The ACLU and the Second Amendment

[jimnyc]

I noticed acludem avoided my question. Figures.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I noticed acludem avoided my question. Figures.

He avoided my post too, jim. Oh well. As they say in the Army, "Silence means compliance!"

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
However, on this point you happen to be wrong.

See,
Hunt and Vroman, et al. v. Lockyer, Case No. 01CECG03182 (Cal.)

"CALIFORNIA

California Rifle & Pistol Assn. & National Rifle Assn. v. Lockyer(Calif). This case was filed as Hunt and Vroman, et al. v. Lockyer, Case No. 01CECG03182. It is a challenge to California's new so-called assault weapon law. An amended complaint was filed August 2, 2002. The suit is for declaratory relief as to vagueness."
- http://www.nradefensefund.org/docs/litigation.html
-STATE challenge.
-NOT a CONSTITUTION ISSUE.

Springfield, Inc. v. Magaw(D. C.)., 292 F.3d 813 (D.C. Cir. 2002)

"DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Springfield, Inc. v. Magaw(D. C.). This was a challenge to BATF's interpretation of the "sporting purpose test" contained in 18 U.S. Code § 925(d)(3). The test must be satisfied before a firearm is eligible for importation into the United States. It was alleged that BATF's decision is contrary to law. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment were filed, and defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted. An appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case was recaptioned Springfield, Inc. v. Buckles. On June 14, 2002, the court upheld the revocation of the import permit. It based its reasoning on caselaw requiring judicial deference to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes and to informal adjudications of the sort found in this case. The case is reported at 292 F.3d 813 (D.C. Cir. 2002). "
-Same page
-Interpretation issue of lower level laws- "sporting purpose test".
-NOT a CONSTITUTION ISSUE.

Gun Owners' Action League, 284 F.3d 198 (lst Cir. 2002)
NRA v. Magaw, 132 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 1997), aff'd 301 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2002)

"
Plaintiffs' complaint specifically alleged that the definitions
of "semiautomatic assault weapon" contained in sections
921(a)(30)(A), (B) of the Act were unconstitutionally vague and
denied them due process of law (Counts I, II, and VI); that
Congress exceeded the scope of its constitutional power under the
Commerce Clause by enacting the prohibitions in sections 922(v)(1),
922(w)(1) of the Act (Count III); that the ban on certain
semiautomatic assault weapons, as designated in section 921(a)(30),
and the protection of others, as designated in section 922(v)(3)
and section 922, Appendix A, was arbitrary and capricious,
violating the Equal Protection Clause (Count IV), and was not
rationally related to any legitimate federal interest (Count VII);
and that BATF's interpretation of the terms "frame" and "receiver"
in section 921(a)(3)(B) for purposes of the grandfather provision
at section 922(v)(2) was arbitrary and capricious (Count V).
[footnote 5] The district court found that plaintiffs' complaint
did not present a justiciable "case or controversy" as required by
Article III of the Constitution."
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nra_v_magaw2.txt
-Argued "Vagueness"
-NOT a 2nd AMMENDMENT CONSTITUTION ISSUE.

Baca v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety, 47 P.3d 441 (N. Mex. 2002)

"NEW MEXICO

Baca v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety (New Mexico). The The New Mexico legislature enacted a statute that authorizes the issuance of a license to carry a firearm concealed. The statute allowed Albuquerque to exempt itself from this provision. New Mexico's right to bear arms guarantee includes a provision that no unit of local government may in any way regulate an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the provision that allows Albuquerque to exempt itself violates the guarantee to bear arms. Furthermore, the unconstitutional part of the statute is not severable and thus the whole statute is void. The case is reported at 47 P.3d 441 (N. Mex. 2002). The legislature recently enacted a new right-to-carry statute, without the Albequerque exception. "

https://www.nradefensefund.org/docs/litigation.html
-Challenge to the STATE
-NOT a CONSTITUTION ISSUE


How many times do you have to step in poo in public?

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
acludem is talking out of his butt again on the 2nd ammendment.

Pop quiz. How many cases have even GONE TO COURT on gun restrictions or gun laws BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

How about a big fat ZERO.

It seems you have an inability to admit when you are wrong.

