Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU in Massachusetts, made an interesting statement.

[virginia mountainman]

Police should focus on students’ actions, rather than on “criminalizing objects that may have uses other than as weapons.’’

Thoughts on that, fellow gungeon residents?? I think their is a wee bit of inconsistency going on.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/13/lynn_bans_bb_guns_bats_clubs_to_increase_school_safety/

[dgibby]

1. Well, you can kiss your #2 pencils good-bye, I guess.

Teh Stoopid, it burns.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. My chemistry and physics textbooks would have been formidable weapons.

As well as my drafting equipment - compass, anyone? That's a pointy sonofabitch.

I'm especially disturbed by the line "He added that if the laws had been amended earlier, more arrests would have been made."

Like they're disappointed not so much by violence or kids with weapons, but that they couldn't arrest as often as they'd like to.

"Hey, Bill, we need to make more arrests, but the goddamn laws make too much shit legal."

"Well, then make some more shit illegal - how about bats, shoes, maglights, pencils, desklamps, chairs, backpacks, highlighters, any amount of paper more than five sheets, staplers, hole punches, and wallets?"

"Excellent!"

[LAGC]

3. I think the ACLU should just drop its hypocritical stance and defend the Second Amendment.

Instead of beating around the bush with hyperbole, defending gun-owners when their First and Fourth Amendment rights are being threatened, they should just endorse the fact that "the people" means the same individual citizens regardless of whether it appears in the First, Second, or Fourth Amendments.

Consistency would be nice.

[jody]

4. Two state ACLU orgs support Heller and remaining states and National are going to be increasingly

revealed as hypocritical if they retain their assertion "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country." but insist that the 2nd does not mean "individual rights and liberties".

[JonQ]

5. Soon to be ex-director I imagine

can't go against the doctrine like that, even unintentionally.
The founders meant for every amendment to be sacred and taken at face value, without interpretation or editing. . . except the 2nd.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. No, local chapters of the ACLU have been coming around on DC vs. Heller.

The national organization is still all pissy about it, but some of the locals have accepted the ruling, and are on board.

[Statistical]

7. Doubtful. ACLU has never considered the 2nd to be a "real amendment".

Very hypocritical yes but they have a 70 years of history at ignoring or being hostile against it.

Even after Heller came out they published a press release & blog entry saying the decision was a mistake and the 2nd does NOT guarantee an individual right.

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.

http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2007term/35797prs20080626.html

The Second Amendment has not been the subject of much Supreme Court discussion through the years. To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the Second Amendment as a collective right connected to the concept of a "well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to possess guns for private purposes.

I guess they just ingored Miller huh? Kinda bad for civil rights lawyers to not know the current (prior to Heller) precedent for RKBA. Anyways moving on.

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. ... It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.

Wow. Just wow. So I think for the first time the ACLU is crying that a law that restricts civil rights "fell victim". BOOO HOOO let me cry for the poor civil rights trampling statute that fell victim to that mean freedom defending document the Constitution. Not only is that sentiment sad but it is even worse coming from the so called ACLU. They really are the American Civil Liberties (except that one about guns) Union, the ACL(ETOAG)U.

Now slowly some (so far 2 of 50) of the state ACLU chapters have come out recognizing Heller and opposing the national policy but supporters of the 2nd in ACLU are currently a tiny minority. Right now she would be more likely to be fired for supporting rather than not supporting the 2nd.

I suspended my ACLU membership 4 years ago (on edit it is 6 years ago I am getting old). The hypocrisy in this issue is too much for me in good conscience to support them. I gave the money I use to donate to them each year to the Electronic Freedom Foundation. Even if they were 2nd amendment neutral and accepted an individual right but did little to defend it I could support them but being active individual right deniers and supporting the debunked "collective rights" argument is just too much. Every couple months they send me a fundraiser letter which I send back empty (they pay postage) with "2ND AMENDMENT" written on the back in a big sharpie.

Someday they may enable me to renew my membership but I think it likely will be decades not years.