textfiles/politics/GUNS/2nd_aclu

"What is the position of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on
the 2nd amendment."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ira Glasser, Executive Director of the ACLU, responded thusly on October 30,
1989 to an inquiry from Hal Berenson of Colorado Springs, Colorado, a former
ACLU supporter,

``We understand that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee to
the states the right to maintain state militias as a countervailing force
against an armed central government.

``Back then, there was no state repository for weapons or any standing state
militia, so in effect it was impossible to have a state militia unless people
were allowed to keep arms.

``But looked at in the contemporary context, we do not believe that the Second
Amendment, or the purpose for which it was intended, confers an unlimited
right upon individuals today to possess and use all manners of firearms,
including handguns, AK-47s, etc. That does not mean that the government can
constitutionally prohibit all weapons but it probably means that the
government can reasonably regulate and limit their use.

``The ACLU does not advocate gun control laws. But we do not oppose reasonable
regulations on Second Amendment grounds because we do not think the Second
Amendment bars such regulations.``

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The ACLU has sold it's name list to HCI.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The ACLU tried to get hollow-point bullets banned, even from use by
police on the grounds they were "too lethal."  The truth of the matter
is that hollow-point bullets are LESS lethal than round nose bullets.
More on this in bullet posts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

ACLU Policy #47

After sending a copy of the Yale Law Journal article "The Embarrasing Second
Amendment" to several of the Southern California ACLU staff and bringing
to their attention, the NRA suit against the California "assault weapons"
ban, I received, in reply, a copy of their infamous policy statement #47
(adapted to the Southern California chapter):

      We deplore the ghastly fact that in the life of this nation the use
   of handguns brings death to 60 men, women and children by accident--
   and 200 more by intent--every week.
      We concur with repeated rulings of every court that has ruled on
   the issue--including the U.S. Suprme Court--that the Constitution's
   Second Amendment provision for militia never has meant that all 
   individuals have a right to own all kinds of firearms.
      We urge passage of federal legislation--and meanwhile, in its absence,
   the partial remedy of state law--to prohibit, with few and narrowly drawn
   exceptions, the private ownership and possession of handguns, much the 
   way existing laws prohibit machine guns, grenades and cannons.
      We declare that Americans and their rights to life and liberty will
   face less danger in the presence of such laws and their enforcement
   than in the deadly, daily civilian shooting war around us now.
      The National ACLU gun control policy, adopted in 1967, calls for the
   reistration of firearms and the licensing of owners and dealers.  The 
   Union recommends the adoption of strong federal gun control legislation
   as a "necessary condition o fostering the atmosphere of open and fearless
   debate on which a free society rests."
      Both National ACLU and the Southern California affiliate base their
   policy provisions on long-standing interpretations of the Second Amendment
   by the U.S. Supreme Court, that the individual's right to keep and bear
   arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of "a well-regulated
   militia".

   (Adopted by Board of Directors in September 1976.  See national ACLU
   policy #47, "Gun Control".)

I recommend that all members of the ACLU write to their chapter and urge
the ACLU to rescind policy #47 if not to defend the Second Amendment. 
You should cite the Yale Law Journal article "The Embarrasing Second
Amendment".  Also, cite the Ninth Amendment and the individual RKBA clauses
of nearly every state Constitution most recognizing the RKBA for self
defense.  Ask them to justify their distortion of the Second Amendment 
and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it particularly as it relates 
to "assault weapons".

   The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates
   in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States,
   and the writings of approved commentators.  These show plainly enough
   that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
   in concert for the common defense.  "A body of citizens enrolled for
   military discipline."  And further, that ordinarily when called for
   service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
   themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

      -- Supreme Court, United States v. Miller et al., 307 U.S. 174

Ask them about their claim that the ACLU "champions the rights of man
set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution..."

