Nevada ACLU Supports Heller and 2nd Amendment!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good for them, doing the right thing regardless of what the national branch wants.
 
Nevada citizens, the NV-ACLU has decided to support your freedoms. It is time to reciprocate in kind! Put the NV ACLU membership form in the mail on the same day you put your NRA one.
 
Excellent news, I'll use this to continue to badger the NJ chapter who are shall we say......"unenlightened"
 
Forgive my cynicism, but I am a bit suspicious. The phrase, "subject to constitutionally permissible regulations" gives a lot of wiggle room.
Click to expand...
Think of "Constitutionally permissible regulations" this way:
Can you express your free speech as much as you want in a courtroom while others are facing a trial?
Can you have a protest march on city streets without a permit?
Can you build a church without following building code for all buildings?
Can someone lose their right to vote if they committed a felony and lost their right to vote by due process of law?

That is what they are talking about, I am sure. Just like with all the other civil rights, they are not absolute and they wanted to make sure everyone knows this as I see it.
 
Excellent news, I'll use this to continue to badger the NJ chapter who are shall we say......"unenlightened"
Click to expand...

How exactly do you badger your local chapter? Bush et.al. convinced me to rejoin after a 20 year lapse, and I don't know much about the governance of the organization. I mainly joined because I agree with them on nearly every issue except gun control. :mad:

I would have PM'd you, by I think other folks might want to join and lobby for change.

Mike
 
Nevada's ACLU reflects Nevada's population (at least the well entrenched ones) that tend towards a more Libertarian outlook. It doesn't really surprise me too much.
 
I'm certainly not defending ACLU on this particular decision. Keep hammering them on their comment board, but "you're dirty commies" comments are not helpful, considering Roger Baldwin rejected communism in the 1940's and purged the ACLU organization of their membership and influence (which most of the comments seems to indicate them as a "communist" organization continuously). If the ACLU can be turned into our side on this subject, it'll drive a stake through the heart of the now dying vampire called "Gun Control". The blog post comments HAVE gotten their attention, and it's being reviewed, and they've been given the tools and the scholarship. Helps that their president is a Constitutional Law Professor.
Click to expand...

But "dirty commies" is what many gun owners think of as foreplay.
 
I'm afraid there are more than just a few misconceptions about the ACLU.


CRITGIT
 
This is a step in the right direction; however, there are MANY ways the ACLU has been destroying America over the decades, so I would like to see them change their position on a whole host of other issues, as well.
 
We start gaining ground an inch at a time...

As civil order in the world slips towards chaos, people that never gave gun ownership and firearms rights much thought before, will realize how precious preservation of life and liberty really is.

That's how I arrived here at least!
 
This is a step in the right direction; however, there are MANY ways the ACLU has been destroying America over the decades, so I would like to see them change their position on a whole host of other issues, as well.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think of the ACLU as protecting America from those who would destroy us from within. The two most dangerous groups of people who most threaten American freedom are those who are determined to warp America into a Christian theocracy - What part of "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is hard to understand?" - and those who would trade away our 1st and 5th to make us "comfortable" and "safe from terrorism".

Most of what the ACLU does falls into 3 categories (from what I have seen):

  1. Government resources may not be used to make people pray to the G-d you want them to pray to the way that you want them to pray.
  2. The goverment can't force people to shut up because the government doesn't like what they are saying.
  3. The government cannot pin a label on you and throw you in jail wihout a trial.

I am glad to see that the ACLU is adding a 4th - makes me give more donations. :)

  • Your religion says that Jew is not prohibited from marrying a non-Jew, but people of the same sex are prohibited from marrying each other.
  • My religion says that a Jew is prohibited from marrying a non-Jew, but people of the same sex are not prohibited from marrying each other.
  • Is there any way that the government can compel adherence to your religion and not mine? Should the government be in the business of enforcing any particular religion's marriage taboo's? That pesky "no law respecting an establishment of religion" gets in the way, doesn't it?

I support all of those.

So that's why I am a member (and I suspect that you are not). :)

If the ACLU adopted a different position about the right to keep and bear arms, I'd like them better.

I still wouldn't want them putting too much effort into RKBA issues as long as the NRA is ready, willing and able to do so. That's really a resource allocation issue - most of our rights are more or less continually under attack from people who believe they have the constitutional right to be comfortable to tell other people what to do. It makes sense to me for the ACLU to focus its efforts on non-RKBA issues, and for the NRA to focus on non-RKBA issues.

Mike
 
Hey RPCVY, you're doing the same thing with your quote of that amendment that the anti-gunners do with the 2nd. They harp endlessly about "the milita" ,then ignore "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms". You're focusing just as intently on the "no law respecting an establishment of religion" part, while conveniently ignoring the other equally important part about "restricting the free excersize thereof". We are in no danger at all of "congress passing any law respecting an establishment of religion", none at all, yet we see the courts strke down religious, particularly Christian, expression on an almost daily basis.
 
... while conveniently ignoring the other equally important part about "restricting the free excersize thereof"...
Click to expand...

I don't think that I am ignoring anything.

There is a key difference between the 1st and the 2nd.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Click to expand...

It's the word or. Congress is not allowed to make any law that respects an establishment of religion. Congress is also not allowed to make any kaw taht restricts the free exercise of religion. The clauses are clearly independent, and prohibit two different actions by Congress.

The issue that was decided by Heller was the relationship between the two phrases in the 2nd Amendment - hence the emphasis by Scalia on the "operative" clause. The two phrases in the 2nd are not in conjunction.

... We are in no danger at all of "congress passing any law respecting an establishment of religion", ...
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with your 2nd assertion - I think the the "faith based initiatives" are clearly nothing but an attempt to "respect an establishment of religion". What could be more clearly prohibited than giving tax money to religious establishments?. The founders didn't, "unless the religious establishment claims they are not promulgating religion; wink, wink."

