Has the ACLU ever defended the Second Amendment??

Question

While they seem to be wrong on almost everything, including the rule that any members can't disagree with them, why have they never defended a person's second amnedment right??
Do they know that ALL amendments should be protected, or just some, and just for some people??

Answer 1

no, because they know that would give normal citizens the power to defend themselves against criminals. The ACLU sides with criminals.

Answer 2

Below is a link to the ACLU’s position on the Second Amendment. I agree with most of what they say.

I have many questions concerning the Second Amendment. How do you define firearms? Do I have the right to carry a shoulder-borne missile launcher or a flame thrower? Does the government have the right to regulate that? Can I carry a firearm on board an airplane? Does the government have a right to regulate that? Do I have to belong to a “well regulated Militia” in order to fit within the protection of the Second Amendment? I think the Second Amendment is somewhat vague and open to interpretation.

Answer 3

The second amendment provides no rights to an individual person. As the courts, including the supreme court, have ruled on numerous occasions, the second amendment gives the right of a free state to arm a well organized militia. Many get this wrong because they neglect reading the first phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," which is the purpose of the amendment, and for some reason only read the second phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you think that an individual is given the right to bear arms whenever he chooses, just carry an assault rifle onto a school yard in California and see what happens. Then you can argue your second amendment right all the way to the supreme court while you sit in prison.

Answer 4

Actually there was a case or two. I wish I had all my notes on this, but unfortunately my days a polisher of vrebs for the newspapers are long over. But let's be real...the ACLU has stood up for all kinds of free speech...which in a way has allowed the pro-gun lobby...of which I'm a charter member...a lot of lee way to publish and argue their case, both in the public print and in court. The proof of this is obvious...43 states have a right to bear arms provision in their state constitutions. 30 states currently have 'must issue' concealed arms laws. In all states a person may own some sort of firearm so nobody is required to be totally unarmed. At this point I doubt if 'gun rights' are really under much of an attack...I believe all of that is over. Basically gun rights, as all other rights, are restricted as to 'time, place' and manner' of exercise....just dont live in Washington DC, New York City or the more retarded parts of California.

Answer 5

It is a collective right that was given mainly to give state militias to provide protection against the central government a long, long, time ago. Since rifles and handguns are no longer able to stand up against modern-day government weaponry, it no longer seems that relevant.

Given that, they are not for banning guns, they just don't believe the second amendment prevents us from having some limits via gun control if it's in the best interests of the country, and neither do I.

Answer 6

Never thought of it, but what a great question!

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


They are WRONG. Dead WRONG. In this instance, one of the most important, they sound just like communists.

Edit: for those that fall for their subversive trap, saying, constitutionally we "the people" should have rights to stinger missiles and bazooka's, which almost no one thinks is ok - that you can somehow make it a law to ban all weapons in the hands of citizens? W/o the 2nd amendment, what happens to the 1st?

Answer 7

Your interpretation of the amendment is wrong. Period.

The right to bear arms asserted as a right possessed by a private citizen, would of course include the right to own a stinger missile. Do we want that?

But regardless, no one, but no one, is going to repeal or mess with the Second Amendment, the only ones talking about it are right wing wackos. Why the hysteria?

Answer 8

The NRA does that well enough, don't you think?
why do they need the ACLU doing something they already have covered?
Since when has the right to to own firearms ever been threatened enough for The ACLU to have to step in? The only thing even close, would be the regulation of assault weapons, which does not violate any rights.

Answer 9

Not that I know of. They are very selective in which parts of the constitution they like. I don't recall them ever defending the 10th amendment either.

Answer 10

They think ALL amendments should be protected. I don't know if they have been charged with protecting the second amendment or not. My guess is those who wish to have advocacy for the 2nd turn to the NRA, rather than the ACLU.

Answer 11

i own many guns and i dont care what the ACLU says.

also, in reply to an answer above that says the NRA protects are gun rights, why does the ACLU need to? well the NAACP helps to protect the rights of blacks, why do we need the ACLU to help protect their rights?

do you see how ignorant those both sound?