for or against ACLU

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by m21sniper
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" obviously has nothing to do with a militia.

The phrase "the people" means the whole body of the people, always.

Make sure you read that unabridged link of the 2nd amendment Pat provided miss, you'll learn something.

Except hun, you only posted 1/2 a sentence. Can't base a whole argument on only 1/2 a sentence, which, of course, the other half of the sentence is this: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

What you're referring to in your quote is part of one sentence, and your "quoted part"("The....) isn't even supposed to be capitalized, it's the second part of the sentence.

AGAIN, for clarity, I support my individual right to bear arms, it's (1) more selfish than anything, as well as (2) the belief that if we don't, tyranny pervades, but I'm just pointing out (1) the clause is vague and (2) either interpretation could be mete with such a vague clause.

[RoninLB]

the ACLU seeks judicial power over Legislative and Presidential power.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by cool_chick
With all due respect, no, it is not clear. If it was intended to be individual, there would be no need to include either (1) the word militia, and the words (2) well-regulated. Try as you might to claim it's not vague by capturing and highlighting only 1/2 of the the sentence as proof of "clarity", the sentence as you quote is not complete, and when the sentence is presented in it's entirety, as written, it's vague.

Again, it's not vague to me, nor to anyone that's made a study of the Amendment. I posted numerous scholarly articles from legal journals for your edification on the subject, none of them had the slightest trouble with the wording, and neither do I. It is my opinion that this means it's only vague to those without sufficient knowledge of the words contained in the amendment. What other cause could there be? The preponderance of scholarly work published in law journals supports my position, something on the order of over 40 or 50 works by law professors. Are you saying that they don't know "vague"?

Whew, well then, it's a good thing I do have a firm grasp of those things.

Doesn't matter what you or I think, this clause doesn't exist.

Yes, and because the clause is VAGUE...get it, VAGUE (remember, you claim to have a firm grasp of the english language, surely you know what VAGUE means), this is one of two potential interpretations to this VAGUE clause.

The only modern Second Amendment case, US vs. Miller 1938 , found the Second Amendment meant individual rights protections.

[Moneyguy1]

pat:

What keeps the lawyers wealthy is the continual redefining of words. Let's face it. Most court arguments are about definitions.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fastpat
]Again, it's not vague to me, nor to anyone that's made a study of the Amendment. I posted numerous scholarly articles from legal journals for your edification on the subject, none of them had the slightest trouble with the wording, and neither do I. It is my opinion that this means it's only vague to those without sufficient knowledge of the words contained in the amendment. What other cause could there be? The preponderance of scholarly work published in law journals supports my position, something on the order of over 40 or 50 works by law professors. Are you saying that they don't know "vague"?

I've read an equal amount of scholarly work published in law journals that support the other position, from professors to lawyers to historians. I even had a huge argument with the director of library services in my firm about this once, who is a lawyer (has to be for this type of position). I'm saying the clause, because it's vague, is subject to either interpretation.

The only modern Second Amendment case, US vs. Miller 1938 , found the Second Amendment meant individual rights protections.

That rocks. Thank God the USSC in 1938 held up that position. It still doesn't mean the clause is clear, and can't be interpreted either way because of it's vagueness.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
pat:

What keeps the lawyers wealthy is the continual redefining of words. Let's face it. Most court arguments are about definitions.

What's redefining about this clause?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It could easily be interpreted either way, without any sort of redefinition whatsoever.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by cool_chick
I've read an equal amount of scholarly work published in law journals that support the other position, from professors to lawyers to historians. I even had a huge argument with the director of library services in my firm about this once, who is a lawyer (has to be for this type of position). I'm saying the clause, because it's vague, is subject to either interpretation.

Post the links.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by Dan in Pasadena
The organization exists to defend challenges to the Bill of Rights.

Just 1st amendment. They will not defend a 2nd amendment case.

[sammyg2]

The ACLU is a reprehensible, unAmerican, despicable, obstructive organization until it comes to the aid of something you are in favor of.

I don't know, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. That is assuming they ever take on a case that I am in favor of, lately they'be been pretty busy with outlawing the pledge of allegiance and prayer in school, standing up for the rights of convicted murderers, rapists and child molestors, and tying up the courts by sueing normal law abiding people over incredibly stupid things.

As soon as they have finished outlawing Christianity in America they might have some free time.

[island_dude]

The last major case that I followed involving the ACLU was the School board in Kansas that was pushing or equal treatment of the intelligent design. The ACLU was supporting the group of parents who were complaining about being required to have their kids hear about how evolution is only a "Theory" and there were alternative view such as ID. They did a pretty excellent job of showing that the intelligent design movement has to redefine the scientific method in order to call ID a scientific theory.

They have taken cases for some pretty unpleasant people in the past. If anything, sometimes I think they would do better to compromise their principals once in a while. On the whole, they have done a lot of good. If you actually look at their record instead of the rantings of some of the extreamists. You will find that they are an organization I would like to have around in these times.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fastpat
The only modern Second Amendment case, US vs. Miller 1938 , found the Second Amendment meant individual rights protections.

I almost let this go.....this is not entirely accurate...

The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.


In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7


Tragically:

Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

Don't you wonder why the most powerful lobby in the nation, the NRA, doesn't take cases such as banned handguns in various cities to the USSC? I suspect even they realize it's a vague clause.

Seriously, I would love to see these credible legal sources you mention that claims the second amendment as written is "clear."

[fastpat]

Originally posted by cool_chick
I've read an equal amount of scholarly work published in law journals that support the other position, from professors to lawyers to historians.

