5 ms·

The ACLU site explicitly says that they don't recognize the 2A as an individual right.[0] > Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security

The ACLU site explicitly says that they don't recognize the 2A as an individual right.[0] > Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008. > In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. [0]https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment

ikiris 4y ago
That doesn't mean they're against the amendment, just that they disagree with your interpretation of it.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  And Heller, and non-binding opinions of it from the last 200 years. If I interpret the first amendment to only apply to brown eyed people, and then defend that very odd interpretation, am I still a defender of the first amendment?
  - mLuby 4y ago
    If you interpret the 4th amendment's "papers" to mean only tree-based sheets, not documents which might be electronic, are you really a defender of the 4th amendment? > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…
    - cperciva 4y ago
      If you want to be etymologically pedantic, "papers" should mean only sheets of papyrus.
dionian 4y ago
"well-regulated" means "well-armed" or "well-equipped", not "well-regulated by laws". cf. https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm See my other comment below about the precise legal definition of militia.
- kristjansson 4y ago
  More like 'appropriately armed' or 'properly equipped', no? "well-armed" and "well-equipped" imply a surfeit of arms and equipment, whereas well-regulated connotes balance or homeostasis
- ameister14 4y ago
  I don't think it's actually just arms and equipment. It means 'well-ordered.' It's the ability to call up organize and elect leadership from the people at need, among many other things. For example, Article I Section 8 provides Congress the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" It's in a similar manner that the 2nd should treat 'regulated' militias.
- gjm11 4y ago
  That page neither argues that, nor supports the view that, "well-regulated" means well armed or well equipped. The page argues that it means something like "running well", but the examples they give seem to me to fit better with a slightly different meaning that also matches the etymology of the word (in Latin a regula is a rule; it comes from the word meaning to rule or govern). I think "well-regulated" means some combination of: well organized, well governed, well adjusted, well controlled. In the Second Amendment it may or may not have specifically the sense of "well organized/governed/adjusted/controlled by the nation's government". But it's definitely not just talking about a militia that has enough weapons, or a militia that is good at shooting the people it wants to shoot; a well-regulated militia is one that is well organized and that makes good choices about who to shoot and why. (It also seems clear to me that "well-regulated" is not there to be any part of the point of the Second Amendment. I think it's mentioned in passing, possibly exactly to reassure people who might otherwise worry that the 2A is trying to set things up so that armed mobs terrorize everyone. "For a free state to remain secure, it needs a militia -- yes, yes, of course it has to be a well regulated one -- and so the people must be able to have weapons.")
xbar 4y ago
I am sad about this set of facts about the ACLUs position. Longer than the ACLU has held its opinion, the Constitution and the writings of the Founders, both before and after its ratification, ascribe all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to individuals, including the 2nd Amendment specifically. I have long been an ACLU member and donor. Despite my differences of opinion on some matters, I have been grateful that they have fought in the name of rights in a great many cases. I do wish they would take a broader view on their mandate on Civil Liberties, today and tomorrow.
- boppo1 4y ago
  >writings of the Founders... ascribe all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to individuals Can you point me in the direction of these writings?
  - briHass 4y ago
    The Federalist Papers, particularly those of Hamilton and Madison. Notably #84: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84 Ironically, Hamilton was both wrong and right here. He was right that by enumerating rights in the BoR that it has empowered the government to view those rights as the only ones that are untouchable (and not even that.) However, he was wrong that the COTUS would stand on its own to protect individual rights due to its strict limiting of the government's ability to infringe those natural rights -- which it very much has done.
  - xbar 4y ago
    “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 Later in life, even: “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > Longer than the ACLU has held its opinion, the Constitution and the writings of the Founders, both before and after its ratification, ascribe all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to individuals, including the 2nd Amendment specifically. This isn't even remotely true. The 10th Amendment, for example, explicitly concerns the rights of the states and not the individuals within them. The phrase "well-regulated militia" should be a giveaway to you: individual human beings are singular, not plural, and the concept of a "well-regulated individual" doesn't make much sense either in the language of the framers. We've so profoundly distorted the original language as to effectively erase "militia" entirely[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

ikiris 4y ago

That doesn't mean they're against the amendment, just that they disagree with your interpretation of it.