The national ACLU address is:
   American Civil Liberties Union
   22 E. 40th St.
   NY, NY  10016

In Southern California:
   ACLU Foundation of Southern California
   633 South Shatto Place
   LA, CA  90005
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The ACLU has actively attacked the 2nd amendment by supporting a gun
ban in Illinois.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've entered portions of an article on the ACLU that appeared in a
recent edition of REASON Magazine.  The article is specifically about
how the ACLU is abandoning its defense of the First Amendment, but
generally about how it has abandoned the protection of civil liberties
in favor of a liberal political agenda.  After reading this article, it
becomes clear why the ACLU does not, and will not, defend the Second
Amendment.

REASON is a very pro-liberty monthly magazine, generally considered to
be in the libertarian camp. I am a subscriber, and a contributor to the
REASON Foundation.  I would highly recommend the magazine to anyone with
a serious interest in individual liberty.  

By the way, I am a former Sustaining Member of the ACLU.
--
The First Shall be Last? (REASON Magazine, 10/90)
Charles Oliver

"For 70 years, the First Amendment has been the American Civil Liberties
Union's chief client.  In case after case, ACLU lawyers have argued for
absolute free speech, for a press unfettered by government restrictions,
and for the strict separation of church and state.  Outside the
courtroom, ACLU leaders have been among the most eloquent defenders of
the libertarian principles embodied in the First Amendment.

Now those principles face their strongest challenge in years.  Public
and politicians alike appear increasingly intolerant of free speech -
whether the lyrics of The 2 Live Crew, the anti-abortion pronouncements
of the Catholic Church, the art of Robert Mapplethorpe, the
advertisements of tobacco companies, or the posters of antigay college
students.  There is abroad in the land a sentiment that many, many ideas
are too dangerous to be expressed and that these ideas must be shouted
down or, where possible, forbidden by law.  The ACLU, it would seem, has
plenty of work to do - both in the courtroom and out.

So, what is the ringing battle cry of ACLU President Norman Dorsen? 'We
are the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American First Amendment
Union.'

In recent years, the ACLU has adopted an expansive definition of 'civil
liberties' that dilutes its absolutist commitment to free speech.  The
ACLU, critics say, is now more committed to goals such as comparable
worth, government aid to the homeless, and nuclear disarmament than to
defending the First Amendment.

In 1988, attorney Mark S. Campisano documented the shift from the ACLU's
'old agenda,' which he describes as 'the rights of free speech, free
press, free exercise of religion, freedom of assembly and association,
and freedom from official acts of racism.'  In 1948, he reported, this
agenda encompassed 94 percent of the ACLU's cases; by 1987 is accounted
for only 45 percent.

Critics complain that greed and left-wing ideology have corrupted the
union.  The ACLU, they fear, has diluted its message, compromised its
mission, and, in some instances, abandoned its commitment to the First
Amendment.

'America needs a civil liberties union," says Harvard law professor
Alan Dershowitz, a 25-year member of the ACLU who once sat on the
group's national board of directors.  'It no longer has one.'

Dershowitz notes that the ACLU didn't get involved in one of the most
important pornography cases in years: Osborne vs Ohio, which involved a
sweeping Ohio statute aimed at child pornography.  This spring, the
Supreme Court upheld the law, in the process greatly expanding the
states' ability to ban pornography.  Civil libertarians blasted the
decision for enunciating a new theory of censorship - a theory that says
that the government can ban possesion of child pornography not because
the material itself generates crime but because allowing people to own
it creates a market for material that grows out of crime.

'And the ACLU wasn't in that case at all,' says Dershowitz.  'And yet,
it's in every abortion case, and it's in every femenist case, and it's
in every fetal rights case, and it's in every racial case defending the
most extreme forms of quotas and affirmative action.'

The ACLU has also taken heat from libertarians for some of the cases
that it *does* take.  Perhaps the most famous example began over a
decade ago, when teenage immigrant Walkter Palovchak decided he did not
want to return to the Soviet Union with his parents.  The ACLU went to
court on behalf of his family to force Walter to return to Russia.

'It still strikes me as strange,' says Palovchak's attorney, Henry Mark
Holzer, 'The ACLU has a children's rights project.  Their attorneys
argue that teenage girls are competent to have an abortion without
parental consent, but a teenage boy can't choose the United States over
a totalitarian state.  The only answer that makes sense is that their
decisions aren't based on civil liberties but liberal politics.  The
ACLU likes abortion, and it likes the Soviet Union.'