You stated no cases have been ligitigated that deal with "gun restrictions OR (I note the use of the alternative here) gun laws being unconstitutional (note the lack of the phrase 'unconstitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds.')

Well, all of the cases deal with gun restrictions, and one (or two) of the cases that you discussed in your thread raises Equal Protection and Due Process Constitutional Issues. That appears to be precisely what you said did not exist in your post.

However, even if what you meant to say was that no Second Amendment cases challenging the Constitutionality of gun restrictions, you are still wrong, you pedantic little mutt.

See (and here I am taking excerpts directly from the NRA website, under the litigation activities homepage titled "The NRA has recently supported over 60 cases"),

1.Nordyke v. County of Alameda(Calif). This case involves a challenge to a gun show ban. The U.S. District Court denied Nordyke's motion for a preliminary injunction. Nordyke appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on September 12, 2000, certified to the California Supreme Court a question on firearm preemption. The California Supreme Court concluded that the municipal ordinance in question, insofar as it concerns gun shows, is not preempted. There was a dissenting opinion. The case is reported as Nordyke v. King, 27 Cal.4th 875, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 761, 44 P.3d 133 (2002). On September 30, 2002, a supplemental brief was filed in compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals' order that supplemental briefs be filed addressing federal constitutional issues, including the SECOND AMENDMENT On February 18, 2003, the court held that the facial challenge to the ordinance based infringement of expressive conduct fails. Regarding the Second Amendment, the court opined that this guarantee should be revisited. The court also hinted that the individual rights view is the correct view of the SECOND AMENDMENT and stated the issue is ripe for en banc review.

2. Thomas Stillwell (Tennessee). Dr. Thomas H. Stillwell, D.D.S. was going through a divorce. The trial judge, at the instance of his former wife, issued an order forbidding him from possessing a firearm during the child's visitation. The Tennessee Court of Appeals on July 30, 2001, reversed that order. The court noted that there was no evidence of misbehavior. The court noted "we believe that when no substantial harm threatens a child's welfare, the state lacks a sufficiently compelling justification for the infringement on the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit.... Additionally, we believe the constitutional rights under the SECOND AMENDMENT of the United States Constitution as well as Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution are worthy of the same protection as is the constitutional right to privacy...." The case is reported as Stillwell v. Stillwell, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 562, 2001 WL 862620.

3. Timothy Emerson (Texas). The court struck down on SECOND and Fifth Amendment grounds the federal statute that forbids the possession of a firearm or ammunition while under a civil restraining order: United States v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp.2d 598 (N.D. Tex. 1999). The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The fund approved an in-house amicus curiae brief. The NRA'S BRIEF was filed on December 20, 1999. Other amici curiae briefs supporting the decision of the district court were filed by the Attorney General of Alabama, Academics for the Second Amendment, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and Texas Justice Foundation. Oral argument occurred on June 13, 2000. The court of appeals on October 16, 2001, held that the SECOND AMENDMENT guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, it upheld the statute because in this case Dr. Emerson received sufficient notice. The case is reported at 270 F.3d 203. A petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied on November 30, 2001. A petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 10, 2002: 122 S.Ct. 2362 (2002). [Here is a link to the NRA's amicus brief that argues directly on the basis of the Second Amendment - http://potowmack.org/emernra.html]

This comes from a list of recent cases on the NRA website. I am sure that there are also many more cases from the early 90's when the Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. You don't need me to look those up for you to, do you?

New Guy, it is okay to be wrong sometimes. It is less acceptable to be a fool.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
It seems you have an inability to admit when you are wrong.

You stated no cases have been ligitigated that deal with "gun restrictions OR (I note the use of the alternative here) gun laws being unconstitutional (note the lack of the phrase 'unconstitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds.')


New Guy, it is okay to be wrong sometimes. It is less acceptable to be a fool.

I guess I will give you that one. I forgot liberals will always misunderstand how context and english language sentence structure works.

The quote:
"How many cases have even GONE TO COURT on gun restrictions or gun laws BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL?"

It should have been worded as a second grader could have read it. "How many cases have even gone to court on **gun restrictions being unconstitutional, or gun laws being unconstitutional?"

