Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns From: [draug h n] at [iitmax.iit.edu] (Mark Draughn) Subject: Re: ACLU? Is This A Joke? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 21:37:07 GMT [a--y--r] at [nmsu.edu] (Nosy) writes: >"Paul Hager" <[h--ge--p] at [cs.indiana.edu]> writes: [...] >< states that it is inappropriate for the ACLU to involve itself in >< supporting something -- gun control -- that itself has civil liberties >< ramifications. Mere possession, is a "victimless crime," for example. > > IF this is what the ACLU's national policy statement > says, it is a step forward. > > IF true, can we look for ACLU support at challenging > some of the more egregious abuses of "gun control" in > the US? Here's a data point. The Chicago Housing Authority has been conducting "sweeps" of the public housing buildings it controls, looking for guns. The local ACLU is opposing those sweeps. Of course, the ACLU is opposing them because they are warrentless searches, not out of concern for 2nd Amendment liberties. Still, it's a step in the right direction: the gun issue isn't scaring them away. -- Mark Draughn | <[draug h n] at [iitmax.iit.edu]> or <[s--m--k] at [minna.iit.edu]> ----------------+ Academic Computing, Illinois Institute of Technology +1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois 60616 Article 70164 of talk.politics.guns: Path: teetot.acusd.edu!network.ucsd.edu!qualcomm.com!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!asuacad!gundevil Organization: Arizona State University Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1993 21:15:05 MST From: Shooting Club at ASU <[G--DE--L] at [ASUACAD.BITNET]> Message-ID: <[93331 211505 GUNDEVIL] at [ASUACAD.BITNET]> Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns, Subject: ACLU Position (2 of 2) Lines: 348 From: [m--ye--s] at [leonardo.rtp.dg.com] (Bill Meyers) > >Reprinted without permission from The Politics of the American Civil Liberties >Union, by William A. Donohue, Transaction Publishers (New Brunswick, N.J.), >1985 -- ISBN 0-88738-021-2 (hb), or 0-87855-983-3 (paper) -- pp. 259-260. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > There is one recommendation that the Union makes on how to stem crime: >strong gun control legislation. It adopted its first gun-control policy in >the late sixties, calling for strict federal legislation that would require >the registration of firearms and the licensing of owners and dealers. One >of the ACLU's major concerns was that any gun-control legislation should not >discriminate against persons on the basis of moral or mental reliability. >It specifically said that "to deny a license to any person convicted of any >felony or ever committed to an institution by a court for reasons of alco- >holism, narcotics addiction, or mental incompetence, or to any non-citizen, >would be to deny both the wide variety among types of offenses classified as >felonies and the possibility of rehabilitation." [210] It is doubtful that >this policy is representative of liberal thought; it appears to be the sole >position of the ACLU Board of Directors. > > In 1971 the Union took the position that the ownership of guns, any guns, >aside from guns owned by the militia, was not constitutionally protected. >Recognizing that it is not unlawful to own a gun, the board addressed the >question of state regulation of firearms. Although it dropped its specific >reference to the rights of convicted felons, alcoholics, drug addicts, and >the mentally incompetent to own a gun, it nonetheless adhered to its previous >reasoning when it declared that an applicant's "personal history" should not >be a consideration for a gun permit. [211] > > The ACLU's objections to gun ownership led it to become a participating >member in the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. In 1982, however, the board >voted to change its status to that of an affiliate member of the organization. >It's reasoning was political: It did not want to be publicly identified with >the coalition on its letterhead, publicity, or research reports. [212] At the >same board meeting, the Union ruled on police use of deadly weapons. The men >and women in blue were summoned to establish new procedures in apprehending >criminals. Nondeadly techniques, including alternatives to firearms, should >be adopted by police officers; only as a last resort, the Union counseled, >should deadly physical force be used. [213] > > It goes without saying that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and >the ACLU do not share the same position on gun control. The NRA, a powerful >Washington lobby, has been largely responsible for the lack of strict gun >control legislation in the United States. It has been particularly disturbed >by Union attempts to influence the status of gun control in local communities. >For example, when the authorities in Morton Grove, Illinois, passed a law >banning all handguns, the ACLU did not come to the defense of those who >asserted privacy rights and freedom of choice. When the authorities in >Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law requiring a firearm in every home (allowing >for religious-belief exemptions, physical disability, and convicted felon >exceptions), the Union filed a suit in Federal District Court in Atlanta >seeking to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. [214] Its behavior >in both instances dovetailed with its policy position on gun control. > >Footnotes: >-------- >[210] '76 Policy Guide, #43. >[211] '81 Policy Guide, #45. >[212] Board Minutes, 6/12-13/82. >[213] Ibid. >[214] "Law Requiring Firearms Challenged by A.C.L.U.", New York Times, > 2 June 1982, p. A18. > >============================================================================== >From: [i--s--r] at [vaxa.isi.edu] (Ed Ipser) > >A year ago i wrote to the ACLU and asked their position on gun >control and the Second Amendment and what organizations they supported >on this issue. Their response was as follows: > > Dear Edward Ipser: > > Thank you for writing to us regarding the ACLU's position on gun control > and the Second Amendment. The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's > long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment 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. > > With respect to firearms, the ACLU believes that the quality of > dangerousness of such weapons justifies legal regulation which could > substantially restrict the individual's interest in freedom of choice. > Particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, sale, > purchase or possession of guns, however, may raise civil liberties > questions. Furthermore, police enforcement may encourage entrapment, > illegal searches and other actions which could violate civil liberties. > > But the ACLU does not believe that there is a significant civil liberties > alue apart from the Second Amendment in an individual's right to own or > use firearms. Interests of privacy and self-expression may be involved > in any individual's choice of activities or possessions, but these > interests are attenuated where the activity, or the subject sought to be > possessed, is inherently dangerous to others. > > It is not the ACLU's role to involve ourselves in social issues by finding > a constitutional basis where there is none. Even though gun control might > be considered a desirable social objectibe by some, the ACLU has never > supported particular remedies for particular crimes, and, as such, we do > not support gun control legislation. > > I hope this explains our position to your satisfaction. > > Sincerely, > Sandra M. Jones > Director of Development > >========================================================================= === >From: [i--s--r] at [vaxa.isi.edu] (Ed Ipser) > >After sending a copy of the Yale Law Journal article "The Embarrasing Second >Amendment" to several of the Southern California ACLU staff and bringing >to their attention, the NRA suit against the California "assault weapons" >ban, i received, in reply, a copy of their infamous policy statement #47 >(adapted to the Southern California ACLU chapter): > > We deplore the ghastly fact that in the life of this nation the use > of handguns brings death to 60 men, women and children by accident-- > and 200 more by intent--every week. > We concur with repeated rulings of every court that has ruled on > the issue--including the U.S. Suprme Court--that the Constitution's > Second Amendment provision for militia never has meant that all > individuals have a right to own all kinds of firearms. > We urge passage of federal legislation--and meanwhile, in its absence, > the partial remedy of state law--to prohibit, with few and narrowly drawn > exceptions, the private ownership and possession of handguns, much the > way existing laws prohibit machine guns, grenades and cannons. > We declare that Americans and their rights to life and liberty will > face less danger in the presence of such laws and their enforcement > than in the deadly, daily civilian shooting war around us now. > The National ACLU gun control policy, adopted in 1967, calls for the > reistration of firearms and the licensing of owners and dealers. The > Union recommends the adoption of strong federal gun control legislation > as a "necessary condition o fostering the atmosphere of open and fearless > debate on which a free society rests." > Both National ACLU and the Southern California affiliate base their > policy provisions on long-standing interpretations of the Second Amendment > by the U.S. Supreme Court, that the individual's right to keep and bear > arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of "a well-regulated > militia". > > (Adopted by Board of Directors in September 1976. See national ACLU > plicy #47, "Gun Control".) > >I recommend that all members of the ACLU write to their chapter and urge >the ACLU to rescind policy #47 if not to defend the Second Amendment. >You should cite the Yale Law Journal article "The Embarrasing Second >Amendment". Also, cite the Ninth Amendment and the individual RKBA clauses >of nearly every state Constitution most recognizing the RKBA for self >defense. Ask them to justify their distortion of the Second Amendment >and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it particularly as it relates >to "assault weapons". > > The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates > in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, > and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough > that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting > in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for > military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for > service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by > themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. > -- Supreme Court, United States v. Miller et al., 307 U.S. 174 > >Ask them about their claim that the ACLU "champions the rights of man >set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution..." > >The national ACLU address is: > American Civil Liberties Union > 22 E. 40th St. > NY, NY 10016 > >In Souther California: > ACLU Foundation of Southern California > 633 South Shatto Place > LA, CA 90005 > >============================================================================== > >Path: xyzzy!dgcad!amdcad!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!zweig >From: [z--e--g] at [brutus.cs.uiuc.edu] (Johnny Zweig) >Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns >Subject: Re: The Infamous ACLU Policy #47 (boo, hiss) >Message-ID: <[1990 Apr 13 194340 17145] at [brutus.cs.uiuc.edu]> >Date: 13 Apr 90 19:43:40 GMT >References: <[1--8--2] at [venera.isi.edu]> >Sender: [n--s] at [brutus.cs.uiuc.edu] >Reply-To: [z--e--g] at [cs.uiuc.edu] >Distribution: usa >Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group >Lines: 36 > >[i--s--r] at [vaxa.isi.edu] (Ed Ipser) writes: >> The ACLU's infamous policy statement #47: >> >> We deplore the ghastly fact that in the life of this nation the use >> of handguns brings death to 60 men, women and children by accident-- >> and 200 more by intent--every week. > >There are lots of ghastly facts that lots of people deplore. I never thought >I'd find myself flaming the ACLU (in general I am a libertarian), but this >is about the most horrible phrase I have ever seen issued by the ACLU. It >flies in the face of what the ACLU stands for. They are there to protect >civil liberties -- not to protect people from accidental nor intentional >killing. Fighting for the rights of convicted killers who were denied due >process is a shitty way of protecting safety (though I support it with all >my soul). Trying to fight for the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie >is another thing that does not directly promote safety. The point is that >the Consitution appears to endorse a right to keep and bear arms so that >every person can protect themselves against hostile invasion (isn't that >more or less what a militia is all about?) and against hostility from the >government (this argument is based mostly on the "flavor" of the Bill of >Rights which tries to keep the newly-formed government from being as >oppressive as that which it was intended to kick out); thus it becomes >an issue of civil liberty to protect this right, even though it appears >to the naive person to mean that more people will get hurt (*). > >Yikes! I'm writing my local chapter today! > >-Johnny Aghast > >(*) If guns are made illegal, how many gun-owners will take gun-safety >classes and keep their guns in easy-to-find secure lockers? I think >outlawing guns will mean more people will get hurt than do today -- both >in terms of criminals running roughshod over unarmed civilians and in >terms of the people who want to own guns for protection being less safe >in their handling thereof. But this is an issue the NRA should argue >about; the ACLU is not in a position selectively to protect civil >liberties based on somebody's idea of promoting public safety. > >============================================================================== > >Path: xyzzy!dgcad!amdcad!ames!rex!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!Teknowledge.COM !unix!