More recently, the ACLU actually sued an editor over the contents of his
newsletter.  In 1984, the ACLU's Southern California affiliate won a
$1.8 million settlement against the Los Angeles Police Department.  The
ACLU had sued the police department on behalf of 144 left-wing
organizations and individuals who complained that they had been the
targets of illegal surveillance.

But, the litigation didn't stop there.  Some of the information in the
files had allegedly been funneled to the conservative Western Goals
foundation and printed in the foundation's newsletter.  Shortly after
settling with the police, the ACLU sued Western Goals; John Rees, the
editor of the newsletter; and the estate of of Western Goal's chairman,
Rep. Larry McDonald (D-Ga.).  "It's not the business of law enforcement
to furnish information to individuals, even reporters," said Southern
California ACLU attorney Mark D. Rosenbaum, according to the Wall Street
Journal.

'I can understand why the ACLU was concerned about the police keeping
records on people who aren't connected with any crime.  I can understand
the suit against the LAPD,' says Rees's attorney Manual Klausner (who is
a trustee of the REASON Foundation).  'But under what interpretation of
the First Amendment could they sue the journalist?  The ACLU took the
position that Rees and other journalists don't even have the right to
receive a newspaper clipping or other article in the public domain from
the police.  The implications of this position would undermine the
ability of journalists to use the police as sources.  In my judgement,
we were defending the First Amendment against the ACLU.' (Western Goals'
insurance company eventually forced the organization to settle out of court.)

No issue more clearly demonstrates the new thinking within the ACLU
than the group's reaction, or differing reactions, to recent attempts by
some universities to ban sexually or racially insentive speech on their
campuses.

Last year, the Michigan affiliate of the ACLU brought the first lawsuit
against one of these college codes.  A federal district judge overturned
the University of Michigan's speech restrictions on First Amendment
grounds.  The ACLU has now taken more than 20 cases across the country
challenging student conduct codes that prohibit offensive speech.

But two of the ACLU's largest affiliates aren't so sure about such
challeges.  In September 1989, the University of California revised its
student conduct code to ban racial or sexual epithets on the
university's nine campuses.  The Northern and Southern California
affiliates - which account for more than one-fifth of the ACLU's total
membership  - didn't challenge the code.

Instead, they endorsed a policy that recognizes colleges can prohibit
speech that creates 'a hostile and intimidating environment which the
speaker knows or reasonably should know will seriously and directly
impeded the educational opportunities of the individual or individuals
to whom it is directly addressed.'

Campus speech codes divided the Massachusetts affiliate for months,
Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff reports that the debate was heated.
One proponent of speech codes 'accused some of his opponents of giving
free rein to white racists,' writes Hentoff.  'He claimed that the real
issue is not speech, but white power.'  Another advocate of speech codes
'wondered whether the position of the First Amendment absolutionists
"has something to do with who the victims of this kind of speech are."'

Finally, this summer the board approved 16-14 a policy that called for
colleges 'to minimize and eliminate attitudes and practices that create
a hostile educational environment, but these measures must not include
rules which prohibit and punish speech on the basis of its content.'  It
was not exactly a resounding victory for free speech.

Because of the differing policies adopted by affiliates, the national
board has appointed a committee to study the issue and decide how to
deal with campus speech codes.  'I think the fact that they even
appointed a committee forces one to question whether the national board
is as committed to the First Amendment as it used to be," says Hentoff."

...

"'I think the changes started when the ACLU got involved in the civil
rights movement,' says Lambert [Ed - Mark Lambert, former legislative
director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union]  'That opened the door for
all of these other issues that have nothing to do with the First
Amendment.  Today, when someone says that homelessness or comparable
worth is not a civil liberties issue, the common retort is "Well, 30
years ago some people didn't think civil rights was a civil liberties
issue."  Well, maybe it wasn't.'

