Nevada ACLU Backs Gun Rights

(AP)  The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has declared its support for an individual's right to bear arms, apparently making it the first state affiliate to buck the national ACLU's position on the Second Amendment.

The state board of directors reached the decision following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to own handguns.

"The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations," a statement on the organization's Web site said. "The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights."

"This was the consensus," said Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for ACLU of Nevada. "There really wasn't a lot of dissent."

Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, said an individual's right to bear arms is in the Nevada Constitution, reflecting the state's "long, proud tradition of libertarian skepticism of government overreach."

The national ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling and sees the Second Amendment as a collective right to own guns and not an individual one.

A national ACLU spokeswoman said affiliates are free to take positions that differ from those of the national office. The spokeswoman added she was unaware of any other affiliate that had taken a differing position on the Second Amendment.

[cfin5]

George Washington --- "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people''s liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

[cfin5]

Posted by kansas1946 at 09:53 PM : Jul 14, 2008---- Thank you! You sound like an "America First, Party Second" kind of citizen. That''s great.

[kansas1946]

The national ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling and sees the Second Amendment as a collective right to own guns and not an individual one.
************************************

Although I in many instances applaud the ACLU''s defense of civil liberties, I think they are on the wrong side of this one. I have never believed it was a collective right. It never made any sense in that context. I am please the the Nevada chapter sees it as an individual right and I hope the national organization will really study the amendment, the papers that were written at the same time as the constitution by the framers, and try to separate the truth of the constitution from their squeemishness about guns. Even if you don''t like guns, you must uphold the constitution.

[billorights]

Sure, it''s a good argument for gun ownership. Don''t confuse with the issue on hand: whether it''s constitutional or not. This is decided by going to the Constitution. - Posted by jon2012 at 01:25 PM : Jul 14, 2008
What do you think just happened? The method for determining if a law is constitutional is to have it reviewed by the courts%u2026ultimately, the Supreme Court.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the DC gun ban law was unconstitutional. Get it?

[elemmire]

"I''m still just amazed that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did on the 2nd Amendment, as granting a constitutional right to own guns for self-protection with neither ''''guns'''' nor ''''self-protection'''' being mentioned in the amendment."

Posted by jon2012 at 05:18 PM : Jul 13, 2008

Most respectfully, the Supreme Court has not the authority to grant ANY such right. They may uphold it or infringe upon it, but they may not grant it, as it is a right granted by our Creator.

[jon2012-2009]

A happy ending that would of been tragic if not for the decision of the father to defend his family buy owning a gun legally and using it responsibly!
Posted by BLACKSHAFT at 05:48 PM : Jul 13, 2008

Sure, it''s a good argument for gun ownership. Don''t confuse with the issue on hand: whether it''s constitutional or not. This is decided by going to the Constitution.

[jon2012-2009]

It''''s incumbent on all of us as rational humans to look at the organizations we belong to, and if they no longer represent what we believe to say so. The Nevada ACLU has done that, and I applaud them for it.
Posted by greeneyes222 at 06:11 PM : Jul 13, 2008

I haven''t reached that conclusion yet. I''ve thought the best minds don''t get it right all the time which seems true enough--even they are human. Then I realized this was a ruling with the narrowest majority--the four conservative justices plus one swing vote. Some of these men were put on the court, not for their brilliance and objectivity, but for their ideology. The presumption here of ''best minds'' is shaky.

The Nevada ACLU have state issues as a complication and I am comfortable giving them the benefit of the doubt. But I don''t think I can give the same to this Supreme Court. The best defense I have seen of the 2nd Amendment ruling--kind of like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder--makes the business of interpreting the Constitution a little too arbitary.

[seataffer]

cfin: ..in 1859, mercenary service prohibited... Got anything half ways CURRENT in this? Or do you want to go clear back to why Cain murdered Abel?

.. it was you who went back to 1291; if mercenaries banned in 1859 they were still around in 1791 when bill of rts was written, & you touting the founders as so admiring of the swiss system as neutral, well you''re leaving out an aspect.

wikipedia: "Despite it being prohibited, individual Swiss citizens carried on the tradition of foreign military service into the 20th century, including participation in the Spanish Civil War.."

what cfin wrote: "Swtz virtually invented the policy of "armed neutrality": .. This policy committed it to staying out of other nations'''' quarrels and trading with all belligerents to the extent permitted by circumstance."

what cfin wrote: "..the American Founders often cited Sw- as an example of the kind of nation they hoped to build.. following its birth in 1291..

wiki ~1500-1600: "Swiss [pikemen], head-down attack , refusal to take prisoners .. record of victory, were greatly feared and admired .. [those] who went off to fight in foreign service had incentives%u2014 limited economic options; adventure; pride in the reputation as soldiers; & what Sir Oman describes as a pure love of combat and warfighting in and of itself, forged by 2 centuries of conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries

[patriot12436]

bal;dwin2008
Who is Chuck Baldwin ? Never heard of him but am open to looking at any prospects.

[patriot12436]

Switzerland sounds like a utopia. Our govt may have its faults but what other country provides foreign aid like we do ? I still do not like the concept of having to buy friends. I do not think this kind of friend can be relied upon in times of trouble.