be a fine answer IF the Supreme Court had actually defined the 2nd amendment that way. The only problem is that the Supreme Court has defined it in exactly the opposite way.

In the 1875 case US v. Cruikshank the Court said of the 2nd amendment... "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." How does a State have the right to bear arms "for lawful purposes" and how would a State have that right outside the bounds of the Constitution? It doesn't. What the court was saying is that the people have and inalienable right to bear arms, neither created by nor dependant on the 2nd amendment.

In Presser v. Illinois (1886) the Supreme Court said "It is undoubtably true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitue ...the reserve militia of the united states...the STATES CANNOT...prohibit the people from bearing arms, so as to deprive the united states of their rightful resource in maintaining the public security..." Again it is a right of the PEOPLE and the States as well as the federal government cannot prohibit the people from bearing arms.

Even if the argument that the right to bear arms extended to militas not the people (which as we can see above is falatious) was correct, then the right would still extend to the people. The national guard, according to the US Code, is only the organized part of the militia. The unorganized militia is all able bodied males between 17 and 45 who are citizens of the US. I hope you are not saying the 2nd amendment gives a right to certain males but discriminates by age and gender.

Answer 3

But they do. The defend the second amendment exactly as the Supreme Court has defined 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

edit: dsl, check the dates. The 1939 case trumps any prior case from the 19th century and has been the accepted interpretation ever since. In almost 70 years, the Supreme court has never invalidated US v Miller as defining the scope of the 2nd amendment.

However, the question is specifically "Why doesn't the ACLU defend the 2nd amendment" and I provided the ACLU's own rationale for not getting involved in 2nd amendment challenges. Whether you agree with the ACLU's position is up to you (and I don't know if I agree with them myself). However that falls outside the scope of the question as asked.

Answer 4

Here's the ACLUs answer to that question:


Gun Control (3/4/2002)


Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

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.

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

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"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."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."


U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.

Answer 5

Why should they bother? The 2nd amendment has the world's largest lobbying group! Can you say NRA?

Is Dead-eye Dick a member of the NRA?

Answer 6

Good question actually. With a government as dangerous and corrupt as we have right now, gun rights should be protected. Who knows when W is going to start rounding up people.

Answer 7

Because they are not about defending liberty. They are about serving the interest of foriegn socialists. Considering that one of their founders was a documented Soviet spy, and was recently "cannonized" by the organizaition, it is simple to see their true goals.

Answer 8

They have!

But evidently this was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy before your time!

Their last case was about 15 years ago!

Lo Siento!

Answer 9

Because they really don't care about the Constitution. If they did, they would be defending the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment against affirmative action.

Answer 10

They only want to get involved in the high profile cases.