Civil liberties have usually been conceived as freedom from government
coercion, including government-enforced segregation.  But once Jim Crow
laws began to fall, civil rights leaders started to demand government
coercion - from anti-discrimination statutes to racial quotas - to
ensure racial equality.  That quickly created tensions between the
ACLU's commitment to civil liberties and its involvement in civil
rights.  And in nearly every debate, civil liberties lost.

In 1960, for example, the ACLU's national board opposed the inclusion of
questions about race, color, or national origin on the nation's census
forms.  But once Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the board
changed its mind.  Census data, it held, provide the basis for programs
'to combat discrimination in education, employment, and housing.'  At
first, the ACLU supported only voluntary answers to questions about
race; now it says the census may make such questions mandatory.  The
group does, however, request that the government store the racial
information apart from the personal items."

...

"Perhaps the most important result of the ACLU's plunge into civil
rights was the change in its attitude toward quotas.  Throughout the
1940s and 1950s the group opposed racial quotas.  In the 1970s the ACLU
revered its stand and came out in favor of quotas.  In fact, in 1977 it
adopted its own quota system.

Under this policy, the ACLU's national board must be 50 percent female
and 20 percent minorities."

...

"Some believe that racial and gender quotas changed dramatically the
nature of the boards and the nature of the ACLU.  'Election to the board
used to be based on one's dedication to civil liberties.  Members were
elected because they had demonstrated an effective commitment to free
speech and separation of church and state," says Dershowitz.  'But
affirmative action changed all that.  Some people were elected because
they *were* women and because they *were* minorities.  And they were told
that they were there to represent women and minorities.  Inevitably they
formed caucuses for women's rights and minority rights within the
ACLU....What the ACLU needs now is a civil liberties caucus.'"

...

"In the last 25 years, the ACLU's membership has sky-rocketed from
around 70,000 to 300,000.  But many long-time members worry that the
recent recruits are mainly interested in the group's liberal politics,
rather than civil liberties.  'They were advertising for members,
*period*.  They weren't trying to get members who were necessarily
committed to civil liberties," says Hentoff.

Former Iowa legislative director Lambert argues that the ACLU's stands
on economic issues turn off promarket libertarians and conservatives who
would support First Amendment rights.  'To recruit new members,' he
complains, 'the ACLU buys the mailing lists of other liberal groups.
They have more and more people joining who are just liberals, not civil
libertarians.  You have to worry that someday there'll be no one there
whose top commitment is the First Amendment."  A spokewoman for the
national office says that the ACLU rents the lists of "like-minded"
groups.  When pressed for examples, she cites Greenpeace and Amnesty
International. "

[Ed - The article goes on to cover more on the ACLU's foray into
economic issues, interference in private employer/employee
relationships, and attempts to create a "right of access" to the media.
I entered about 40% of the total text above.  REASON Magazine is
available at some better book stores, such as McKinzy-White here in
Colorado Springs, or from Reason, P.O. Box 526, Mt. Morris, IL 61054]

"'I'm still a member, and I still make my contribution because the ACLU
still does some good,' says Dershowitz.  'But if things don't change, in
10 years it may not be doing any good.  In fact, it could become an
enemy of free speech.'"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Attorney Dershowitz is 100% anti-gun.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

           A PRIMER ON THE ACLU  By L. GORDON CROVITZ
      (from _Wall_Street_Journal_ Monday, October 3, 1988)
     "Our positions are mainstream positions," says Norman 
Dorsen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union, 
defending his organization in the wake of George Bush making an 
issue out of Michael Dukakis's boast of card-carrying membership. 
The ACLU does have a long history of efforts to protect actual 
constitutional rights, but a sampling of its recent positions can 
allow voters to decide for themselves where the mainstream lies.  

     The best source for the ACLU's positions and world view is 
its own 576-page listing, last published in 1986, of "Policy 
Guides," which are approved by the national board; local branches 
often take more radical positions. Here is a primer on the ACLU 
as a mainstream organization: 

*Drugs should not be prohibited by law*. Without mentioning the 
word "deterrent," the ACLU voted to legalize everything from 
heroin to marijuana. "Gambling, attempted suicide, sexual 
relations or the introduction of substances into one's own body" 
should not be crimes. (Policy 210, Victimless Crimes.) Drug use 
is akin to catching a cold: "There is today widespread 
recognition of the fact that narcotics addiction is at bottom an 
illness to be treated and not a crime to be punished." (Policy 
214, State Control of Drugs and Alcohol.) 

