Nevada ACLU Breaks With National on Guns
Well, this is refreshing:
The Nevada ACLU has declared its support for an individual’s right to bear arms, apparently making it the first state affiliate in the nation to buck the national organization’s position on the Second Amendment.
The state board of directors reached the decision this month after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to own handguns.
“The Nevada ACLU respects the individual’s right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations,” a statement on the organization’s Web site said. “The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights.”
You’ll be shocked, shocked to learn that the New York chapter sees things a bit differently:
The New York City-based ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling, saying in a statement that it interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right to own guns and not an individual one.
“In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue,” according to the position on its Web page.
Now you know which one to donate to. Since, as with most non-profits, it’s all about raising money, if gun owners are as generous to the Nevada chapter as they are with other pro-gun rights organizations, you might see some other state branches of the ACLU changing their tune, too, and adding one more civil right they’ll be willing to defend.
30 Responses to “Nevada ACLU Breaks With National on Guns”
on 11 Jul 2008 at 7:36 am # Jacob
So, this means the NYC ACLU is going to challenge the Sullivan Law? BS. They’re as antigun as Mayor Bloomberg.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 7:59 am # Ken
Not sure if Nevada is the first ACLU to cooperate with RKBA
organizations. I say this based on information concerning the
Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA) and the ACLU based in Austin.
It turns out that the legislative director of the TSRA, a female,
was a personal friend of the head of the Texas (Austin) ACLU,
also a female. Because of their personal friendship, the
TSRA and the ACLU worked together on CHL and other gun
friendly bills submitted to the Texas Legislature in 2003 and
2005. As a brief aside, the Texas legislature meets every
other year.
Apparently some heads turned on the floor of the Legislature
when they looked up to see the TSRA *and* the ACLU cheering
on pro-gun legislation.
The diumverate ended prior to the Texas Legislature meeting in
2007, as the ACLU transferred the helpful head of the Austin
group elsewhere. Not sure if the transfer was by accident or
design.
Would be nice to see the ACLU fight for 2A/RKBA as tenaciously
as they do for other rights.
Ken
on 11 Jul 2008 at 8:45 am # "Nadine Strossen"
Putting all that aside, I don’t want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 9:01 am # Jacob
It is far more likely the NYC ACLU will work to defend existing NY gun laws than to help someone who has been screwed by them.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 9:18 am # Rorschach
But that then begs the question Jeff, if they change their tune in order to bring in more revenue, are they really changing their tune or are the mouthing the words and pandering for money? Will they be on the forefront of defending our rights or will they act complicitly to say all the right things but do little or nothing of substance?
on 11 Jul 2008 at 9:36 am # doug in Colorado
NO branch of the ACLU deserves a penny from any gun owner…The Nevada branch may have decided given their local consitituency it’s wiser to appear pro gun…they are still anti- christian and anti-american in their principles, founded by a socialist for the purpose of hampering the operation of a christian, free-market republic… look up their founder’s philosophy on Snopes.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 9:47 am # Joshua
Anti-christian and anti-American are not the same. While politics may be another flavor of religion, mixing them is still a bad idea.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 9:50 am # Mithras Invicti
I’m a lifelong member of the ACLU who thinks the organization should have a gun rights project. And many younger members feel the same way - it was one of the first questions asked of the executive director, Anthony Romero, at the membership meeting this year. Romero said he’s in favor of the ACLU adopting the individual rights mode, but the organization is not. The problem is that Strossen (who is retiring) and the board of directors of ACLU National (which is distinct from ACLU of NY, btw) are politically opposed to gun rights. It’s shameful, really. But then again, the state affiliates (not “chapters”) have often led the way when national has been unwilling to take on issues. For example, ACLU of California opposed the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War II, while ACLU National did not.
If you do contribute to ACLU of NV, earmark your donation “2nd Amendment work”. That way they can’t do anything else with it.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 9:56 am # Hucbald
Nadine: “Putting all that aside,”
Huckleberry: How convenient for you.
Nadine: “I don’t want to dwell on constitutional analysis,”
Huckleberry: Pseudo-wise, because it would destroy your upcoming rationalizations before you’ve even posited them.
Nadine: “…because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights.”
Huckleberry: Let me guess; you’re a lawyer. It is from this kind of pseudo-intellectual pseudo-thought that all post-modernist horse-hockey springs: “The Right of a Woman to Chose” (To chose infanticide); “The Second Amendment Refers to a Collective Right” (Since “the people” have the right, it is both individual and collective, and there is no way to advance a collective right without giving it to individuals. Anyone who hasn’t been indoctrinated and brainwashed by a law school can see this.); “The second amendment refers to militias only” (It is not possible to refer to militias only, because individuals have to be armed to form them. Again, any non-lawyer with even mean deductive reasoning abilities can see this); “The Right of the Government to Regulate Gun Ownership” (If the government is regulating, it’s infringing. Put another way, if the government has a right to regulate what firearms you have, they can also regulate what kinds and how many children you can have, vis-a-vis China, or what kind and how much sex you have.).