BTW, I don't fault one party over another in this - Obama has come out in favor of this method for state support of acceptable churches. I think W likes to give tax money to white evangelicals, where Obama probably has more historical black churches in mind. I feel pretty confident that neither W or Obama have in mind funneling money to mosques or Wiccan sects. :)

The 1st is one that the Founding Fathers got exactly right, and dominant religious groups have been trying to weasel around it for 200 years. It was originally drafted, I believe to protect Baptists in Virginia (and maybe to a lesser extent Quakers in Pennsylvania.

... yet we see the courts strke down religious, particularly Christian, expression on an almost daily basis.
Click to expand...

I have yet to here of single court decision that struck down any religious expression that did not involve government venues, government employees, or government resources of some kind. The "prayer in the school" issue is completely bogus - there has never been a decision that even touched whether or not I can pray in any school at any time The only question is whether government employees (teachers, etc.) can directly compel students to pray, whether government venues (like schools, football stadiums, airports, etc) can be used to compel students to pray. Can you demonstrate one that does not involve government venues, government employees, or government resources of any kind?

At any rate, I didn't specify the second (independent) restriction on Congress with regard to religion - the "free exercise", because I don't know of that being under much attack. The first restriction is under constant attack.

The 1st Amendment includes two separate restrictions on Congress with regard to establishments of religion - the first is that you can't promulgate the second is that you can't prohibit any religion. The founding fathers knew that both were necessary. They knew the lash of both.

The 2nd Amendment is about one restriction - the right to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed.

Mike
 
(QUOTE) "I have yet to here of single court decision that struck down any religious expression that did not involve government venues, government employees, or government resources of some kind. The "prayer in the school" issue is completely bogus - there has never been a decision that even touched whether or not I can pray in any school at any time The only question is whether government employees (teachers, etc.) can directly compel students to pray, whether government venues (like schools, football stadiums, airports, etc) can be used to compel students to pray. Can you demonstrate one that does not involve government venues, government employees, or government resources of any kind?"

If the emplyees in some podunk city hall want to hang a wreathe or something, that does NOT constitute a violation of the 1st. That isn't within a hundred miles of "congress passing any law respecting....religion", yet we see this kind of thing on the news all the time, and this religious expression gets taken to court, or succumbs to ACLU threats. Also, we've seen numerous times where a high school principal has ordered a class valedictorian to not mention his/her faith in Jesus/God in their graduation speech because of some twisted assumption of constitutional violation. One of my poker buddies had their child admonished for bowing his head before lunch in the school cafeteria, and this is happening all over. Again, these expressions aren't remotely close to being a constitutional violation, yet they're routinely stepped on.
 
If the emplyees in some podunk city hall ...

Also, we've seen numerous times where a high school principal has ordered a class valedictorian to not mention his/her faith in Jesus/God ...
Click to expand...

So you are in fact agreeing that there have been government venues, government employees, or government resources in all these cases that are claimed as "freedom of religious expression"?

The last case you cite is particularly clear as an infringement on the 1st. The other members of the graduating class are not required to sit and here how wonderful Jesus or Mohammed or Elijah Mohammed the Earth Mother is - they should not be compelled by the government to sit and listen to that in order to graduate from a public school. More importantly, tax money cannot be used to promulgate any religion.

Would you want your tax money used to allow a Nation of Islam valedictorian to lecture students on the belief that Jews are "mud people"? I sure wouldn't.

Just to be clear, I send (sent) my daughter to private Christian school where it would be perfectly appropriate for a valedictorian to talk about his/her beliefs - no government venues, government employees, or government resources are used.

The general solution in public school around here is to hold a "baccalaureate" at a church for graduating students. At a church, anyone can get up and testify to anything they want to - no government venues, government employees, or government resources are used.

Mike
 
Novus Collectus said:
Think of "Constitutionally permissible regulations" this way:
Can you express your free speech as much as you want in a courtroom while others are facing a trial?
Can you have a protest march on city streets without a permit?
Can you build a church without following building code for all buildings?
Can someone lose their right to vote if they committed a felony and lost their right to vote by due process of law?

That is what they are talking about, I am sure. Just like with all the other civil rights, they are not absolute and they wanted to make sure everyone knows this as I see it.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the 1st Amendment freedom os speech provision is nowhere near as all-encompassing as the 2nd Amendment:

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

Removing the religion part, this says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..."

"Congress" is secret Constitution code for the Federal government. Under the 1st Amendment, the individual states can abridge the freedom of speech all they want.
 
Well, this one's wandered off track into a discussion of politics of religion in this country.

Either drop this thread veer or this one's closed.
 
Last edited:
A lot of gunnies don't understand that things can be changed. An organization's future actions are not already engraved in stone.

If enough gunnies and like-minded folks joined the ACLU, it -could- be changed, or, conversely, it could be at least neutered, as high-dollar "we know what is good for you" donators leave for more radical pastures.

And it could happen within two years.
 
Lets hope there will be a domino reaction in the next year or so. If the entire nation's ACLU will strongly support the 2nd Amendment, the leftist elitist's golden days will be over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Nevada ACLU supports an individualgun rights
Replies
4
Views
355
ozwyn
O
R
  • Locked
Nevada ACLU supports an individual’s right to bear arms
Replies
3
Views
461
Art Eatman
A
3
  • Locked
Earth to the ACLU...
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
chieftain
C
W
  • Locked
My ongoing discussion with the ACLU regarding guns
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Waywatcher
W
DrDeFab
  • Locked
ACLU and Heller
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
5K
hso
hso
Back
Top