I'm not doubting your word, specifically, but there aren't close to as many supporting the opposite view. In the last 20 years, about ten have been published, virtually of of which were written by the same few people. There's a single law professor at Berkeley and the Violence Policy Center, and that's about it. the ratio of "individual right" protection to the "collective right" protection view is something like 10 to one, or higher, in my favor.

That rocks. Thank God the USSC in 1938 held up that position. It still doesn't mean the clause is clear, and can't be interpreted either way because of it's vagueness.

The Supreme Court has refused to grant Certiorari to any Second Amendment case since the Miller Case, although plenty have been brought to it for decisions.

[cool_chick]

Not all arguments are "collectivist" (unless I'm not understanding what you mean by that.....)......the arguments are also based on the intent of a state militia to oppose a standing Army. (LOL....in retrospect......on the last 5 words).

An interesting perspective which analyzes each side of the arguments is an article written in the 80s for the Yale Law Journal, titled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." Hell, even that dude says it's perhaps the worst written amendment....

[fastpat]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Seriously, I would love to see these credible legal sources you mention that claims the second amendment as written is "clear."

In addition to the voluminous lists I've already presented?

All right. Here's The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars which should keep you busy for some time reading the research. Though I must tell you that I don't see how you've waded through what I posted earlier, nevertheless, I've presented yet more.

The evidence is simply overwhelming that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to any arm; and those that seek to define it differently have ulterior motives involving the curtailment of access to other rights as well as the right to be armed.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fastpat
In addition to the voluminous lists I've already presented?

All right. Here's The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars which should keep you busy for some time reading the research. Though I must tell you that I don't see how you've waded through what I posted earlier, nevertheless, I've presented yet more.

Ok, thanks. That's a lot to go through though, looking for lawyers and analysts stating that the amendment as written it clear. Can you point to where whomever states that the clause as written is clear?

And I did "wade" through your one link you provided here. Personally, I didn't find it "voluminous" but hey, whatever. It was one person's interpretation of the amendment, not any sort of proof that the constitution as written is clear. It was one of the two interpretations that can be mete with this vague clause.

You claimed you're a master at grammar, why are you having such a difficult time understanding this painfully simple question?

The evidence is simply overwhelming that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to any arm; and those that seek to define it differently have ulterior motives involving the curtailment of access to other rights as well as the right to be armed.

This is one interpretation by people on a pro-gun site (which means they're not going to put arguments which present another interpretation.....go to an anti-gun side for the other interpretation....this analysis is one-sided and not an effective demonstration that the clause is clear as I've requested from you, surely with your master grammar skills, you can easily understand the question presented for the umtheenth time, right?).

This link, at first glance, still does not appear to be an indication that the clause as written is clear.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Ok, thanks. That's a lot to go through though, looking for lawyers and analysts stating that the amendment as written it clear. Can you point to where whomever states that the clause as written is clear?

And I did "wade" through your one link you provided here. Personally, I didn't find it "voluminous" but hey, whatever. It was one person's interpretation of the amendment, not any sort of proof that the constitution as written is clear. It was one of the two interpretations that can be mete with this vague clause.

You claimed you're a master at grammar, why are you having such a difficult time understanding this painfully simple question?

No, I made no such claim, only that I have no trouble interpreting the Second Amendment because it's meaning is clear. Those Second Amendment scholars had no trouble understanding it either, including Stanford Levinson, his statements to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is one interpretation by people on a pro-gun site (which means they're not going to put arguments which present another interpretation.....go to an anti-gun side for the other interpretation....this analysis is one-sided and not an effective demonstration that the clause is clear as I've requested from you, surely with your master grammar skills, you can easily understand the question presented for the umtheenth time, right?).

This link, at first glance, still does not appear to be an indication that the clause as written is clear.

I don't post web sites with views opposing rights, ever. Rights aren't arguable. Rights are private property, I own my rights completely.

[sammyg2]

If you support late term abortion, you support terrorism and terrorists, if you like child pornography and think it should be completely legal, If you hate christians and prayer and want to see all religion outlawed (except islam, they seem to protect it for some reason), and if you have no conscience and don't have a problem extorting money from state and local governments in the form of frivilous lawsuits in order to fill your pockets then you are on the same page as the ACLU.

I am not.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by sammyg2
If you support late term abortion, you support terrorism and terrorists, if you like child pornography and think it should be completely legal, If you hate christians and prayer and want to see all religion outlawed (except islam, they seem to protect it for some reason), and if you have no conscience and don't have a problem extorting money from state and local governments in the form of frivilous lawsuits in order to fill your pockets then you are on the same page as the ACLU.

I am not.

You forgot "if you defend child molesters and their right to advertise for children to molest!!""

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
The ACLU as an idea is a good institution. In reality its a POS organization and needs overhauling.

Agreed(as usual).

[Hugh R]

Originally posted by cool_chick
A militia is still not an individual. But why would they include "militia" if they meant individual?

Please note, this is not my position, but this is the ACLU's and many others' position. Me personally, I think the clause is too vague and I can see either interpretation.

Either way, the ACLU feels the constitutionality of this clause is intact, it's not because they're "socialists."

To me, this just doesn't hold water. Between 1776 and the mid 1900's no one (well hardly anyone) including the courts questioned the right to own a gun. Then 150 years after the signing of the Constitution we suddenly don't have the right to own a gun? As far as I know, the 2nd Amendment hasn't been re-written since it was adopted. Its just been re-interpreted. Sounds kind of "1984" (George Orwell, for those of you in Rio Linda). What was right then, is wrong now. Plain and simple we de facto had the right to own guns for 150+ years and then suddenly we can't?