Schools and Beepers 

*School discipline must be strictly limited*. Despite nearly 
universal problems in urban high schools, "the school has no 
jurisdiction over its students' non-school activities. " This 
explains ACLU opposition to the more than 50 school districts 
nationwide that have banned electronic beepers from the 
classroom.  These are now a key tool of the school drug trade. A 
spokesman for the group's privacy and technology project says, 
"The school has the burden of proof to show that the beepers are 
disruptive and not being banned because they are linked with 
illegal drugs." The ACLU is consistent-it also tried, 
unsuccessfully, to protect students from searches of their 
lockers. (Policy 76, Secondary School Students' Civil Liberties.) 
     

*Few crimes should be punished by jail*. "A fine should always be 
the preferred form of the penalty," the ACLU says. For those who 
do go to jail, "probation should be authorized by the legislature 
in every case, exceptions to the principle are not favored, and 
any exceptions, if made, should be limited to the most serious 
offenses, such as murder or treason." The group does not mention 
furloughs. (Policy 242, Criminal Sentences.)      

*Workfare is unconstitutional*. Citing "basic concerns of 
fairness, dignity and privacy," the ACLU "opposes work 
requirements at government-assigned tasks as a condition of 
eligibility for welfare benefits or for any transfer payments 
designed to compensate for insufficient income." Presumably, the 
group will sue against the welfare-reform program Congress just 
passed. (Policy 318, Poverty and Civil Liberties.) 

*The Constitution mandates increased welfare spending*.  Welfare 
"classifications which exclude some people from the basic 
necessities of life, while granting such necessities to others, 
are constitutionally 'suspect.' " This is the legal argument, so 
far rejected by the Supreme Court, that the group is using with 
some success in state courts. It translates immediately into 
taxpayer or third-party obligations and invalidates reforms 
encouraging an end to welfare dependency. (Policy 318, Poverty 
and Civil Liberties..)      

*Equal pay for equal work is not enough*. "The current ACLU 
policy on sex and race discrimination in employment encompasses 
the concept of comparable worth as the essential next step in 
achieving full equality for women and minorities." (Policy 315, 
Employment and Education.)      

*No more rescue attempts of American hostages or secret 
operations against terrorists*. "Abolish all covert operations." 
(policy 117, Controlling the Intelligence Agencies.)      

*There can be no military draft, even in wartime*. Although the 
Supreme Court has ruled against the ACLU, the organization's 
position remains that "military conscription, under any 
circumstances, is a violation of civil liberties and 
constitutional guarantees. . . . at least in the absence of an 
extreme national emergency as defined by ACLU." (Policy 120, 
Conscription..)      

*U.S. officials owe U.S. constitutional protections to foreigners 
overseas*. The ACLU says the "Constitution requires the same 
standard of conduct for government personnel, (whether civilian 
or military) overseas as it requires at home." Presumably, if 
he's ever arrested, Gen. Manuel Noriega must get Miranda rights 
read to him or be set free; by the same reasoning, poppy farmers 
in South America have a Fifth Amendment taking claim if the U.S.  
sprays their land. (Policy 401, ACLU Role in International Civil 
Liberties Matters.)      

*Churches and synagogues should lose their tax-exempt status*.  
Contrary to hundreds of years of Anglo-American practice, "the 
ACLU opposes tax benefits for religious bodies." The group's 
reasoning is that "the free exercise clause is put at risk when 
the establishment clause is breached." The group has litigated 
against the Catholic Church in particular. One complaint against 
the Catholics is that they oppose abortion and thus the church is 
a political entity; of course, churches are in the business of 
expressing themselves on matters of ethics. (Policy 92, Religious 
Bodies' Tax Exemption.)      

