From: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Chris Luchini)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:15:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bxy12o.Dxw
Reply-To: cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: High Energy Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

In article <1992Nov19.010222.10042@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>In article <Bxwt89.79D@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>I noticed that in the list of constitutionally protected rights, the ACLU
>>doesn't recognize the right to keep and bear arms, but that it DOES recognize
>>the right to privacy which is not listed in the constitution (not that I
>>disagree with the general idea of the government keeping out of private
>>affairs, but it would have to follow under the 9th amendment or something).
>>
>>Isn't it a bit fraudulent to claim to support the bill of rights when you
>>choose to ignore certain parts of it?
>
>In order to defend the Bill of Rights, you have to establish a position on
>its interpretation. Most of the rights granted are uncontroversial and
>defending them is simple. A few, notably the right to keep and bear arms
>and freedom of religion/separation of church and state, are interpreted
>differently by various groups. 
>
>In the case of the right to keep and bear arms, the two prevailing positions
>are 1) that you have the right to keep and bear anything you damn well feel
>like, or 2) the word militia is in the amendment for a reason, and you do
>not have the unrestricted right to bear any arms, but rather those 
>"reasonable" for militia service and hunting.
                                      ^^^^^^^

	I would contend, and the Supreme Court agrees, that militial
	weapons are the only ones protected. By the way, the ACLU position
	is the fraudulent ' the 2'nd protects the National Guard's right
	to arms' which is patently absurd, as well as explicitly addressed
	in another S.C. ruling. In other words you are full of shit, and
	haven't read 1) any of the relavent S.C. ruling, and 2) The
	ACLU position paper that addresses the question.

	BTW there is a movement afoot within the ACLU to re-examine it's
	position on the 2'nd, to bring it more cloesly inline with the
	extensive legal history, and previous S.C. rulings. I personally
	doubt they will change their position, as they don't give a shit
	about property rights under the 5'th either. [zoning and
	rent control laws spring to mind.] If they did care, the least
	they could have done is to have file a a.c. brief in the
	Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council case.

	The ACLU supports left-wing 'rights' because it is made up
	of left wing supporters. No surprise. I have no beef with
	the causes the national ACLU fights for (though some of the
	state chapters need serious mental help), it's just that
	they do so little to protect non-left-wing rights. 


>
>You have adopted position 1. The ACLU has adopted position 2. Either of you
>may be right, as a definitive Supreme Court decision has not been made.

	Ever hear of the Miller case? No I though not. . .
try:
UNITED STATES vs. MILLER et al.
No. 696.  Argued March 30, 1939 -- Decided May 15, 1939

>The presence of various gun control laws in the statute books is an
>argument that the Supreme Court may decide in favor position 2. 
>

	Just like segregation laws were on the books for ~100 years. . . 

>Whether you think this is a good or bad thing is a subject for
>talk.politics. guns.
>
>The ACLU's support of position 2 does not necessarily mean that they are
>evil incarnate. They just differ from you. And that is covered by the
>first amendment.
>-- 
>Stephen Graham
>graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
*1110 W. Green/Urbana IL 61801/217-333-0505/cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory