Slashdot Mirror
NRA Joins ACLU Lawsuit Against NSA
cold fjord writes with this excerpt from The Hill: "The National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit on Wednesday to end the government's massive phone record collection program. In a brief filed in federal court, the NRA argues that the National Security Agency's database of phone records amounts to a 'national gun registry.' 'It would be absurd to think that the Congress would adopt and maintain a web of statutes intended to protect against the creation of a national gun registry, while simultaneously authorizing the FBI and the NSA to gather records that could effectively create just such a registry,' the group writes. ... In its filing, the gun-rights group claims that the NSA's database would allow the government to identify and track gun owners based on whether they've called gun stores, shooting ranges or the NRA. 'Under the government's reading of Section 215, the government could simply demand the periodic submission of all firearms dealers' transaction records, then centralize them in a database indexed by the buyers' names for later searching,' the NRA writes."
The NRA and ACLU were joint petitioners to the Clinton Administration trying to restrain a patter of abuses by Federal law enforcement. (Clinton ignored them).
Actually... the ACLU does not defend the 2nd amendment. They view it as a right to form a militia, not as a right for private citizens to own firearms.
Now, the ACLU does a ton of other great stuff, but they are not perfect.
Depends on who you mean by "they."
- Sen. Diane Feinstein, February 5, 1995
- NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, December 20, 2012
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Your definition makes no sense. In any event, both armies and militias require government approval. Here's a clause from Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, enumerating Congressional powers:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Thus, the Second Amendment was quite clearly intended to prevent Congress from using its regulatory authority to _prevent_ States from establishing a militia--to protect itself from insurrection, especially insurrection by slaves.
Today we have a strong free market bias, but the debates at the constitutional convention were about what the Congress could prohibit, not how it could protect liberties. For example, could Congress limit textiles imports? Remember, this was the age of mercantilism, and the idea that you'd want to restrict certain behaviors for long term gain was predominant. Almost everything in the early days was about how and when the federal government could restrict state powers, because it was assume that states were sovereign governments in their own right. The new federal system created very thorny legal questions because it granted the federal government many more powers than it had under the Articles of Confederation.
"I see gun ownership as a natural right, not a legal one."
It *IS* a so-called "natural right", and not a legal one.
The Constitution does not "grant" rights. It acknowledges the pre-existence of rights due every human being, which the government may not infringe. There is a very big difference.
Kent State
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
"You do know that all amendments are not equals,"
When it comes to the first 10 amendments, I know no such thing. Because, in fact, it isn't true. All of the first 10 Amendments have equal status in law and in principle.
"... and that people have the right to prefer some over others, right"
Certainly. But that has nothing to do with my point.
The ACLU says this:
"The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 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 more information, please read our statement on the Second Amendment."
And yet... political and legal history, including notes from our Founders as well as common law, all establish that this is simply not true. The right to bear arms -- as recently re-affirmed by the Supreme Court a couple of years ago -- is an INDIVIDUAL right. There is really no question as to this. It is made clear both by the historical record and the highest court in the land. Therefore, they base their position on a lie, and it IS hypocritical.
I did not say they had no right to take that position. What I stated was that it makes them hypocrites. It does.
"The ACLU disagrees with your position on what the 2nd amendment means in the first place. Unlike you, I'm guessing, they don't agree that it was intended to protect individual gun ownership."
They state as much in their FAQ on the subject. (See the FAQ link on the page linked to above.) But that has nothing to do with my point.
History and the Supreme Court BOTH say (SCOTUS said it in so many words in yet another ruling less than 2 years ago), that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. So they can take whatever position they like. My point was: that position is based on a lie, and maintaining that position makes them hypocrites.
ACLU doesn't defend 2nd Amendment cases because their resources are limited and the NRA is there & well-funded for just that purpose.
WRONG The ACLU does not defend 2nd Amendment rights because they do not believe it is an individual right. The believe it is a collective right of the states to have a national guard.
From www.aclu.org: the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.
I don't think history has said this unambiguously, or that the "founding fathers" supported the individual right (maybe a subset of them did). When it comes to anything in the constitution, there was no unanimous agreement amongst the founders. In the early 1800s during the first state court cases involving the 2nd amendment there were competing decisions regarding individual versus collective rights, so there were differences of opinions then even by people who had been of adult age during the revolution.
The "well regulated militia" was not put into the amendment by accident, and the meaning of "militia" was very well understood to be the civilians who could be called up to war, the idea of a standing army or voluntary army came about after the revolution. At the same time even for non-militia use, hunting was an essential part of life whereas today hunting is just a hobby. Plus the need for self defense in the sparsely populated colonies and frontier was important. So the second amendment, confusingly, is both about a militia and not about a militia. I think that the confusion could be intentional by the authors or a compromise.
The bill of rights were also initially intended to be limitations on federal power and they were not widely acknowledged to be limitations on the individual states. It was later with the 14th amendment that the bill of rights (the first 8 anyway) really began to be treated as limitations on the states themselves (it took some more court decisions though to cement this).
In other words; the pro-gun and anti-gun are both right and both wrong. This is not a black and white issue, and even in history it has been very murky. Certainly there was never any unanimity even by the constitution writers.
"I don't think history has said this unambiguously, or that the "founding fathers" supported the individual right (maybe a subset of them did). When it comes to anything in the constitution, there was no unanimous agreement amongst the founders."
Then you are in error. Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention in 1787 report that an individual right to bear arms was nearly unanimously supported. There may have been one exception. So we are talking about a support rate of over 98% (there were 55 delegates).
Further, that meaning was made crystal clear during the debates prior to ratification by the states. The INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms was guaranteed as a safeguard against a Federal army.
The "well regulated militia" was not put into the amendment by accident, and the meaning of "militia" was very well understood to be the civilians who could be called up to war, the idea of a standing army or voluntary army came about after the revolution.
I am sorely tempted to write "No shit, Sherlock." I did not claim it was accidental. But you appear to be ignoring the difference between "the militia" (which was well understood to be every able-bodied male between approximately 14 and 55, depending on who you asked) and a well-regulated militia. The "regular" militia, by definition, was not "well-regulated". The words "well-regulated" indicate a standing army.
"So the second amendment, confusingly, is both about a militia and not about a militia. I think that the confusion could be intentional by the authors or a compromise."
There is nothing in the least "confusing" about the Second Amendment, if you read it as originally intended. I repeat (because I wrote this in reply to someone else earlier):
The founders were terrified of the necessity for a standing army. They viewed it (as the historical record shows extremely clearly) as the single biggest threat to a democratic or republican government. After all... they had just fought a way against the army of their own government in order to gain their freedom. Yet they felt that had to have an army.
So: "A well-regulated militia" (i.e., a standing army), "being NECESSARY" (not desirable or in any way good) "to the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE" (not the army) "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Another repeat: "The People" shows up in various places in the Constitution. EVERY TIME, without fail, it clearly means you and me. Can you explain to me why, then, they would intend the same words here to mean something different? Do you think they were idiots, or that they garbled their words in this sole part of the document?
I think not.
This *IS* a black and white issue. It is about as black and white as they get.