From the Radio Free Michigan archives



ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot



If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to

bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.

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



=========================================================================





In this document, the ACLU makes some excellent points about how the zest

with which the government goes after "illegal" guns and "illegal" gun

owners, it often ends up trampling the Constitution in the process.



The ACLU also points out that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to

bear arms only for those in the militia. A number of responsible Americans

are now creating their own local militias on a loosely affiliated, grass-

roots basis. BeastNet fully supports the creation of people's militias

and encourages everyone to research the militia issue and join the local

people's militia or start one if there is none.





=========================================================================





From: "The Policy Guide of the ACLU"



 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 indiviudal'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 indiviudal'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. 

     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 clarify 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 Baard 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 findlng 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 Comittee 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.

     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 informatinn about their personal

history, views, and associations.  Furthermore, police

enforcement of such schemes may encourage entrapment, illegal

searches and other means which violate civil liberties.

     The ACLU takes the position that any such lesislation must

be drafted bearing these problems in mind and seeking to minimize

them.  [Board Minutes, June 14-15, 1979.]



=========================================================================



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

(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the

Radio Free Michigan site by the archive maintainer.


 Protection of

Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)