Nadine: “Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.”
Huckleberry: You “guess” wrong. It’s difficult to know where to begin with such preposterous ignorance, but since your lack of understanding is so gross, so deep, and on such a fundamental level, I’d suggest starting with any book on classical logic. Follow that up with a history of the American Revolution - preferably one written before 1960 - and finish by reading the Federalist Papers. If you still “feel” the way you do today after that, then feeling is all that you are capable of, and rational thought is beyond you.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 10:01 am # Joe Yowsa
I wouldn’t give money to any ACLU chapter even if you paid me double to do it. I’d give the money back to you.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 10:05 am # Hucbald
Oh, and:
“The true measure of a people’s freedom is whether they are armed or not.” - Aristotle
This is an ancient battle between men who can think logically and properly about human rights and dignity, versus men who can’t.
Women should probably stay out of it. LOL!
*runs, hides*
on 11 Jul 2008 at 10:34 am # Joe Waldron
As the lobbyist representing the WA state NRA affiliate for 14 years, I worked closely with the WA ACLU lobbyist on a couple of gun-related issues (e.g. anti-militia legislation). They wouldn’t cross the line to our side on a pure 2A issue, but they did recognize an overlap in some cases.
I was told a few years ago that the SC ACLU was pro-2A. Never had the need to confirm it.
Generally, in my experience the bulk of ACLU membership (such as the Seattle wine and cheese crowd) and especially their board members are social bigots who enjoy looking down their long noses at troglodyte gun owners. And I used to attend some of their functions to rub their nose in it. “The ACLU has a hard time counting… it seems they can’t find their way past 1, with occasional acknowledgment of 4 and 5.”
on 11 Jul 2008 at 10:47 am # Brian
I agree with the people above that say never give a nickel to the ACLU. Don’t ever forget that the ACLU is a political organization first and foremost. They are not a civil rights organization because as we have all seen they don’t support all rights, i.e. guns, Christians, etc. The Nevada chapter clearly realizes that they aren’t going too far if they are against an individual 2A right. The NY ACLU doesn’t have the same problems. It’s no different than, say, why a New England Republican and an Alabama Democrat know that they can’t always follow the party line.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 10:50 am # Daniel W.
I’m glad to see the Nevada branch take this (correct) position regarding the 2nd Amendment.
The right to keep & bear arms deserves every bit of protection that other individual & Constitutionally protected freedoms have. I have never supported the ACLU due to a number of reasons, their anti-gun rights stance being the largest part of it.
If they expand this kind of ‘reform’ to a national level they may find themselves getting more support from a broader range of Americans.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 11:09 am # Peregrine John
Anti-christian and anti-American are not the same.
Well, that would be why they’re spelled differently, with an “and” in the sentence. Yeesh…
on 11 Jul 2008 at 11:10 am # DirtCrashr
Nadine’s casual doubletalking response just told me everything I need to know about the collectivists of the ACLU - doublespeak and doublethink at work - not a penny for them or towards the vision of 1984 which they embrace. They should know it was a cautionary tale, not a roadmap or instruction-set.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 11:23 am # Eric Scheie
This is actually great news, because I often want to support the ACLU, but find myself unable to — the Second Amendment being a primary reason. Now when I get paranoid I can send a check to the Nevada ACLU, and tell the national board why.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 12:10 pm # Howard Hirsch
I grew up in NYC and worked as a clerical assistant at the New York Civil Liberties Union briefly back in 1971-72, and my experience there contributed in large part to making me the hardcore rightwing extremist I am today
The Nevada CLU’s position is therefore quite a pleasant surprise. Keep it up guys, you might redeem yourselves yet!
Howard Hirsch
Chairman, Lyon County Republican Central Committee
Dayton, Nevada
on 11 Jul 2008 at 1:25 pm # ron
Has anyone ever thought that the ACLU is just a socialist front organization, pushing for selective social “civil liberties” that will eventually result in debased and unstable society, all the while undercutting our Constitutional Republic and capitalism?
I have.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 1:40 pm # Vicki
Nadine:Putting all that aside, I don’t want to dwell on constitutional analysis,
Vicki: Did you want to dwell on any constitutional analysis? Say of the 1st, 4th, 5th etc. Or are you just hiding from the clear and obvious definition of “the people” in the 2nd?
Nadine: because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights.
Vicki: Who is “we”? You have company there that agrees with you? Try reading the 9th and 10th. They
specifically cover the rest of our “civil liberties (read correctly as rights)”.
Nadine: Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.
Vicki: When you say “mentioned” to you mean an amendment or all the things that are in the constitution to define and strictly limit the power of the federal government?
