
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
Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection of
Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail alex@spiral.org)