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhc!hpsemc!jat >From: [j--t] at [hpsemc.HP.COM] (Joe Talmadge) >Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns >Subject: Re: Re: ACLU and guns (Was: Flag burners) >Message-ID: <[1--40--7] at [hpsemc.HP.COM]> >Date: 9 Apr 90 18:25:54 GMT >References: <[7--6] at [goofy.Apple.COM]> >Organization: the HP VAB Lab >Lines: 46 > >David Casseres writes: >> In article <[2--1--6] at [dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU]> [c c may] at [eleazar.dartmouth.edu] >> (Chris May) writes: >> > Nevertheless, the ACLU claims that the militia function has been >> > superseded by the National Guard, making the 2nd irrelevant. >> >> I do not believe the ACLU has said this. Reference, please? This sounds >> like the claim that the ACLU was a financial contributor to HCI, which >> caused a lot of ACLU bashing here a few weeks ago. It turned out to be >> untrue. >> >> In fact the ACLU has very little to say about the 2nd. Everything I have >> ever heard them say about it was essentially an explanation of why they >> are not doing anything about it. > >I missed the discussion of a few weeks ago. Here is the story. ACLU >policy #47 states: > >``The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and adopted >demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective one, existing >only in the collective population of each state for the purpose of >maintaining an effective state militia... With respect to firearms, >the ACLU believes that this quality of dangerousness justifies legal >regulation which substantially restricts the individual's interest in >freedom of choice.'' > >At the 14 June 1980 B of D meeting, the board approved the following >clarification: ``It is the sense of this body that the word >`justifies' in the policy means we will affirmatively support gun >control legislation.'' The ACLU was apparently a member of the >National Coalition to Ban Handguns (I have a NCBH letterhead which has >the ACLU listed as a sponsor; however, I don't know if it was just a >local chapter of the ACLU or the national organization). However, the >clarification, and positive support for gun control, was rescinded at >the 24 June 1982 meeting. > >The national ACLU currently does not affirmatively support gun >control. I've heard rumors that some chapters (Virginia chapters?) >affirmatively support gun rights. If you'd like to find out about >your local chapter, call them and ask. > >Joe Talmadge >Member of the Board of Directors of the >Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the ACLU > >I speak for myself. My views to not necessarily represent that of the >board or the ACLU. > >============================================================================== > >Path: xyzzy!dgcad!amdcad!ames!rex!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!Teknowledge.COM !unix!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhc!hpsemc!jat >From: [j--t] at [hpsemc.HP.COM] (Joe Talmadge) >Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns >Subject: Re: Re: ACLU and guns (Was: Flag burners) >Message-ID: <[1--40--9] at [hpsemc.HP.COM]> >Date: 10 Apr 90 02:37:17 GMT >References: <[7--6] at [goofy.Apple.COM]> >Organization: HP Technology Access Center, Cupertino, CA >Lines: 36 > >[w j v] at [drutx.ATT.COM] (VojakW) writes: >>>From: [f h g] at [mace.cc.purdue.edu] (J. F. Blake) >>> You are correct, David. They dropped their role in NCBH over a >>> year ago, to the best of my knowledge. I was interested in joining > >Actually, I would appreciate if you would send me any evidence that >the ACLU affirmatively supported gun control after 1982. > >>I would agree with this. One question though. Why did the ACLU down- >>grade their status? Were they feeling the heat from ACLU members who >>were also gun owners? If so, is there anything that could be done to >>change their position on the second admendment. i.e. Gun owners who >>are not ACLU member writing them and saying, "I would support you, >>But......." > >At the 1980 meeting, the affirmative support for gun control was >reconsidered, and the Due Process Committee was asked to make a >recommendation on the subject. At the 24 June 1982 meeting, the >Committee recommended the footnote ["It is the sense of this body, >that the word 'justifies' in this policy means we will affirmatively >support gun control legislation"] be deleted from the policy. From >Policy #47: > > The Committee's recommendation was based on the fact that no > acceptable civil liberties rationale could be devloped for > affirmative support of gun control legislation. > >The Committee suggested that there was no constitutional basis for the >affirmative support of gun control, and that positive support >encouraged the police to search "homes, cars, and persons." > >Joe Talmadge [j--t] at [hpsemc.hp.com] >Member of the Board of Directors of the >Santa Clara Valley chapter of the ACLU > >My views are my own; they are not necessarily shared by the national >ACLU. > >============================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------