Where is the ACLU????

Where is the ACLU????

Posted in the Rolla Forum

ACLU NAZI

Chesapeake, OH

#1 Jan 31, 2013
If the ACLU fights to defend individual freedoms as cited below, how come they are not defending the same "individual" right as determined by the US Supreme Court???

Do liberals only defend those things they believe in, agree with and benefit from???

From the ACLU's own website:
The ACLU has evolved in the years since from this small group of idealists into the nation’s premier defender of the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. With more than 500,000 members, nearly 200 staff attorneys, thousands of volunteer attorneys and offices throughout the nation, the ACLU of today continues to fight government abuse and to vigorously defend individual freedoms including speech and religion, a woman’s right to choose, the right to due process, citizens’ rights to privacy and much more. The ACLU stands up for these rights even when the cause is unpopular, and sometimes when nobody else will. While not always in agreement with us on every issue, Americans have come to count on the ACLU for its unyielding dedication to principle. The ACLU has become so ingrained in American society that it is hard to imagine an America without it.

Source: http://www.aclu.org/aclu-history

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

By a five to four margin, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home (emphasis ours). Accordingly, it struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities.

According to the Court, the ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in a home be disassembled or locked made “it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” These laws were unconstitutional “under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” But the Court did not cite a specific standard in making its determination, and it rejected the interest-balancing standard; proposed by Justice Breyer, and a “rational basis” standard.

Source: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.ht...
Integrity matters

Chesapeake, OH

#2 Jan 31, 2013
ACLU NAZI wrote:
If the ACLU fights to defend individual freedoms as cited below, how come they are not defending the same "individual" right as determined by the US Supreme Court???
Do liberals only defend those things they believe in, agree with and benefit from???
From the ACLU's own website:
The ACLU has evolved in the years since from this small group of idealists into the nation’s premier defender of the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. With more than 500,000 members, nearly 200 staff attorneys, thousands of volunteer attorneys and offices throughout the nation, the ACLU of today continues to fight government abuse and to vigorously defend individual freedoms including speech and religion, a woman’s right to choose, the right to due process, citizens’ rights to privacy and much more. The ACLU stands up for these rights even when the cause is unpopular, and sometimes when nobody else will. While not always in agreement with us on every issue, Americans have come to count on the ACLU for its unyielding dedication to principle. The ACLU has become so ingrained in American society that it is hard to imagine an America without it.
Source: http://www.aclu.org/aclu-history
In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.
By a five to four margin, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home (emphasis ours). Accordingly, it struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities.
According to the Court, the ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in a home be disassembled or locked made “it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” These laws were unconstitutional “under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” But the Court did not cite a specific standard in making its determination, and it rejected the interest-balancing standard; proposed by Justice Breyer, and a “rational basis” standard.
Source: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.ht...
Amazing how quiet the liberal dunces are when you confront them with facts!! Good Job!!!
LOL

Jefferson City, MO

#3 Jan 31, 2013
The ACLU has been known—notorious in some circles—for being fairly selective about the civil liberties they choose to defend. But if you’re in the business of upholding constitutional rights, playing favorites and choosing to ignore rights violations of those with whom you disagree politically tends to erode your credibility. Which is why it’s so refreshing to read at providencejournal.com that their Rhode Island affiliate is suing the Cranston, RI PD to get a gun owner his heaters back ...

The local affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Cranston Police Department for a resident whose weapons collection was seized while the man was being evaluated because a friend thought he might be suicidal.

The issue at hand: even after receiving assurances from a professional that the individual in question is not, in fact, suicidal, the cop shop let it me known they’re not going to let his guns go without a court order.

The weapons, including firearms and ceremonial samurai swords, were taken almost nine months ago and were not returned after the man, Robert Machado, produced a letter from his psychotherapist saying he had never “demonstrated suicidal tendencies or thoughts,” and “there should be no concern” returning his weapons.

We don’t know if punitive damages are a possibility in a case like this, but a hefty fine might go a long way toward making other cops (or the cities that employ them) think twice about unreasonably holding private property in the future.

Sorry you are wrong. Who need the ACLU when you have the NRA to bank role you!!!!

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#4 Jan 31, 2013
LOL wrote:
The ACLU has been known—notorious in some circles—for being fairly selective about the civil liberties they choose to defend. But if you’re in the business of upholding constitutional rights, playing favorites and choosing to ignore rights violations of those with whom you disagree politically tends to erode your credibility. Which is why it’s so refreshing to read at providencejournal.com that their Rhode Island affiliate is suing the Cranston, RI PD to get a gun owner his heaters back ...

The local affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Cranston Police Department for a resident whose weapons collection was seized while the man was being evaluated because a friend thought he might be suicidal.

The issue at hand: even after receiving assurances from a professional that the individual in question is not, in fact, suicidal, the cop shop let it me known they’re not going to let his guns go without a court order.

The weapons, including firearms and ceremonial samurai swords, were taken almost nine months ago and were not returned after the man, Robert Machado, produced a letter from his psychotherapist saying he had never “demonstrated suicidal tendencies or thoughts,” and “there should be no concern” returning his weapons.

We don’t know if punitive damages are a possibility in a case like this, but a hefty fine might go a long way toward making other cops (or the cities that employ them) think twice about unreasonably holding private property in the future.

Sorry you are wrong. Who need the ACLU when you have the NRA to bank role you!!!!
Don't be jealous that the NRA is ten times the size.
Barry

United States

#7 Feb 2, 2013
I don't let my private hounds to help those rights I don't want you to have
Michelle

United States

#8 Feb 2, 2013
My hubby is a good guy. He isn't even my baby daddy but he cares. You fools better shut up!!!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rolla Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
miranda elledge 15 min POS 1
HEROIN - very powerful, read to the end (Jan '12) 2 hr Mr Ed 42
Best pest control 2 hr Mr Ed 6
Raining money in Walmart 6 hr TruthBomb 19
Perc 10s 6 hr TruthBomb 3
Cassandra Berry (Culp) Embezzler 11 hr Animay may 7
Olivia Richardson 11 hr Joe-blow 6
Walmart Distribution Center good place to work? (Jun '12) 16 hr Sam 522

Rolla Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rolla Mortgages