And Then There Were Forty-Nine

Shortly after I started TSM I wrote about the American Civil Liberties Union and its position on the Second Amendment in The ACLU Hasn't Changed Its Tune. President Nadine Strossen was clear on it back in 2003:

The plain language of the Second Amendment in no way, shape, or form, can be construed, I think, as giving an absolute right to unregulated gun ownership. It says, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Certainly, when you have the notion of "well-regulated" right in the constitutional language itself, it seems to defy any argument that regulation is inconsistent with the amendment.

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.

Something mentioned in the Constitution? It's the second item in the BILL OF RIGHTS, Nadine!

And she's still President.

But now there's been a break. Via Dave Hardy we learn:

Nevada ACLU supports an individual’s right to bear arms

And, one would hope, to keep them.

Everyone loves guns in Nevada. Ducks Unlimited, the National Rifle Association, Republicans, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ...

Wait. The ACLU?

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.

Said Supreme Court ruling coming in June of 2008. You don't want to move too fast, ladies and gentlemen. You might suffer whiplash! I take it back. Justin Buist in comments notes that the Nevada ACLU did indeed change their position almost immediately after the Heller decision, and the piece linked is dated July, 2008, not 2010. In other words, this is old news.

New to me (and apparently Dave), but old nonetheless.

Kudos, ladies and gentlemen, for your swift action. Too bad your move apparently wasn't followed by any of your sister organizations.

"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."

Will it also defend the right to keep? And does this mean the ACLU will be filing suit against North Las Vegas soon? (Apparently not.)

"This was the consensus," said Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for ACLU of Nevada. "There really wasn't a lot of dissent."

One more reason for Sarah and Kristin and Josh and Paul to be Sad Pandas. (Can we rub their noses in it?)

But the state affiliate's position puts it at odds with the national organization.

I'll say.

There's more to the story, but it's interesting to see a split in that organization over this topic at this time.

We're (still!) winning.