*The First Amendment protects all pornography, including child 
porn*. "The ACLU opposes any restraint on the right to create, 
publish or distribute materials . . . on the basis of obscenity, 
pornography or indecency." The procurers of children who appear 
in kiddie porn can be punished for crimes under the rubric of 
child abuse -- if the police can catch them -- but sellers and 
distributors are absolutely protected regardless of the content -
- that is, regardless of what the little boys and/or little girls 
are doing or having done to them on screen. (Policy 4, Censorship 
of Obscenity, Pornography and Indecency.)      

*Rating movies is itself an unconstitutional prior restraint*.  
The ACLU opposes the industry rating system for parental guidance 
that categorizes movies from X- to G-rated. "Rating systems 
create the potential for constraining the creative process" and 
"inevitably have serious chilling effects on freedom of 
expression," the ACLU says. For example, "hotels, airlines, pay 
television . . . frequently refuse to accept X-rated films." Does 
the ACLU want "Debbie Does Dallas" shown on transcontinental 
flights? (Policy 18, Rating Systems Sponsored by the 
Communications Industries.)      

*Prostitution should be legal*. "The ACLU supports the 
decriminalization of prostitution and opposes state regulation of  
 . . . prostitutes of both sexes." Prostitution is protected by 
"the right of individual privacy," and solicitation comes under 
the First Amendment. (Policy 211, Prostitution.)      

*Homosexuals can be foster parents*. In 1986, the ACLU 
radicalized its position on non-discrimination against 
homosexuals to include all rights that would "qualify gay and 
lesbian couples for benefits and rights enjoyed by married 
persons, including the right to become foster parents." In 
lawsuits, the ACLU has also tried to establish the right for 
homosexuals to become Big Brothers and to marry. (Policy 264, 
Homosexuality.) See Joyce Brown      

*The deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill was required by 
law*. Beginning in the early 1960s, the ACLU led the fight to 
empty the nation's mental institutions. The leading principle was 
that "mental illness cannot by itself be a justifiable reason for 
depriving a person of liberty against his or her objection." 
There could be commitment in limited circumstances, for example 
where there is "an observable violent criminal act against self 
or others in a time period immediately preceding or during the 
commitment process."  In any case, "the individual has a right to 
counsel at every step of the proceeding" and "an involuntarily 
committed individual must be allowed to refuse any treatment for 
mental illness." See, for example, Joyce Brown, New York City. 
(Policy 244, Civil Commitment.)      

It's perfectly fine for the ACLU to argue these positions.  
Indeed, it's probably healthy for society to have a fringe group 
agitating new "rights." But others are entitled to criticize 
these positions as having little to do with the Constitution or, 
for that matter, with common sense. After all, a president who 
belongs to the ACLU has many chances to implement its policies. 
from passing new laws to repealing old ones to nominating federal 
judges and Supreme Court justices.       Certainly, voters have a 
right to decide whether they want a president who 
enthusiastically associates himself with these views, or at least 
with the political outlook that gives rise to them.  
     
-----------------------------------------------------      

Mr. Crovitz is assistant editorial page editor of the Journal.  A 
related editorial appears today.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ACLU Policy #47

Gun Control     Policy #47

        The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and
adopted demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective
one, existing only in the collective population of each state for
the purpose of maintaining an effective state militia.
        The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing
interpretation of the Second Amendment 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.
        Nor does the ACLU believe that there is a significant civil
liberties value apart from the Second Amendment in an individual
right to own or use firearms.  Interests of privacy and self-
expression may be involved in any individual's choice of
activities or possessions, but these interests are attenuated
where the activity, or the object sought to be possessed, is
inherently dangerous to others.  With respect to firearms, the
ACLU believes that this quality of dangerousness justifies legal
regulation which substantially restricts the individual's
interest in freedom of choice. 1/
        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.  For example, the enforcement process of
systems of licensing, registration, or prohibition may threaten
extensive invasions of privacy as owners are required to disclose
details of ownership and information about their personal
history, views, and associations.  Furthermore, police
enforcement or such schemes may encourage entrapment, illegal
searches and other means which violate civil liberties.
        The ACLU takes the position that any such legislation must
be drafted bearing these problems in mind and seeking to minimize
them.  [Board Minutes, June 14-15, 1979.]

