Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war. -- Billy Beck

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.