(I would point out that folks might want to actually *read* Miller
before agreeing with the ACLU on this point... -- Jerry)

From: [k--eg--n] at [helios.acm.rpi.edu] (james g. keegan jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: guns
Date: 4 Jan 1995 11:19:44 GMT

X-within-URL: gopher://gopher.pipeline.com:6601/00/answers/guns


ACLU answers                                   Issue: 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.

     ACLU/Department of Public Education/September 23, 1991
=============================================================
ACLU Free Reading Room   | A publications and information resource of the
gopher://aclu.org:6601   | American Civil Liberties Union National Office
ftp://aclu.org           |
mailto:[i--oa--u] at [aclu.org] |  "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"


.


-- 
  "His claim of 17 reposts was pure fabrication, changing
   the 17 to a 1 made him look more honest than he actually is."
   -ray fischer explaining why he forged <[rayD 07 MyG Mo] at [netcom.com]>