OK....
I rarely comment on the activities of the ACLU. I don't particularly like some of the stances they take, but I do get it-- based directly on thier own comments in interviews.
I have the ability to disagree with someone or an organization, but still respect that they have conviction of thier beliefs and integrity. I can actually despise a group or person based upon thier views, and still respect their convictions-- as long as they show integrity.
Now, I say the above as a prelude for this:
From an interview that I saw regarding the ACLU NAMBLA case, they explained that they did not support or assert the notion that a person's civil rights were being infringed upon by laws preventing them from having sex with underage boys. They explained that they were taking the case because they felt that legal precedent was lacking and it would be beneficial to establish a more codified position.
OK. So what they are telling me is that SC interpretation is needed and that they respect the rulings of the SC. In fact, much of the activities of the ACLU has been bringing cases in order to establish legal precedent through cases. At its foundation, they are deferring to the rulings of the legal system as being the final arbitrator of precedent and the rule of law.
And then we get this....
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
They have literally stated that they disagree with the SC and that they are therefore-- by dissenting-- suggested a fallibility of the very entity which they have touted and relied upon as the final arbitrator of codified rights.
What they are saying is that the SC is the final word-- unless it goes against our viewpoint.
By the statement I have quoted, the ACLU has now identified itself as an organization who is more interested in social engineering rather than codification of rights.
Many defend the ACLU for not having a position on the 2A as stating that they do not have to defend ALL of the BOR. I reject this notion. If they are to have as thier mission statement that they defend Civil Rights, they do not have the luxury of picking and choosing. They should amend thier mission if that is the case.
As it is, I see the ACLU as having lost ALL integrity on this issue. Along with it goes the very last vestige of respect that I may have held for the organization.
I suppose it is liberating for me.
-- John
