"The American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday it would no longer represent white supremacist groups who demonstrate with guns. "After the 'Unite the Right' rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned deadly, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told The Wall Street Journal that the group will review legal requests from white supremacist groups on a case-by-case basis, assessing more closely whether their protests would have the potential to be violent. “ 'The events of Charlottesville require any judge, any police chief and any legal group to look at the facts of any white-supremacy protests with a much finer comb,' Romero told the Journal. 'If a protest group insists, "No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms," well, we don’t have to represent them. They can find someone else,' he added." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...lu-change-policy-hate-groups-protesting-guns/ I think the sight of guns intimidates people and thus discourages freedom of expression.
Yeah, look at all those intimidated people in the photo in post 6 of your other thread. Your logic would suggest that there would be no cops to protect either side of a protest so that no one loses freedom of expression.
Translation: The ACLU will only support "progressives". The ACLU is getting closer and closer to admitting the truth that they are a "progressive" political organization.
The mere sight of firearms does nothing to discourage freedom of expression. If such were the case, the presence of law enforcement officers would be more than enough to immediately silence everyone who is supposedly expressing themselves. If someone is intimidated into silence by the presence of a firearm, then they are not there for legitimate expression to begin with, but rather are there for the purpose of causing trouble.
Of course, it's okay for law enforcement to have guns. People are used to well-trained police officers having guns. But I can see how the sight of all the armed KKK and Neo-Nazi thugs at the demonstration could be very intimidating. The situation had the potential to get a lot worse.
The narrative being presented for consideration does not match the facts that are in currently evidence. There are photographs at the scene, showing not only the armed militia members who are present with their firearms, but also numerous individuals standing around in close proximity, and displaying no outward signs that could be construed as concern about the presence of said privately owned firearms. If the mere sight of firearms not in the hands of law enforcement officers is sufficient to discourage free expression, why is the same not enough to discourage being present at the scene where said firearms are located and being displayed? Does the sight of firearms serve only to discourage the sharing of ideas and opinions, but not being present? If so then why is this? Is there some belief that so long as one does not speak, they will not be harmed?
Looks like the skin-heads & neo-nazis are losing their legal support... ACLU Will No Longer Automatically Defend Free Speech For Groups With Firearms 8/18/2017 - The ACLU will no longer automatically defend free speech for groups that use firearms during protests, according to a statement released Thursday by the civil liberties group.
The Anti Capitalist Labor Union has always been against private citizens owning guns. The American Communist Lobbying Union tends to support only the exercise of those rights useful for ridding America of its traditional values
Meaning they will still continue supporting those that spread what is considered a message of hate, but only if the method of spreading such a message is considered acceptable. Supposedly it is acceptable to put forth the nazi mantra, but only if it is presented in an unarmed fashion.
Very enlightening. If they had claimed the following; " The American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday they would no longer legally represent any group that after council, insist on armed marches or protesting or demonstrating while displaying arms." Less hypocritical sounding, It violates the attourney client relationship in many States.
If you take the ACLU seriously, then I feel really sorry for you. They are a Leftist front. They never have, and never will support the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They were founded by a Communist, who wrote that "Communism is the goal." The ACLU went to court dozens and dozens of times to defend fellow communists. http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31979/
Galileo, I am well aware the ACLU will defend the worst of the worst. It will defend Nazis and white supremacists who cause riots with their idiotic views that some men—merely because of the color of their skin or the manner in which they worship—deserve either slavery or death. They will defend men who march through a black neighborhood chanting “white power” and a Jewish neighborhood chanting that 6 million innocent deaths was a “good start.” They will defend the vilest exhibitions. They will defend anime child pornography with the argument that the state has no compelling interest since no actual children are being sexually molested. But if someone carries a firearm—that’s where they draw the new line. They don’t care that the possession of the firearm does not violate a single law. They don’t care that the firearm is never used, brandished, or has any connection to an outbreak of violence. Why? Because the ACLU—who’s very motto is “because freedom can’t protect itself”—does not want this particular freedom to exist. They would take this statement of principle: “The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task of their protection a body of defenders.” Justice Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process, Lecture II, 1921. And they would modify it by adding: “but we get to pick and choose which rights are worth defending, and we will not defend one we personally look upon with scorn and derision.” The real problem with the ACLU is it claims a strong commitment to all of our rights, yet when you ask it to number our rights the agency counts to ten like this: “1, 3, 4, 5….” Its own institutional political bias has caused it to deny that you have an individual RKBA. In fact, here is the entire portion of their public position on the 2nd Amendment: https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment “Gun Control The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ACLU Position Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions. Analysis Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties. Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made. Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.” Do you see how loose this position is? They can’t tell you what they really believe in. They claim it is a “collective right”—without a single word of explanation beyond a reference to the militia, by which we are to assume the agency believes the right is limited to a group of individuals having access to government approved firearms as part of their official government controlled militia duties. And so I see, Galileo, my old friend, that the ACLU actually agrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. You both believe it is a “militia only” right. Having the full weight of the mighty ACLU at your back—with all their paid and volunteer constitutional scholars and lawyers—should generate a great deal of confidence. Except the ACLU can’t tell us how this “militia only” right works any more than you can. Like you, The ACLU wishes to restrict the entire scope of the RKBA to active government controlled militia service. And, like you, they cannot tell you how limiting the right in this fashion protects anything from the power of Congress. And so I can see now why you could not turn to them for help and quote their explanation for how the “militia only” interpretation can work. It is because they can’t explain it. They can’t tell you how limiting the RKBA as you both wish allows “freedom to protect itself.” I know their failure is not your fault, but it is self-evident how little thought they give to their position when their public statements about the RKBA are limited to about half a page of generic text. Perhaps they need to have an “under construction” banner on their web page, since they still claim their position is “currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.” Wait a minute. Heller was decided 9 years ago, and their national board still can’t figure out how to respond to it? Are they really that incapable of updating their policy position with an answer to Heller, or is this “we’ll get back to you later” stance an admission that they have no answer to Heller because their “militia only” interpretation is in reality a fraud? Would it help if asked them how much longer it is going to take them to figure out how to make your theory work?