_______
        1/ When the Board adopted the June 1979 policy, it was
suggested that it was unclear as to whether or not the ACLU
supported gun control as a civil liberties matter, or simply did 
not oppose government regulation on this issue.  In order to
clarity this question, the following sentence was added to
paragraph three of the policy as a footnote, "It is the sense of
this body, that the word 'justifies' in this policy means we will
affirmatively support gun control legislation."
        At the April 12-13, 1980 Board meeting, the policy's
footnote was reconsidered.  Several Board members believed that
the statement was inconsistent with the rest of the policy
because there was no civil liberties rationale within the policy
for affirmative ACLU support of gun control legislation.  The
Board then moved to refer the policy to the Due Process Committee
to refine and discuss further the rationale for affirmative ACLU
support of gun control legislation.  At the June 23-24, 1982
Board meeting, the Due Process Committee recommended deletion of
the footnote from the gun control policy.  The Committee's
recommendation was based on the fact that no acceptable civil
liberties rationale could be developed for affirmative support of
gun control legislation.  The link between guns and the breakdown
of civil liberties, the Committee suggested, contains too much of
the approach to crime control.  And crime control, the Committee
said, includes measures violative of civil liberties.  The
possibility that a person who might be defending his or her self
at home might be arrested for use of a handgun is troubling.  If
we support gun control legislation, we are encouraging the police
to search homes, cars and persons.  The Due Process Committee
suggested that the problem with the footnote was that it was
indefensible on civil liberties grounds, and that it is not the
ACLU's role to commit the ACLU to involve ourselves in social
issues by finding a constitutional basis where there is none.
Even though gun control is a desirable social objective, and it
would be nice to find a civil liberties rationale for affirmative
ACLU support of gun control legislation, the Committee noted that
the ACLU has never supported particular remedies for particular
crimes, and as such, we cannot support gun control legislation.
        The Board approved the Committee's recommendation, and
deleted the footnote from the existing policy, but left intact
the basic policy which expressed ACLU's views.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: ACLU's position on Gun Control
Message-ID: <70697@apple.Apple.COM>
From: brianw@Apple.COM (Brian Wilson)
Date: 31 Jul 92 22:06:47 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 58
Status: R

Hi-

For anyone who cares, I received the attached letter from the ACLU a week
ago.  When I sent them my yearly contribution I pointed out that they 
never seem to publish anything on the 2nd Amendment in their monthly 
newsletters, and that I would like a one page statement of their position 
regarding the 2nd amendment.

Although I am unhappy with their position, it is impressive that they were
willing to state it clearly for me.  

-- Brian


------------------ CUT HERE for letter from ACLU ---------------------
                                                 July 22, 1992

Mr. Brian Wilson
<Address deleted>

Dear Mr. Wilson:

     Thank you for your recent contribution.  This is in response to your
note which was attached to your donation.

     As you requested, here is a one page letter explaining the ACLU's
position on the second amendment.  The second amendment states that
"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 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 right to bear arms applies only to the preservation of a well-regulated 
militia.  Except for police and military purposes, we believe that the 
possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

     Our neutrality on this issue means we neither favor nor oppose gun
control laws.  Rather we believe that there is no constitutional objection
to gun control laws in general.  At the same time, however, we are mindful
of regulation, licensing, and registration schemes which may involve 
violations of civil liberties, because they may involve invasions of privacy 
or may engender illegal searches and seizures.

     I know this is probably not the reply you would have liked.  Please
understand that every member does not agree with every ACLU position.  We
even have members of our national board who disagree with certain ACLU 
positions.  However, I hope that you will be able to continue to support 
the ACLU in good conscience even though you disagree with one small aspect 
of our defense of a vast range of civil liberties.

     If you have any further, questions please feel free to contact me.

                                                 Sincerely,

                                                 <signature>

                                                 Maureen Vialva
                                                 Membership Services Manager