vorpalhex 4y ago
And Heller, and non-binding opinions of it from the last 200 years. If I interpret the first amendment to only apply to brown eyed people, and then defend that very odd interpretation, am I still a defender of the first amendment?
- mLuby 4y ago
  If you interpret the 4th amendment's "papers" to mean only tree-based sheets, not documents which might be electronic, are you really a defender of the 4th amendment? > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…
  - cperciva 4y ago
    If you want to be etymologically pedantic, "papers" should mean only sheets of papyrus.

dionian 4y ago

"well-regulated" means "well-armed" or "well-equipped", not "well-regulated by laws". cf. https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm See my other comment below about the precise legal definition of militia.

kristjansson 4y ago
More like 'appropriately armed' or 'properly equipped', no? "well-armed" and "well-equipped" imply a surfeit of arms and equipment, whereas well-regulated connotes balance or homeostasis
ameister14 4y ago
I don't think it's actually just arms and equipment. It means 'well-ordered.' It's the ability to call up organize and elect leadership from the people at need, among many other things. For example, Article I Section 8 provides Congress the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" It's in a similar manner that the 2nd should treat 'regulated' militias.
gjm11 4y ago
That page neither argues that, nor supports the view that, "well-regulated" means well armed or well equipped. The page argues that it means something like "running well", but the examples they give seem to me to fit better with a slightly different meaning that also matches the etymology of the word (in Latin a regula is a rule; it comes from the word meaning to rule or govern). I think "well-regulated" means some combination of: well organized, well governed, well adjusted, well controlled. In the Second Amendment it may or may not have specifically the sense of "well organized/governed/adjusted/controlled by the nation's government". But it's definitely not just talking about a militia that has enough weapons, or a militia that is good at shooting the people it wants to shoot; a well-regulated militia is one that is well organized and that makes good choices about who to shoot and why. (It also seems clear to me that "well-regulated" is not there to be any part of the point of the Second Amendment. I think it's mentioned in passing, possibly exactly to reassure people who might otherwise worry that the 2A is trying to set things up so that armed mobs terrorize everyone. "For a free state to remain secure, it needs a militia -- yes, yes, of course it has to be a well regulated one -- and so the people must be able to have weapons.")

xbar 4y ago

I am sad about this set of facts about the ACLUs position. Longer than the ACLU has held its opinion, the Constitution and the writings of the Founders, both before and after its ratification, ascribe all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to individuals, including the 2nd Amendment specifically. I have long been an ACLU member and donor. Despite my differences of opinion on some matters, I have been grateful that they have fought in the name of rights in a great many cases. I do wish they would take a broader view on their mandate on Civil Liberties, today and tomorrow.

boppo1 4y ago
>writings of the Founders... ascribe all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to individuals Can you point me in the direction of these writings?
- briHass 4y ago
  The Federalist Papers, particularly those of Hamilton and Madison. Notably #84: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84 Ironically, Hamilton was both wrong and right here. He was right that by enumerating rights in the BoR that it has empowered the government to view those rights as the only ones that are untouchable (and not even that.) However, he was wrong that the COTUS would stand on its own to protect individual rights due to its strict limiting of the government's ability to infringe those natural rights -- which it very much has done.
- xbar 4y ago
  “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 Later in life, even: “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
woodruffw 4y ago
> Longer than the ACLU has held its opinion, the Constitution and the writings of the Founders, both before and after its ratification, ascribe all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to individuals, including the 2nd Amendment specifically. This isn't even remotely true. The 10th Amendment, for example, explicitly concerns the rights of the states and not the individuals within them. The phrase "well-regulated militia" should be a giveaway to you: individual human beings are singular, not plural, and the concept of a "well-regulated individual" doesn't make much sense either in the language of the framers. We've so profoundly distorted the original language as to effectively erase "militia" entirely[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller