ACLU petitions court to get man's guns returned from Broward Sheriff's Office

[jamesrage]

I know this article is a little old, so I posted it here. A organization that claims its for constitutional rights should stand up for all of them not just some of them. So I do applaud the ACLU on this,hopefully they start doing more these cases that are directly about 2nd amendment rights.


ACLU petitions court to get man's guns returned from Broward Sheriff's Office - Sun Sentinel

POMPANO BEACH — The American Civil Liberties Union is petitioning a court to help an 85-year-old man get his guns back from the Broward Sheriff's Office.

Yes, you read that right.

In what may be the first time, the ACLU says, it is advocating on behalf of a gun owner to get his weapons back. And they're doing so free of charge.

That the ACLU, a long-time target of conservatives' scorn, is supporting gun ownership is "a breath of fresh air," said Marion P. Hammer, board member of the National Rifle Association.

"It's all very interesting that the ACLU has now decided that all of the rights are worth defending, and it's a welcome change," said Hammer, a Florida lobbyist for the NRA and its former president.

 

[roughdraft274]

It's not like it's the first time. I really have no idea why conservatives hate the ACLU, they are a great organization if you give half a damn about people's rights.

* - WWL - AM870 | FM105.3 | News | Talk | Sports
The Volokh Conspiracy - ACLU of Texas and Gun Rights:
ACLU of Wisconsin defends Beaver Dam teacher - WKOW 27: Madison, WI Breaking News, Weather and Sports
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/u...em&ex=1175918400&en=1844ac9bdf566719&ei=5087

 

[Your Star]

The ACLU has always been for gun rights. Though, those aren't the cases that get the most publicity.

 

[jamesrage]

The ACLU has always been for gun rights. Though, those aren't the cases that get the most publicity.

Where in the world did you hear that load of garbage? The ACLU has not stood for 2nd rights and used the blatantly false misinterpretation that the 2nd is a collective right and not a individual to not defend it.

 

[Barbbtx]

Thanks James. It looks like credit is due to ACLU on this one.

 

[roughdraft274]

Where in the world did you hear that load of garbage? The ACLU has not stood for 2nd rights and used the blatantly false misinterpretation that the 2nd is a collective right and not a individual to not defend it.

I've heard mostly from them that they see nothing in the second amendment that prohibits sensible gun control laws and registration programs.

However, it really doesn't make a bit of difference. They are an organization that stands up for people's rights. Just because they focus on free speech or freedom of religion issues doesn't make them biased. If they feel they can make a bigger difference in one area rather than another, so be it. If I find a lawyer that won't take on a divorce case for an abused woman for free because he's an attorney that mostly deals with bankruptcy can I then say he's pro-abusing women?

I'm not saying that they have never fought a case that I didn't agree with them on but in the many cases I know of they appear to be doing a great job standing up for people, and are more concerned with individuals rights, way more so than government's rights.

 

[jamesrage]

It's not like it's the first time. I really have no idea why conservatives hate the ACLU, they are a great organization if you give half a damn about people's rights.

The ACLU claims one thing and does another,they have a history of trying to tear down crosses on war memorials and a lot of conservatives recognize the few good cases are nothing more than a token. I am sure you heard of the term token. Some of the movies used to have only black character in their movie so that they can claim they are not racist against black people.

* - WWL - AM870 | FM105.3 | News | Talk | Sports

This could merely be a property rights issue and not a actual 2nd amendment issue.

The Volokh Conspiracy - ACLU of Texas and Gun Rights:

I am not sure you even read that link. It basically stated the ACLU's anti-2nd amendment position through their BS interpretation that the 2nd is a collective and not a individual right.

This was from the ACLU site justifying their anti-2nd amendment stand.

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"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."
— The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

ACLU of Wisconsin defends Beaver Dam teacher - WKOW 27: Madison, WI Breaking News, Weather and Sports

This could merely be the ACLU defending a free speech issue, not a ACLU standing up for teacher against anti-2nd amendment pricks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/u...em&ex=1175918400&en=1844ac9bdf566719&ei=5087

This is recent.This is about clarification in the law and preventing police abuse. Not its none of the states damn business if you have a firearm in the car because you have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.







The ACLU in general is anti-2nd amendment even though they claim to be a organization that stands up for constitutional rights.

Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union » 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. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.

Second Amendment | American Civil Liberties Union
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.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 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. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

 

[samsmart]

I know this article is a little old, so I posted it here. A organization that claims its for constitutional rights should stand up for all of them not just some of them. So I do applaud the ACLU on this,hopefully they start doing more these cases that are directly about 2nd amendment rights.


ACLU petitions court to get man's guns returned from Broward Sheriff's Office - Sun Sentinel

POMPANO BEACH — The American Civil Liberties Union is petitioning a court to help an 85-year-old man get his guns back from the Broward Sheriff's Office.

Yes, you read that right.

In what may be the first time, the ACLU says, it is advocating on behalf of a gun owner to get his weapons back. And they're doing so free of charge.

That the ACLU, a long-time target of conservatives' scorn, is supporting gun ownership is "a breath of fresh air," said Marion P. Hammer, board member of the National Rifle Association.

"It's all very interesting that the ACLU has now decided that all of the rights are worth defending, and it's a welcome change," said Hammer, a Florida lobbyist for the NRA and its former president.

I don't think this is as big of a story as it may sound like.

Mila Schwartzreich, assistant legal counsel for the Sheriff's Office, said her agency has no choice but to keep Weinstein's weapons. She said the Sheriff's Office is not objecting to returning the guns, but needs a court order first.

"Legally, we're bound to hold them until then," she said. "It's not that Mr. Weinstein is a bad person or we feel people shouldn't possess firearms. For him, it was a distressing time."

I'm just taking a guess here, but I think all the ACLU is getting involved in here is that they're helping the elderly man get the court order he needs to get his guns back rather than let him bear whatever costs are required for getting a court order.

There's a big difference between helping an elderly man get his two pistols back after he voluntarily surrendered them due to a traumatic event in his life that affected his mental wellness and advocating no regulations or restrictions when it comes to firearms.

 

[Hoplite]

The ACLU in general is anti-2nd amendment even though they claim to be a organization that stands up for constitutional rights.

No, they're against your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

The OP and several other articles demonstrate they are NOT anti-2nd amendment.

 

[jamesrage]

No, they're against your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

No, they are are against the 2nd amendment. If they were pro-2nd amendment then they would not be using some blatantly bull **** interpretation to ignore it.

The OP and several other articles demonstrate they are NOT anti-2nd amendment.

The OP article a few others only demonstrates that a few ACLU chapters are not anti-2nd amendment, not the ACLU as a whole.

 

[Harshaw]

No, they're against your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

The OP and several other articles demonstrate they are NOT anti-2nd amendment.

1) They have no choice but to revise their stance on it because of recent Supreme Court rulings which obliterated their interpretation. Prior to that, their position had always been what's posted above.

2) Personally knowing a number of ACLU lawyers, including several classmates of mine, institutionally, the ACLU is hostile to gun rights.

 

[Johnny]

The ACLU is not perfect. No organization is. But all in all they're a good organization. IIRC they were created to combat the tyranny of McCarthy. McCarthy was one of the biggest threats to our civil liberties in history.

 

[cpwill]

The ACLU is not perfect. No organization is. But all in all they're a good organization. IIRC they were created to combat the tyranny of McCarthy. McCarthy was one of the biggest threats to our civil liberties in history.

McCarthy?

please. one of the biggest threats to our civil liberties in history?



if the ACLU starts defending gun rights and starts defending the actual First Amendment, which promises freedom of religion (not freedom from it); then i will be very pleasantly surprised indeed and happy to welcome them to the fold.

 

[prrriiide]

McCarthy?

please. one of the biggest threats to our civil liberties in history?

Absolutely. Joeseph McCarthy was a raging alcoholic and megalomaniac who used his position to gain more power through fear, intimidation and false charges. His main supplier of information was J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, who's excesses are well-documented. By merely mentioning someone's name in connection with communist activities, without a shred of evidence, he ruined many lives and careers.

if the ACLU starts defending gun rights and starts defending the actual First Amendment, which promises freedom of religion (not freedom from it); then i will be very pleasantly surprised indeed and happy to welcome them to the fold.

sossamon-v-texas

The plaintiff in this case is a Texas state prisoner who was denied the opportunity to participate in Christian worship services. He sued, seeking injunctive relief and damages. Texas changed its policy mid-litigation, mooting the claim for injunctive relief, and successfully argued in the lower courts that it was immune from damages. The ACLU amicus brief argues that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) authorizes the federal courts to order "appropriate relief" when the religious rights of prisoners are violated, that "appropriate relief" includes damages, that Texas waived its immunity when it accepted federal funds to help operate its prisons, and that damages are essential to ensure judicial review, as this case demonstrates.

thompson-v-ricci-et-al

The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner, an ordained Pentecostal minister, who is asking the state to respect his religious freedom by restoring his right to preach. Howard Thompson, Jr. had preached at weekly worship services at the New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) for more than a decade when prison officials last year issued, without any reason, a blanket ban on all preaching by inmates, even when done under the direct supervision of prison staff.

cutter-v-wilkinson

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) was adopted by Congress with the support of the ACLU and many other groups. One of its principal purposes is to ensure that the free exercise rights of prisoners and other institutionalized persons are not needlessly violated in the absence of a compelling governmental interest. The government officials in this case have challenged the constitutionality of RLUIPA as a violation of the Establishment Clause. The ACLU brief defends the facial constitutionality of the Act as a legitimate accommodation of free exercise rights.

More here.

 

[American]

I know this article is a little old, so I posted it here. A organization that claims its for constitutional rights should stand up for all of them not just some of them. So I do applaud the ACLU on this,hopefully they start doing more these cases that are directly about 2nd amendment rights.


ACLU petitions court to get man's guns returned from Broward Sheriff's Office - Sun Sentinel

POMPANO BEACH — The American Civil Liberties Union is petitioning a court to help an 85-year-old man get his guns back from the Broward Sheriff's Office.

Yes, you read that right.

In what may be the first time, the ACLU says, it is advocating on behalf of a gun owner to get his weapons back. And they're doing so free of charge.

That the ACLU, a long-time target of conservatives' scorn, is supporting gun ownership is "a breath of fresh air," said Marion P. Hammer, board member of the National Rifle Association.

"It's all very interesting that the ACLU has now decided that all of the rights are worth defending, and it's a welcome change," said Hammer, a Florida lobbyist for the NRA and its former president.

Don't hold your breath of freah air. :roll:

 

[Goobieman]

The ACLU has always been for gun rights.

This is either a lie or overt ignorance.

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.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 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. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

Second Amendment | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[Goobieman]

No, they're against your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

What you really mean to say is that the ACLU's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is wrong.

 

[hazlnut]

Of course, there's always more to the story:

Weinstein, a retired bar and restaurant owner from Hartford, Conn., had his weapons seized in February after Dana, his wife of 61 years, died. He told the Broward Medical Examiner's Office that he wanted to "blow his head off," according to a sheriff deputy's report.

When you say something like that in front of police or medical professionals, they must follow procedure.

Weinstein's call to the medical examiner prompted a visit from a sheriff's deputy, who took the widower to a hospital for evaluation.

Weinstein said he agreed to surrender his Colt semi-automatic .25-caliber pistol and his Wesson .357 revolver, along with ammunition and holsters, for safekeeping after authorities insisted on it.

A hearing on his petition is scheduled before Circuit Judge Dale Ross on Monday.

If the psychiatrist discharging him from the hospital wrote the words dementia or clinical depression on his discharge papers, then the state has the right to hold the guns in the interest of public safety.

The 2nd Amendment does not cover metal illness. Even with a clean bill of health, many states won't give you a firearms permit with a 'history' a mental illness. If the state's psychiatrist says there's a chance that he may experience another depressive episode, during which he could harm himself or others, then he can't have the guns back.

At his age, there are dementia issues as well. This is all probably pretty upsetting for him, which only exasperates the problem. The anguish he feels over losing his wife, being hospitalized and having his possessions taken away; not the frame of mind you want to have when being evaluated for your mental health.

I feel bad for the guy.

 

[Goobieman]

Of course, there's always more to the story

Yes... which makes the ACLU's actions on his behalf that much more astonishing.

Even with a clean bill of health, many states won't give you a firearms permit with a 'history' a mental illness

Fortunately, the vast majority of states do not require "permits" for firearms.

 

[hazlnut]

Yes... which makes the ACLU's actions on his behalf that much more astonishing.


Fortunately, the vast majority of states do not require "permits" for firearms.

Handguns, sorry.:roll:

I forget the gun boys hate when you call a shotgun a rifle...

Crazy men can't have boom sticks.

 

[Goobieman]

Handguns, sorry.:roll:

Even then, the vast majority of states dont require a permit to own a hnadgun.

The problem with changing the current standard of not allowing people who "have been ajuducated mentally infirm" to "with a history of mental illness" is the nebulous nature of the thresshold. How do you meaningfully define "a history of mental illness'?

I forget the gun boys hate when you call a shotgun a rifle

If you dont understand the basic terms of the discussion and cannot use those terms with any degree of fluency, then you really have no place IN the discussion. There's nothing worse that trying to have an intelligent conversation about guns with someone who doesn't know the first thing about them.

 

[hazlnut]

Even then, the vast majority of states dont require a permit to own a hnadgun.

The problem with changing the current standard of not allowing people who "have been ajuducated mentally infirm" to "with a history of mental illness" is the nebulous nature of the thresshold. How do you meaningfully define "a history of mental illness'?

Um... if there is something that documents that history. A doctor makes a diagnosis and writes orders for treatment.

If you dont understand the basic terms of the discussion and cannot use those terms with any degree of fluency, then you really have no place IN the discussion. There's nothing worse that trying to have an intelligent conversation about guns with someone who doesn't know the first thing about them.

It's difficult to have discussion with gun "experts" who don't understand the economics of gun sales and how a thriving black market exists that floods society with undocumented weapons. This is only a good thing if you're a moron.

It's especially difficult to talk to people who think the guns laws in Wyoming will work for NYC or LA. They have no clue about the volume of gun-related violence that goes on in metropolitan areas. But they'll happily sell their guns (when they need some quick cash) to someone who transports that gun across state lines for sale in a big city. Every illegal handgun started out as legal at one time.

 

[Goobieman]

Um... if there is something that documents that history. A doctor makes a diagnosis and writes orders for treatment.

Ok -- so what's the threshold?
If someone was prescribed anti-depressants for a year, does that qualify as a 'history'.
How about if that person was a minor.... in 1984?
Doesnt this require a federal database of medical records? Doesnt that invade privacy?
Never mind the prior restraint nature of the background check, in and of itself.

It's difficult to have discussion with gun "experts"...

So you -do- agree that people that do not understand the basic terms of the discussion and cannot use those terms with any degree of fluency have no place in the discussion.
I trust that means you'll then make sure you use those terms as they should be used.

 

[hazlnut]

Ok -- so what's the thresshold?
If someone was prescribed anti-depressants for a year, does that qualify as a 'history'.
How about if that person was a minor. In 1984?
Doesnt thins require a federal database of medical records? Doesnt that invade privacy?
Never mind the prior restraint nature of the background check, in and of itself.

How about we come up with as many hypotheticals as possible... um, yeah that's it. And forget what the topic was. A man made a statement about taking his own life. Procedure was followed.

So you -do- agree that people that do not understand the basic terms of the discussion and cannot use those terms with any degree of fluency have no place in the discussion.
I trust that means you'll then make sure you use those terms as they should be used.

Only terms relevant to the legal issues regarding mental illness and gun ownership.

You apparently think that taking anti-depressents means you're mentally ill. Why are you even opening your mouth to speak?? Please be quiet, dear, while the adults talk.

 

[Goobieman]

How about we come up with as many hypotheticals as possible... um, yeah that's it. And forget what the topic was. A man made a statement about taking his own life. Procedure was followed.

Ah yes...you support a standard that you apparently cannot sufficiently define.
Sounds like a -great- idea -- until you are asked for specifics.
:roll:

Only terms relevant to the legal issues regarding mental illness and gun ownership.

So... define "a history of mental illness'.

You apparently think that taking anti-depressents means you're mentally ill. Why are you even opening your mouth to speak?? Please be quiet, dear, while the adults talk.

Ah... an ad hom -- the final rhetorical resting place for those with nothing of substance.