Since you are trying to look good with nothing to stand on, I will accept your poor reading skills as a valid argument since I forgot the lowest common denominator.

Also, if you READ what you reference, the second ammendment as listed in these docs is NOT what it went to trial over. They are sub issues. The cases say that the main issue is a problem with existing law, and then ADD COMPLAINTS that the existing law is ALSO vague, or too complex to be applied or some other such BS in regard to the 2nd as an AFTERTHOUGHT.

The original point BY ME was that nobody has ever gone to court and said any gun law or gun restriction was simply unconstitutional by the second ammendment.

You really ought to learn to read.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I guess I will give you that one. I forgot liberals will always misunderstand how context and english language sentence structure works.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

My apologies. I got so used to seeing that word, I should have typed "socialists."



My bad.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
My apologies. I got so used to seeing that word, I should have typed "socialists."



My bad.

OK, I like you again

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
OK, I like you again

 

[acludem]

What question did I avoid? And btw, you notice that in every case you mention, the NRA was providing assistance to whomever was challenging the law. The most ACLU would do in this situation is to provide an amicus brief. I don't know whether or not they did in any of these cases.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
What question did I avoid?

In reference to ACLU/NAMBLA:

Who forced them to give advice to those who violate children?

 

[acludem]

The ACLU gave NAMBLA limited advice on how defend themselves based up the idea that they weren't advocating sex with underage children. NAMBLA's defense, from what I've read about the case, was that they only advocated changing age of consent laws, and that they had nothing to do with what happened to the boy who's parents sued them. For those that may not know, this case was filed by parents whose son was murdered by two men who called themselves members of NAMBLA. The parents then sued NAMBLA for inciting the men to rape and murder their son. NAMBLA denied the accusations. The ACLU got involved because another defendant in the case was NAMBLA's web provider who argued that they weren't responsible for NAMBLA's webiste. The web provider asked for help from the ACLU, not NAMBLA.


acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Well, it does 'seem' to be a bit more reasonable when explained that way. I just have a hard time understanding why they would support a group like that in any capacity. Whether they defended them in a sex case or not, they still gave advice to a group comprised of mostly sick degenerates. Thanks for the explanation though.

 

[acludem]

Hey, I wasn't thrilled about the ACLU involving itself in this case either, but I understood why they felt they had to be involved. It's the same as when they've defended the KKK and other groups like that.

acludem

 

[jscrew1]

I love my guns. Why cant i have the same representation in keeping my rights as a criminal? The ACLU would protect a criminal on a technicality, but not a law abiding citizen to keep a right. I never forfeited any of my rights or anyone elses through the committment of a crime. Odd that the gun control debate is a bit on the quiet side since pres. clinton and her husband bill are gone...dont ya think?

 

[Hobbit]

The problem is that the NAMBLA web site does advocate illegal activities. I visited it out of morbid curiosity and found a section detailing how to avoid FBI child porn stings. Fortunately, a lobotomized chimp could come up with the tips they give.

 

[acludem]

I just went and read the section where you say NAMBLA condoned illegal activity by telling people how to avoid FBI stings...it simply says...don't break the law then you don't have to worry, that's not condoning illegal activity, that's telling people not to engage in illegal activity.

I disagree with NAMBLA's positions, but so long as they do not advocate illegal activity, they have the right to articulate these positions. I read the "about us" section and it specifically states that NAMBLA does not encourage its members to engage in illegal activity. I make the same defense of the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panther Party, and other such organizations whose positions I find despicable.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by acludem
The ACLU is focused more on protecting free speech rights, freedom of religion, and the rights of the accused because these are the rights under direct seige by the federal and state governments. The ACLU is primarily a legal defense organization, so if there have been no court cases involving challenges to restrictive gun laws as you say, how is the ACLU supposed to get involved???

You arent serious are you? THe ACLU does nothing but try to stop the freedom in religion in the name of the first ammendment. So far they have successfully taken our first ammendment right to pray in schools and other public places, to express our religious views in said public places (and im not talking about statemandated prayer i mean personal prayer not state mandated prayer) They have continually fought against Churches they disagree with over what the Churches can do on their own private property.

I know them well. I am willing to bet their free speech work is just about as bad.