the ACLU generally represents people who find gun power distasteful. while many of their members also found Nazis marching in Jewish areas distasteful too, such free speech exercises are similar to the ones ACLU progressives approve of. BTW the Miller nonsense shows how intellectually bankrupt the American Communist Lobbying Union is-if Miller stated a collective right, the Miller position would have been rejected on STANDING, since Miller was not part of the militia or the NG.
Stick and stones (and guns) can break my bones but words will never hurt me. Guns help create an atmosphere where people don't feel like they can speak freely. You can say what you want but don't try to intimidate people with your firearms. Don't give them reason to worry about getting shot for disagreeing with you. It's best to leave your AK-47's at home.
I wonder why these twerps needed to bring their guns along to a peaceful protest. Small man syndrome, perhaps? Seriously, if the far right is ever going to be taken seriously, they need to be better (more civil and more peaceful) than the twerps on the far left. That's what will win over the masses, not guns, death, and racism.
There are photographs of the protest showing numerous private individuals milling about, in close proximity to those that were armed, and demonstrating absolutely no sign of being either intimidated or fearful. Your message is undermined by facts that in evidence, showing that countless individuals had no fear of those that were armed. Should it be assumed that those who were presented were intimidated into silence at the mere sight of legally carried firearms, but not sufficiently intimidated to the point that it occurred to them to leave the area? Pray tell how does such work exactly? Did those who were legally carrying firearms at the event commit even a single incident of assault against anyone that was present? Did they physically assault anyone? Did they train their firearms on those present? Did they shoot anyone?
Oh your feelings don’t get hurt by a little tongue in cheek sarcasm. We have known each other too long, and have respected each other too much for me to believe that is the case. But it has been a while since you have responded to something I say, and I was beginning to wonder if our relationship had soured. I was actually hoping that it was all simply a case of your having missed everything I have been saying. But since that is not the case, and I have your attention…. Could you please explain how the militia only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment works? I still say the interpretation is a fraud. I say it was not created for the purpose of protecting a right. It was created to deny one. This is why its adherents can quickly claim what it does not protect—the individual RKBA—while they are completely incapable of telling you what it does protect and how. But everyone admits that no Amendment was ever written simply to deny a right. Everyone agrees the 2nd Amendment was written to protect something. So the first question is “what does it protect?” The ACLU (and you) tell us it only protects a “right” to have access to government approved militia arms in government approved militia service. And you feel this response ends the discussion for, if believed, then It accomplishes your goal of denying the individual RKBA—and no further explanation is needed. But the natural question which follows—and it is not a trick question—is this: If the ‘right’ is as limited as you say it is, then how does the Amendment protect this ‘right’” from the power of Congress to abuse and neglect it? Every time I ask this question I get one of two different answers: 1. Silence. Or 2 “These aren’t the droids you are looking for, move along.” Now I really do respect the ALCU’s ability to argue its positions. I have read their amici briefs in several cases, and I have been impressed with the depth of their research and their ability to understand and argue prior case precedent. I don’t always agree with what they say, but I do respect their ability to make their arguments. And I think it should trouble you, Galileo—if even to a small extent—that an agency so rightfully respected for its collective legal acumen is incapable of explaining how your shared interpretation of the 2nd Amendment actually works. Think about it now. When it comes to the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the ACLU has over the years proven itself more than capable of clarifying the most obscure legal precedent, of fashioning the most creative interpretations, and of identifying and exploiting the smallest and most technical distinctions—all to advance its freedom expanding agenda. But when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, it is paralyzed by the simple and obvious question: “So how does this one work?” Do you really think the ACLU has not had a small army of legal scholars try to answer this question? And the only case they are proud of enough to cite is U.S. v. Miller? Their interpretation of it is absolutely incorrect, and I refuse to believe they have unwittingly gone so far astray. It is disheartening to see an agency which rightly prides itself on its collective legal acumen intentionally distort a prior case to try and make it fit their preferred outcome. And since this is the basis of their belief that the individual RKBA does not exist, then I attribute a similar amount of disingenuousness to their decision not to represent “armed” protesters in the future. The ACLU has for years claimed its mission is the protection of freedom regardless of the politics or the aims of those being denied their right to exercise it. It is a sad day to see this same agency make a purely biased political decision to refuse to protect the exact same rights—exercised by the exact same people they used to fight for—merely because they personally disapprove of their further exercising an additional right which they personally dislike. Finally, Galileo, I saw the events in Charlottesville. I saw Nazi/white supremacist marchers who were in my opinion looking to a fight. And I saw thousands of people who “counter protested” and refused to back down when confronted with these hate groups. You cannot make a credible argument that these people did not see the guns the “other side” was carrying. The only lesson to take from the guns in Charlottesville (beyond the fact that they were never used) is that their mere presence did not overawe or silence any viewpoint.
