Someone recently pointed me to the idea that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) does not support the right to bear arms. It seems they are correct.
A mistake worth mentioning…
The linked document does not provide any details regarding their definition of “collective”. So, for example, if you and I were to form The Draco Brian Gun Club, which required safety training, regular practice, and carrying a firearm at all times, it is within the realm of possibility that the ACLU would defend our Second Amendment rights.
It is a question of whether or not the first half can be ignored. Were the framers “clearing their throats” or did they intend their words to have affect.
This might clear things up
Still clinging to the nebulous “collective right” concept in spite of Heller, eh?
The problem is it is a matter of interpretation at this point…Heller is Law of the Land until it isn’t. SCOTUS has held various positions on 2A throughout U.S. history; Heller is only the most recent.
The Framers kind screwed the pooch when the tried to indicate motive and intent in 2A, rather than just saying clearly and unambiguously: the right of the people to personally defend their life, liberty, and property, including but not limited to the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I noted that the ACLU points out that it retains it’s own interpretation of the Constitution regardless of what the SCOTUS rules.
To be fair to the framers, Drone-equipped missles (or atomic weapons) weren’t part of one’s countries’ arsenal back then. I’d be curious to see how folks within Hatchers would re-word the 2nd Amendment, considering it’s original intent, relative to the World we live in today.
I’m guessing that, if given a glimpse into the future, they say “f-&:$(& it, you’re on your own”.
Generally it has been the interpretation that weapons operated by single soldiers (regular foot soldiers) are covered by the 2nd. Atomic bombs, tanks etc. don’t count. However, back during the period when the 2nd was written citizens owned their own warships and cannons without problems. So, there is that.
As far as rewriting the 2nd amendment … hmm that would require some time to consider
Well, you know, other than the pirates.
Privateers are licensed. Pirates are unlicensed. Both created problems for somebody.
Not too much time, really, unless one wanted to debate it and word-smith it to death and try and second-guess as many exceptions as possible. The Framers were pretty astute and far-seeing when they chose to (usually) make basic foundational statements of principle as opposed to opining or rationaliziung or trying to foresee all possible configurations of society. For isnstance, they wrote “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”, but left it up to the people, within the checks and balances provided by the Constitution, to decide when speech reasonably can be stopped or punished: shouting fire in a theater when there is no fire; fighting words; libel and slander; etc. Similarly, even for 2A or other parts of the Constitution, it is up to the people to decide where any particular line should be drawn.
My version of 2A probably isn’t perfect, but it also shouldn’t really take that much more fine-tuning or dinking with. The general point of the 2A is to ensure that the natural right of personal self-defense, and defense of others, is not undermined or infringed by any government or law. In fact, according to Wikipedia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
So wording an appropriate amendment would not take that much time or be that hard. Getting any such amendment passed would, of course, not occur before the heat death of the universe.
Well that’ll never fly in good ol’ U S and A.
The ACLU has been know to get it wrong in many areas it claims to protect. This ebb and flow of invoked justice usually reflects the current leadership which in turn is a direct reflection of those most closely aligned with the mission. It only takes a couple of minutes to figure out who they kowtow to. The only Civil Liberties or Civil Rights they seem to care about are those that align them with political shielding for agency longevity. In other words, they know which side of their bread is buttered and who has the milk cow.
I wish more Letters of Marque were issued to deal with things Somali Pirates, etc. I’m sure there are some adventuresome folks that would fund it for just the experience. Doubt it would be profitable. But to be able to claim you are bona fide Privateer - how would that be.
“Mister Aron, I see you’ve been an itinerant Privateer.”
“Yes. Being a self-motivated entrepreneur in the global maritime economy and a patriot supporting our nations goals, I’ve taken part in group self-funded ventures. I’m very much a level-of-effort individual to get the job done.”
“Very good, deeds impress more than rhetoric.”
Too bad international maritime law effectively forbids privateers.
This is generally the way it works in practice here (leaving out many 4th amendment and policing issues we’ve been glossing over for far too long), with the exception of public and powerful figures. There are limits, but the right to criticize powerful people harshly is strongly entrenched in the way we call the powerful to task and keep corruption from running absolutely rampant.
…are the ones enumerated in the bill of rights like due process and the right to bear arms…