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."

Comments

So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

When the NRA and ACLU both oppose something, you know it's bad for everyone.

Re:So it has come to this

[Nadaka]

I've actually donated to both organizations. Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.

Re:So it has come to this

[ajs]

Are you asking for evidence of donation or of the ACLU doing far more good than the NRA? Both seem to be odd questions.

The NRA claims that protecting gun ownership protects civil rights by empowering the individual to defend themselves against the government (we'll ignore, for a moment that nothing could be further from the truth, and everyone in this nation, armed or not is a heartbeat away from a smart bomb at their breakfast table, or that you can be financially and socially ruined without ever having the opportunity to shoot back). Let's take the NRA's claim at face value and assume that they are 100% correct.

They still only defend the status quo. Having a gun doesn't undo the erosion of rights due to the corrosive influence of the re-election cycle in Washington. The ACLU seeks to actively move the line of civil rights back to where it started, and hopefully even a bit further through the courts and activism.

Now, the ACLU and the NRA happen to disagree over the interpretation of the 2nd amendment (FWIW, I think that was the stupidest call the ACLU ever made) but even when they disagree they're still nominally working toward the same goal (the ACLU isn't trying to prop up the gun industry, but I'm talking about implied goals, here), so it's pretty easy to judge which of them objectively makes the most progress...

Re:So it has come to this

[TimMartin6233]

The ACLU has argued an incredible number of cases in the Supreme Court and won a good number of them. Brown vs board of education, roe v wade, miranda, scopes, etc. I would put them on the "good" side of all of those cases but your opinion might differ.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

The ACLU has argued an incredible number of cases in the Supreme Court and won a good number of them. Brown vs board of education, roe v wade, miranda, scopes, etc. I would put them on the "good" side of all of those cases but your opinion might differ.

I would put ACLU on the "good" side, but not good enough. Historically, their position has been that the Second Amendment does not deserve the protections due all the others.

If they dumped that single, grossly hypocritical position, I would support most of their efforts. (Though not all... there have been a few times when they backed ridiculous ideas in the name of "rights" that are nowhere to be found in the law or the Constitution.)

Re:So it has come to this

[Arker]

I havent donated to the NRA in decades. They are too soft on the second amendment. The fact that even they recognise this has gone too far speaks volumes.

Re:So it has come to this

[ackthpt]

but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach.

The NRA is a citizen funded organization that takes on legal issues through legislation and litigation. I haven't seen any evidence that backs up your assertion the NRA advocates for violent resolution of issues.

If the NRA does not use it's constitutional right to seek redress in this matter, I really and forced to wonder exactly what would the government need to be doing for them to actually dust off their rifles and defend their liberties. This isn't about gun owner rights, its about the government running amok.

This isn't the first time the US government has run amok. I keep having this feeling the 2nd amendment defence is all about collecting toys, collectors items, things to shoot Stop signs with, etc. and has nothing to do with confronting an unjust government.

Re:So it has come to this

[mspohr]

Kent State

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"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.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"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.

Re:So it has come to this

[Daniel Dvorkin]

What makes you think the US Military, Cops, Sheriffs, etc. would attack their own people?

I was talking with a friend from Serbia about this a while back; for obvious reasons, he has a perspective on such matters that most Americans don't. I expressed my opinion that at least half, maybe more, of the US military would refuse to go along with an imposition of martial law against the US population, which would make such an action difficult or impossible. His answer gave me a lot of food for thought:

"When Milosevic cracked down, half the Army deserted overnight. Of those who were left, about half were too dumb to know what was going on, and the other half were the assholes, you know, the crazy ones who just wanted to kill people and they didn't care who. So Milosevic shipped the dumb ones off to border areas where they wouldn't get in the way, and then had the crazy ones go out and recruit more crazy ones, petty criminals and psychopaths who just didn't give a shit. And those were the ones who did the killing."

He was firmly of the opinion that the same thing would happen here. I really, really hope he's wrong ... but I can't say I'm as confident as I was before having that conversation.

Re:So it has come to this

[Anonymous Coward]

and everyone in this nation, armed or not is a heartbeat away from a smart bomb at their breakfast table

Off topic I know, but I want to respond to that line of reasoning.

If government wants to oppress, it will prefer quiet methods where it deals with small numbers of dissidents at a time without risking mass rebellion. From bombs to troops, to armed police, to thugs with sticks, to group of men with badges, to even just one person with a cap on his head telling you to get in the transport truck -- at each level of disarmament, government is able to use quieter and cheaper methods of oppression. What an armed citizenry does is raise the stakes and take away some of those quiet options. Government is then forced to choose between civil governance or a level of violence that awakens the nation. It raises the financial cost of oppression, too. It's not a cure-all and not a guarantee, but it is one among a number of barriers against tyranny. Having grandparents who came from a country where a stray word could put you in jail, I personally think the more barriers the better.

Re:So it has come to this

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:So it has come to this

[Darinbob]

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.

Re:So it has come to this

[Jane Q. Public]

"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.

Re:So it has come to this

[philip.paradis]

I'm a firm believer in individual gun rights, and therefore I am most assuredly not speaking against our shared core beliefs on this topic, but I believe that historical accuracy is critical when discussing these matters. The term "well regulated" does not imply a standing army. Instead, in the context of the language of the period, it means "disciplined" or "well trained."

you know hell has frozen over

[halfEvilTech]

When the NRA, EFF, ACLU and the author of the [un]Patriot Act are all against it.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Nadaka]

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.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[amstrad]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Quila]

Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics

You mean influences US politics on behalf of its millions of members, and millions more like-minded non-members. Kind of like the ACLU.

