The Nevada ACLU: One chapter gets it, 49 to go.

Popehat.com reports:

The ACLU has long refused to acknowledge an individual right to bear arms, insisting on a narrow, collective-militia-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. That’s unprincipled. It’s not unprincipled because the collective rights interpretation is self-evidently stupid or dishonest; that interpretation is a perfectly arguable, though wrong. The ACLU’s position is unprincipled because it bills itself as a defender of individual rights and has consistently taken the most pro-individual-right position possible in interpreting the rest of the Bill of Rights. Their flat declaration that ‘in our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue’ is inconsistent and unconvincing.

I agree with Popehat on this one (and I bet that my occasional guest blawger and former superstar student Jon Blevins will post a concurring comment in less than 45 seconds).

I’m a member of both the ACLU and the NRA — which means that I am not welcome in either group. As much as I dislike the NRA’s stance on everything except the Second Amendment, and as much as I wish that the ACLU would drop its Affirmative Action cheerleading (leave it to other groups), I love the Constitution. If it takes two membership fees per year to protect the entire Bill of Rights, so be it.

However, if I lived in Nevada, I wouldn’t need to waste my money supporting the Charlton Heston branch of Scientology. The Silver State’s ACLU gets that Civil Liberties equals the whole Bill of Rights, not just the parts that hippies like.

In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision concerning the D.C. handgun ban (District of Columbia v. Heller) the ACLU of Nevada considers it important to clearly state its position regarding the right to bear arms. The Nevada ACLU respects the individual’s right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations. The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights. This policy was formulated by our afilliate Board in light of both the U.S. Constitution and the clearly-stated individual right to bear arms as set out in the Nevada Constitution’s Declaration of Rights.

Unless you live in Nevada, I don’t understand how you can support the ACLU and not the NRA (and vice versa). I think that the two groups should merge. Think about it. We could drive all the religious nuts out of the NRA, and for fun, we could hunt and eat the hippies! Yaay!

By the way, welcome to the blogroll, Popehat!

6 Responses to The Nevada ACLU: One chapter gets it, 49 to go.

  1. popehat says:

    Thanks! And thanks for not making fun of the nonsensical last sentence in the paragraph you quoted (which should read as follows: “Their flat declaration that ‘in our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue’ is inconsistent and unconvincing.”

  2. Patrick says:

    Thanks (on Ken’s behalf) for the blogroll addition. I live in North Carolina, and find myself in your position of awkwardly balancing my libertarian/civil rights friends with my mostly nonlibertarian (until you explain that most everything the government wants to do to others, it can do to you) gun rights friends.

    Cheers to the Nevada ACLU, which seems to understand (unlike Strossen and successors) that most of the people it’s fighting for don’t live in gated communities.

  3. Windypundit says:

    I suspect Strossen is a bit more pro-gun than the ACLU itself. She launched an effort to reconsider gun rights in the 1990s, and under her leadership the ACLU joined with the NRA in fighting anti-gun library censorship and unconstitutional guns sweeps in Chicago. After the Waco incident, I heard her talking about the Branch Davidians’ right to bear arms. She’s not an NRA member by any means, but she’s not the gun owner’s enemy either.

    ACLU+NRA myself. Maybe we should start a blog ring…

  4. blevinsj says:

    Haha, well it has been more than 45sec BUT YES, I concur….I am not sure whether I included this argument in the preceding posts about the Second Amendment.

    It is interesting the sides chosen by the NRA and ACLU regarding the individual rights argument. The NRA sabotaged many cases pending review by the Supreme Court. The NRA took the position that it enjoyed the current state of the law, prior to Heller, because it allowed states to grant individual and fundamental rights to gun ownership per the individual state constitutions (like TN). The NRA was afraid the Court would chose the majority few of a collective right, So, for all the chest beating the NRA does, it was a wuss when it mattered.

    Surprisingly, the ACLU was on the collective rights side of the argument for awhile as well. The ACLU took the side of the KKK, child molesters, rapists, etc but did not want an individual right for gun ownership. The collective rights argument flies in the face of what the ACLU, supposedly, stand for, yet they chose to side with the feds. So, it was interesting that two organizations that are usually diametrically opposed to one another were holding hands on the wrong side of the argument…surprising the side of the argument supported by the government….

    For those of you that hold cards with both organizations it is water under the bridge…the two organization pulled their head out of their agendas and read the Constitution again. The NRA and ACLU decided to back Mr. Heller and rally against the DC law.

    Btw, anyone watching the news or following the progression of post Heller fallout? It seems every state is attempting to be the first state to have its gun laws challenged. Florida passed a law that allows concealed weapons in the work place….Atlanta is attempting to pass a law that allows concealed guns in the mass transit system. It remains to be seen whether these legislators are attempting to provide more freedoms to citizens under Heller or are trying to show the flaws with Heller in bad faith, like Mr. Ambrose…oops was that a “slander?”

    Super Star! hahaha

  5. Cranky says:

    Hunt and eat hippies??? Get serious – have you ever tried to clean one?

    Seriously, I am a proud ACLU member but I have shied away from joining the NRA exactly because of the religious nuts. I’m a competitive pistol shooter, a licensed CWP holder and perhaps more than most, aware of the liability issues should I be forced to use my firearm in defense.

    Perhaps ACLU members can move the ACLU toward a more firearms friendly stance, as this would involve a new source of revenue – something that the ACLU obviously needs considering the number of mailings I receive from them.

  6. Bushmaster1313 says:

    Used to be that the ACLU would say “I disagree with you are saying but I would fight to the death to defend your right to say it.”

    Now their motto is: “I agree with you that the Supreme Court said you have this right but I will do whatever I can to keep you from exercising it.”

    How would Justice Ginsberg feel about a state official who asked a pregnant woman: “Please explain to me again why you think you need to have an abortion.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,614 other followers

%d bloggers like this: