5 ms·

When was the ACLU going off the tracks exactly?

by sachdevap 7y ago

kick 7y ago
After giving up on Gilmore v. Gonzales, in my opinion.
- tonyarkles 7y ago
  I just did a quick read here. What options are there for their case? They tried to escalate to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court was not interested. Where do you go from there? (note: Am Canadian, curious about it hypothetically)
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    You're correct; that case has no options remaining. The ACLU would likely have to get a different district to issue a conflicting opinion in a different case to get SCOTUS to take a look.
blotter_paper 7y ago
I love the work that the ACLU does, but they've always been picking and choosing which rights to actively support. See the opinion of the 2nd amendment on their own website: https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment I personally don't hold the constitution as a sacred document, though I do find that it aligns with my ideals more than the actual policies of modern America. I could respect an organization being opposed to an amendment and deciding not to defend it for that reason, but it's always been weird to me that they have to hide behind a legal rationale rather than just admitting their political opposition to individual gun rights. I still love the ACLU, and in the past I've given them time (passing out flyers, IANAL) and money despite these reservations. I'm really not trying to hate on them, but I would consider them "off the tracks" in this regard.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Are you concerned that organizations like the NRA are doing an insufficient job defending the 2nd Amendment to the point where the ACLU desperately needs to step in?
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    The NRA is more an arm of the arms industry than it is an organization actually interested in the rights of individual gun owners; for example, they're in favor of making 3D printed guns illegal. This is good for the industry, but would infringe on the currently recognised rights of individuals. I think the Second Amendment Foundation would be a better example of an organization that actually supports the 2nd. I do think our 2nd amendment rights are slipping away (in the beginning we could own and sell unregulated cannons), but I'm not presuming to tell the ACLU how to spend their time and resources. As noted above, I would appreciate a recognition that their decision to not defend the 2nd is actually political rather than legal in nature, which I believe is pretty obvious.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > As noted above, I would appreciate a recognition that their decision to not defend the 2nd is actually political rather than legal in nature, which I believe is pretty obvious. You're leaving out the third option, practical. There are already well funded, effective organizations defending your interpretation of the Second Amendment. It makes little sense for the ACLU to divert resources to that endeavour as a result, even if they agreed with your political view on the individual vs. collective right to bear arms.
      - blotter_paper 7y ago
        That would be fine, too! Knowing that the ACLU doesn't support the 2nd, I can choose to support organizations that do in proportion to how much I care about that amendment as opposed to the others. I'm totally cool with that. But practicality is not their stated reason for not defending the 2nd, and if it were their actual reason then I'm not sure what reason they would have to use a legal rationale instead. If their actual reason is politics, it's pretty obvious why they wouldn't want to admit that; it would alienate some people, and make them appear more partisan.

When was the ACLU going off the tracks exactly?

kick 7y ago

After giving up on Gilmore v. Gonzales, in my opinion.

tonyarkles 7y ago
I just did a quick read here. What options are there for their case? They tried to escalate to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court was not interested. Where do you go from there? (note: Am Canadian, curious about it hypothetically)
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  You're correct; that case has no options remaining. The ACLU would likely have to get a different district to issue a conflicting opinion in a different case to get SCOTUS to take a look.

blotter_paper 7y ago

I love the work that the ACLU does, but they've always been picking and choosing which rights to actively support. See the opinion of the 2nd amendment on their own website: https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment I personally don't hold the constitution as a sacred document, though I do find that it aligns with my ideals more than the actual policies of modern America. I could respect an organization being opposed to an amendment and deciding not to defend it for that reason, but it's always been weird to me that they have to hide behind a legal rationale rather than just admitting their political opposition to individual gun rights. I still love the ACLU, and in the past I've given them time (passing out flyers, IANAL) and money despite these reservations. I'm really not trying to hate on them, but I would consider them "off the tracks" in this regard.

ceejayoz 7y ago
Are you concerned that organizations like the NRA are doing an insufficient job defending the 2nd Amendment to the point where the ACLU desperately needs to step in?
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  The NRA is more an arm of the arms industry than it is an organization actually interested in the rights of individual gun owners; for example, they're in favor of making 3D printed guns illegal. This is good for the industry, but would infringe on the currently recognised rights of individuals. I think the Second Amendment Foundation would be a better example of an organization that actually supports the 2nd. I do think our 2nd amendment rights are slipping away (in the beginning we could own and sell unregulated cannons), but I'm not presuming to tell the ACLU how to spend their time and resources. As noted above, I would appreciate a recognition that their decision to not defend the 2nd is actually political rather than legal in nature, which I believe is pretty obvious.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > As noted above, I would appreciate a recognition that their decision to not defend the 2nd is actually political rather than legal in nature, which I believe is pretty obvious. You're leaving out the third option, practical. There are already well funded, effective organizations defending your interpretation of the Second Amendment. It makes little sense for the ACLU to divert resources to that endeavour as a result, even if they agreed with your political view on the individual vs. collective right to bear arms.
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      That would be fine, too! Knowing that the ACLU doesn't support the 2nd, I can choose to support organizations that do in proportion to how much I care about that amendment as opposed to the others. I'm totally cool with that. But practicality is not their stated reason for not defending the 2nd, and if it were their actual reason then I'm not sure what reason they would have to use a legal rationale instead. If their actual reason is politics, it's pretty obvious why they wouldn't want to admit that; it would alienate some people, and make them appear more partisan.