Nevada ACLU Backs Gun Rights

Bucks National Organization In Supporting Recent Court Ruling On Right To Own Handguns

(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.

[baldwin2008]

http://www.constitutionparty.org
America - TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY!!!
Obama and McCain will only further the suffering of America as they pull our Constitution apart from separate ends. Lets TAKE BACK our CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS!!! Vote for Chuck Baldwin!!!

[cfin5]

Posted by seataffer at 09:26 PM : Jul 13, 2008--- In 1848, the Swiss Constitution prohibited any new contracts for service in foreign armies, and in 1859, all mercenary service was prohibited. There are still 90 Swiss soldiers that guard the Pope at the Vatican. Got anything half ways CURRENT in this? Or do you want to go clear back to why Cain murdered Abel? Was it a garden tool he used and should those also be banned?

[wogerwabbit]

As the ACLU should support gun rights. We need a solid defense against the neocon invaders. To me, gun control is good aim... I learned it by shooting thumbtacks at 50 feet with a pellet gun in high school. You neocons have it all wrong... we advocate peace, not surrender. And despite your insanity, winning does not mean selling your soul to the highest bidder. There is an integrity implied in winning that you do not possess... honor. Winning at any cost demeans us all, it lowers us to your level of depravity. We achieved new lows under Bush''s leadership, and I''m sure you traitors are proud of it... such is the measure of your soul. Enjoy your time in hell, you''ve earned it.

[seataffer]

"For centuries, of course, neutrality as a policy of the [swiss] confederation was really something of a statement of impotence.. The cantons aligned themselves with competing princes all over Europe - usually RENTING the services of their highly sought armies or units of them as MERCENARIES. For hundreds of years, as one military historian has written, arms of this sort were "Switzerland''s leading export."

This practice indeed helped enrich the region .. - and thus, while Switzerland was neutral, the Swiss were fighting all the time: hard, sharp. This practice, however, led to its own absurdities. It helped keep Switzerland divided and even encouraged foreign meddling, since it was well known that for the right price most cantons could be swayed to shift alliances. It also led to the repeated comedy of Swiss troops from different cantons facing one another in battle. With grim logic, the Swiss fought bravely in such struggles, killing many of themselves.
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/SwissDD/SwissDD_16_20.html

[seataffer]

cfin: "My mistake here. I meant to say "even the Russians" pertaining to the Russo-Finnish war in 1939-40. Another example with the SAME THEME. Hitler was stopped by his generals from entering Switzerland knowing the casualties that would be inflicted on them.."

.. same theme? you do know the russians won the border war vs finland, albeit at cost .. but they weren''t dissuaded from attacking finland despite mannerheim''s line & all it''s crack shots behind it (russian armor & art, albeit freeze problems).
.. how can it be the same theme when hitler opted out while stalin opted in? uh, no alps at the frozen lake ladoga? sea level terrain.
.. it wasn''t fear of finn riflemen that hindered stalin, russian problems arose due to cold weather effects on armor & mech & the ski mobile finns.

cfin:...Read the book!

.. not gonna happen, I don''t do gun gurus for hire.

[seataffer]

cin: "Hitler was stopped by his generals from entering Switzerland knowing the casualties that would be inflicted on them.."

.. pffft, when did ''hitler''s generals'' really sway him from what he wanted? he realized the futility.
.. of course hitler balked, the cost too high, the neutrality status quo acceptable, but it wasn''t primarily due swiss ''armed rifles'' miles away up the mtns; the mtn fortress kept swiss neutrality intact where belgium''s/&benelux collapsed.

.. [at warstart] the Swiss fully deployed in defensive positions along the expected path of a German invasion and negotiated calling for French military support.. The mountains make Sw- a natural fortress and its capable army is known to be highly trained in MOUNTAIN WARFARE, so Hitler preferred to leave it in peace, surrounded from all sides by Axis territory" [exc west]. http://www.2worldwar2.com/leaders.htm

.. it was not mere respect for its neutrality which kept the Nazi armies [out]. It was the determination of the Swiss people to defend their neutrality and the credibility of their means to do so..
http://www.constitution.org/mil/swiss_report.htm

.. from your own halbrookgod: "The most famous element of Swiss defense were the sabotage plans: [on] German invasion, Simplon and St Gotthard tunnels would be blown, as well as all bridges over the Rhine, power stations, and air fields. Avalanches and landslides would be set off to block armor and infantry movement.

[davidlar2]

The second amendment is misinterpreted. The weapons that are protected are anti-tank guns and sidewinder missiles that would be needed to fight the US government if the federal government were to take powers not given it in the US constitution or overstep its authority and start acting totalitarian. That was the original intent. Of course, I guess we need not worry, as there is no evidence that the US government would ever do anything not specifically stated in the Constitution or anything without the interests of the average American in mind, land of the free....

[cfin5]

"Of all the neutrals Switzerland has the greatest right to distinction... She has been a democratic State, standing for freedom in self-defense among her mountains, and in thought, in spite of race, largely on our side." --- Winston Churchill......I see three nations on this Earth that are alike,...The United States of America, Switzerland, and Israel.

[cfin5]

cfin: The Finnish patriots made dang sure that the Nazis would not forget this lesson.

.. you do know finland was allied with nazi germany don''''t you? due the common russian enemy at thier gate.

Posted by seataffer at 04:05 PM : Jul 13, 2008--- My mistake here. I meant to say "even the Russians" pertaining to the Russo-Finnish war in 1939-40. Another example with the same theme. Hitler was stopped by his generals from entering Switzerland knowing the casualties that would be inflicted on them, so they tried desperately with propaganda delivered through fifth columnist within Switzerland. Swiss Intelligence extended clear to the top in the German Wehrmacht and they used it accordingly. My comments were regarding what was successful for the Swiss, a reason "why" we have the 2nd. Amendment from their model, not the current deterioration of their national heritage......Read the book!

[greeneyes222]

Good for the Nevada ACLU.

The problem with a lot of organizations, be they the ACLU, religious denominations, or political parties, is they start out with the best of intentions. Then some group makes its way to the top and they become caricatures with different agendas. Same name, different focus, but always with an emphasis on imposing order on the membership and telling the members what to believe.

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.