What you said is like saying the EFF only does what it does in order to prop up Internet services companies because they profit from a free and open Internet.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[Ksevio]

It's kind of a waste of resources for the ACLU to defend 2nd amendment cases. The NRA and other groups are eager to fill the gap whereas there are fewer groups for other civil liberties.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[X0563511]

They view it as a right to form a militia, not as a right for private citizens to own firearms.

How can one interpret those as different things? A militia is exactly that - private citizens. If it's not composed of private citizens, it's an army and not a militia.

Re:you know hell has frozen over

[JesseMcDonald]

Then what ... is a "well regulated militia"? One guy regulating himself?

In the language of the time, it meant every able-bodied male of military age, with the training and supplies necessary to operate as an effective military force in time of need. There was no question of whether weapons were limited to the militia, because the militia was everyone deemed capable of using them.

In any case, the right is not restricted to the militia: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "The people" is an even more all-inclusive term than "well regulated militia".

Sic semper tyrannis

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Such tracking is exactly the kind of thing the King of England would have used against the Founding Fathers, and would have been banned by them after the Revolution, which would have been very much less likely with "metadata" gathering and tracking of who called whom, whether it be gun shops or other supporting people.

Saying "metadata" isn't protected is the biggest fraud in recent history. We must continue backing the government away from building the tools of tyranny. It makes no difference that they "use it wisely" currently. Don't let it get started at all.

This is for the weak-minded who get upset over "absolutism". Go read the Bill of Rights.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis

[Zcar]

Which, grammatically, isn't explanatory not operative. The operative part of the 2nd Amendment is, in full, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In modern construction and words (based on Supreme Court decisions, specifically Heller and Miller) the full amendment would be something like, "Because a well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms of military usefulness shall not be infringed." The first clause only explains why it's not be infringed; it doesn't impose a limit upon it.

Well, Miller did somewhat limit it based on the militia clause, by saying a firearm which wasn't demonstrated to be militarily useful was not protected, implying that if it had been demonstrated to be militarily useful it would be protected. So, under Miller, an assault rifle (obviously of military usefulness) would be protected but maybe not a break action shotgun. It's an odd case, at any rate, since Miller had died before it reached the Court and his side didn't argue before the Court.

Lovecraft had it right

[kruach aum]

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

It has happened before

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

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).

Re:It has happened before

[sycodon]

One very disturbing trend is the use of heavily armed SWAT teams to carry out actions related to civil and not criminal investigations.

Just the other day the EPA sent a SWAT team to check on the water quality at several small gold mining operations in Alaska.

Of course, Ruby Ridge and Waco will always be examples of out of control Feds.

Re:It has happened before

[interkin3tic]

More recently:

In 2006, the ACLU of Washington State joined with a pro-gun rights organization, the Second Amendment Foundation, and prevailed in a lawsuit against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon an adult patron's request. Library patrons attempting to access pro-gun web sites were blocked, and the library refused to remove the blocks...

In light of the Supreme Court's Heller decision recognizing that the Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms, ACLU of Nevada took a position of supporting "the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations" and pledged to "defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights".[298] Since 2008, the ACLU has increasingly assisted gun owners recover firearms that have been seized illegally by law enforcement.

wiki Even more relevant and recently, they opposed creating a national database of background checks this year, evidently because of medical information.

Re:Between the two organizations

[x0]

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

Obviously, no one sells books...

Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[StuartHankins]

If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names?

[CanHasDIY]

If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.

Any way you can say the same thing without coming off as a biased asshole?

Maybe you should try attending a meeting sometime. you know, actually meet some of your neighbors, whom you readily write off as "nuts," and get to know them?

Re:Between the two organizations

[hsmith]

Liberalism, where in plain english you can't decipher the 2nd amendment - but you can find a right to abortion and free healthcare in the constitution. Brilliant!

Re:This just in:

[msauve]

"they aren't after your stupid guns."

Depends on who you mean by "they."

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

- Sen. Diane Feinstein, February 5, 1995

Confiscation could be an option...mandatory sale to the state could be an option

- NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, December 20, 2012

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[erroneus]

I'm a non-gun owner but I recognize and understand the value and the importance of the right. And ironically, the moment I no longer have the legal right to own a gun is the very moment I will seek to own one. I see gun ownership as a natural right, not a legal one. The right to defend one's self is a natural right and I will exercise it when I feel the need to. (I am lucky. I have never needed to. But I'm not foolish enough to think I will NEVER need to. And yes, I know I am actually making the argument that I need to buy a gun NOW, but that's another talk.)

What I find more threatening than not owning a gun is that people KNOW I do not own a gun or don't have one with me at the moment. I will NEVER eat at Denny's again knowing that they are a "gun free kill zone." It's disgusting and obvious that making it an offense to carry in a Denny's makes everyone within MUCH more vulnerable to attack by criminals who don't care about the signs on the doors. I know why they do it -- because a bunch of frightened idiots might feel uncomfortable eating in such places. Trouble is, you only need to google "denny's gun free zone" to find a long list of news stories about Denny's restaurants being robbed at gunpoint and people getting shot and killed by actual criminals. (There is also the occasional story about an illegal gun carrier thwarting a crime in Denny's.)

Let's all agree that having guns is dangerous. (The discussion that follows that agreement should be about how dangerous it actually is and then we'll start making car and driver analogies.) But here's the thing I can't get past. When people have good reason to believe that large groups of people are unarmed, there's quite certainly a much higher chance that such locations will be exploited by criminals...usually criminals with guns. That makes anti-gun law and policy FAR more dangerous than gun ownership... far more dangerous to the very [civilian/pedestrian] people who think they want anti-gun legislation and policy.

When I think "V" I think victory. Seems most people are more comfortable with "V" for victimhood.

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA

[Jane Q. Public]

"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.