ACLU and Heller
Insty notes: One interesting question is what the ACLU is going to do with Heller.
Well, we already know that they chose politics over civil rights:
In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.’s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.
The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.’s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Well, the first sentence of the clip is pure BS:
“In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights.” Reinterpret…as a source? Wrong and wrong.
So anything following it was sure to be crap as well. Sure enough, it was.
“Constitutional straightjacket”. Heh. Yeah, our human rights are limiting us. Without the legal protection of rights, why, we could do anything– we’d be free! Same old crap, different day.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Hey, what do you expect from these partisan hacks?
But, as a bit of an exercise in irony:
“It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule on the First Amendment will create for legislatures attempting to regulate political speech.”
“It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule on the Fourth Amendment will create for legislatures trying to give police the tools they so desperately need to fight crime.”
“It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule on the Fifth Amendment will create for cash strapped legislatures trying to condemn private property for important public purposes.”
“It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule on the Separation of Church and State will create for legislatures trying to use publics funds for important private religious schools.”
Oh well, I’m not a member of the ACLU, and as long as they are as biased against the one part of the Bill of Rights with which they seem to disagree, I never will be.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:54 pm
The ACLU has clarified their position.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:40 pm
The question for the ACLU is, “Does the ACLU support as an inherent, inalienable, individual human right the right of self defense?”
Guns are tools. Self defense is an unenumerated right, as Scalia explained so ably in Heller.
The question for gun litigation will be, ” Does the regulation under review inhibit the practice of an individual’s right to self defense?”
This will get interesting, real quickly, based on the Scalia description of self defense as a fundamental purpose of the individual right to keep and bear arms.
I see strict scrutiny coming, and rather quickly. I recall Abby Hoffman being arrested for wearing a flag as clothing (in a derogatory manner) and winning his court case on the basis of free speech. I look forward to seeing the next case to be won against gun regulation on the basis of an individual right to self defense.