What Nadine and many people constantly forget (myself included in the dark past of my own 60’s-70s education) is that for the Constitution to “grant” rights means they are privileges not rights. Easy to take from the people by simply changing the constitution.
The Constitution does not grant any rights to the people. The Constitution is a contract between we the people and the federal government designed to limit and leash the power that we the people wish to place in the hands of the federal government. To describe what it will do and how it will.
Knowing of many abuses from years of experience with England of the time the folk that wrote the Constitution knew that they needed to have a series of restrictions on what power the people could give government. To that end the Bill of Rights was written and debated and included as a cornerstone of the Constitution. They chose ~8 of the most basic and obvious rights and enumerated them in the Bill of Rights (1-8) and then included 9 and 10 to remind us that there are plenty of rights not listed and these rights are just as real.
Starting from a position that the Constitution limits the government and what power we can give it dramatically changes most arguments about what the government can and can not do.
Now as to the 2nd, The Supreme Court has chosen to read correctly the meaning of “the people” though it is depressing to see that 4 could not read and they are judges. So we now need to work on the definition of “infringe”
Then again since some person recently challenged the definition of “is” maybe we should worry about the definition of “not” as well
-Vicki-
on 11 Jul 2008 at 2:12 pm # thebronze
While the NV ACLU’s stance is admirable, the ACLU will NEVER get a dime from me.
I don’t know why ANY American that loves their country, would.
The ACLU is not about Civil Liberties and if you think they are, you’re crazy.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 2:50 pm # John in Santa Monica
The ACLU has fought for the principles that this country was founded on–except the right to keep and bear arms. But they’ve done a valiant job in the face of anti-freedom justices like Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. Too bad it’s been a losing fight thanks to people who don’t understand what freedom means.
If you think the ACLU is anti-Christian, perhaps you need to consider that this is not a Christian country. Please keep your religion to yourself, and we will do the same. That way we can all enjoy freedom of religion.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 4:27 pm # Scott
“Anti-freedom justices like Scalia, Thoma, Alito, and Roberts”
Stay in California where you belong.
Scott
on 11 Jul 2008 at 4:32 pm # Scott
My bad, “Thomas”
I was so embarrassed by my fellow American that I forgot how to spell what was right in front of me. See what Kalifornia is doing to the country?
Scott
on 11 Jul 2008 at 4:48 pm # ron
John, are you speaking of freedoms from a constitutional perspective, or those that are extra-constitutional? Do you ascribe to the living breathing document school or the originalist school of thought?
I think that if you spent some time reading the justices who you so curtly dismiss as anti-freedom, you will find that they are merely doing their job in interpreting the constituion, as opposed to legislating from the bench. I actually find them freedom loving, and consitently so. More than I can say for the other SCOTUS members.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 6:03 pm # Daniel
I am a freedom loving American.
No organization can tell me that I don’t know my rights, can’t take my rights, will not re-define my rights.
I know my rights and NO ONE can deny me of them.
This does NOT mean that I am irrational, irresponsible or unlikable.
Quite the opposite.
So there.
on 11 Jul 2008 at 6:26 pm # johnbrown
Vicki’s got it right: Our rights belong to us as human beings; we are, as Jefferson put it, endowed by our creator with them (if you don’t believe in God, insert “natural law”). The Constitution is simply our means of maintaining a government that will protect those rights, and we can change the government (or the Constitution) it if it fails to do so. I find it chilling that Justices Breyer and Stephens, among others, seem to feel that we enjoy our liberties only so long as they are convenient for the government. (I am also puzzled by their belief that the Constitution had to be amended in order to permit militia members to keep and bear arms. Did the original, unamended Constitution call for militias to be unarmed?)
on 12 Jul 2008 at 12:21 am # Haole
John in Santa Monica,
It doesn’t matter if this country isn’t a christian country, the right to be Christian is protected by the first amendment and being against it is just as asinine as picking and chosing which civil liberty you want to defend.
If the ALCU wanted credence as an organisation that truly was concerned about everyone’s civil liberties as they would want us to believe, they’d support each of the BOR and not just the ones that they want.
on 12 Jul 2008 at 9:21 am # kbergiu
As Inigo Montoya once said, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
You see, John and his friends from Santa Monica, the ACLU, and many lawyers, speak and understand a different form of the English Language.
“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 Nevada ACLU respects the individual’s right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations,”
Translation…
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the People shall be subject to constitutionally permissible regulations.”
on 12 Jul 2008 at 1:03 pm # ron
Yeah, and “public use” under the 5A actually means “public purpose”, which means that private property taken by the government really doesn’t have to be put to “public use” after all, but that it can be used for whatever the government says, because “purpose” is in the eye of the beholder. Get it?
The Montoya reference is brilliant, and a school of thought that the Breyer branch of the SCOTUS ascribes to when explaining to us serfs, ah, I mean citizens, what the Constitution really means.