The National ACLU isn’t Neutral on Gun Control

The National ACLU isn’t Neutral on Gun Control

Phil Lee, 9/11/2008

The National ACLU claimed in 2004 to be neutral on gun control on a web page stating:

What is the ACLU's position on gun control?
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons, nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. For more information, please read our statement on gun control.

The link to their "statement on gun control" leads to a blank page currently, but the web archive gives their policy statement dating to 2002 with the paragraphs:

Gun Control (3/4/2002)
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

While individual state organizations in Nevada, Texas, and Arizona differ in their support of RKBA, certainly the national ACLU continues to be guided by their policy #47 adopted in 1979:

Gun Control Policy #47

The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and adopted demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective one, existing only in the collective population of each state for the purpose of maintaining an effective state militia. The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms. Nor does the ACLU believe that there is a significant civil liberties value apart from the Second Amendment in an individual right to own or use firearms. Interests of privacy and self- expression may be involved in any individual's choice of activities or possessions, but these interests are attenuated where the activity, or the object sought to be possessed, is inherently dangerous to others. With respect to firearms, the ACLU believes that this quality of dangerousness justifies legal regulation which substantially restricts the individual's interest in freedom of choice. 1/

However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions. For example, the enforcement process of systems of licensing, registration, or prohibition may threaten extensive invasions of privacy as owners are required to disclose details of ownership and information about their personal history, views, and associations. Furthermore, police enforcement or such schemes may encourage entrapment, illegal searches and other means which violate civil liberties. The ACLU takes the position that any such legislation must be drafted bearing these problems in mind and seeking to minimize them. [Board Minutes, June 14-15, 1979.]

If you ask Senators Chuck Schumer or John Kerry or Barack Obama whether they support the Second Amendment, the answer will be that they do. However, when they make that statement, they don't mean the same thing that I would in such an answer.

The devil is in the details.

The ACLU national organization says it is neutral on gun control, but their details include their statement that the "Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership". But all the restrictions proposed by gun control proponents are "reasonable" -- just look at their language.

"shall not be infringed" becomes "its a matter for the legislature and courts to determine whether the infringement is reasonable."

So, the national ACLU's notion of neutrality is clear. It means they won't stand in the way of any infringement of the Second Amendment which doesn't affect the other amendments.

Some neutrality!

I have to wonder about people who would describe the ACLU as neutral. Would they also tell us that Schumer, Kerry and Obama support the Second Amendment?

The ACLU are guilty of far more than just refusing to help us on Second Amendment rights. After the Heller ruling, the national ACLU posted the statement:

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.

So the ACLU even objects to the Supreme Court stating that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms as fundamental.

That neutrality stance is no different than that of the Brady Organization!

Updated by Phil Lee on 9/10/10. Contact maryland_alert at yahoo dot com (sorry for being obscure, but web mail address scavenge programs make this practice necessary).