Firearms interests have their own highly influential advocacy already from more than one entity, so it puts this argument in the "all lives matter" category of flawed defenses.

To be specific - they disagree with one specific SCOTUS ruling that is less than a decade old (DC v. Heller). They do agree with the pro-gun arguments put forth by US v. Miller.

They have devoted (to my knowledge) no material resources towards fighting DC v. Heller despite their disagreement with it, and they explicitly leave most 2nd Amendment cases to other advocacy groups (namely the NRA) because those are much more well-funded and focused solely on the 2nd Amendment. The ACLU prefers to spend its much smaller and limited budget on cases which aren't really supported by many (if any) other advocacy groups.

This seems to keep coming up, and it's a rather tiresome argument: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13511964

They are, IMHO, far more interested in pursuing their own agenda, which only partially intersects with the right to self defense. More important to them, it seems, is acting as stooges for the GOP. I came to that conclusion after a local election in which the NRA endorsed the GOP candidate, who had a C rating, as I recall, while turning up their noses at his challenger who was an A.

I believe that their reticence to litigate Heller was for their own self-preservation. They can make a better case for donation when they're able to sow FUD about taking away our guns. Having a definitive answer to the question from Heller (and later McDonald, to get it incorporated under the 14th Amendment) impairs how much fear they can inspire in gun owners.

As I recall, it's because they didn't believe a priori that it was the strongest case. They definitely do support the decision and defend it in subsequent cases. It's not unusual for an advocacy group to pick and choose its legal battles based on what it thinks is most likely to advance its long-term agenda - each case is a legal risk, and with a it's possible to end up losing ground instead of gaining it. There's a lot of strategic calculation that goes into it, which doesn't mean that it's always successful or correct, but it's not unusual or suspicious when it happens.

This is similar to how Rosa Parks was chosen as the figurehead for the legal battles surrounding bus boycotts, even though she was not the first Black woman to refuse to give up her seat (and she wasn't even the one whose case made it to the Supreme Court). She was believed to be the most sympathetic and favorable candidate for challenging the law. (Ultimately, Claudette Colvin's case was the one that was actually upheld by the Supreme Court.)

> I believe that their reticence to litigate Heller was for their own self-preservation. They can make a better case for donation when they're able to sow FUD about taking away our guns. Having a definitive answer to the question from Heller (and later McDonald, to get it incorporated under the 14th Amendment) impairs how much fear they can inspire in gun owners.

There are a lot of criticisms I could enumerate about the NRA's inconsistency with how it pursues Second Amendment battles, but if you're concerned with the broad right to self-defense, I don't think they apply. I definitely would not say that they oppose clear constitutional protections for gun ownership (such as the Heller outcome) simply to line their own pockets, which is what you are implying.

And that's a problem. It betrays either a gross misunderstanding on their part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights, which is unlikely, or other less transparent motivations, which aren't. There are other civil liberties organizations that don't argue for a state monopoly on the right to self defense. Consider helping them out instead.

It's ridiculous to talk about how misguided, dangerous, or outright evil the government is, only to turn around and argue that they should own all the guns.

They're also upfront about this position, so you can't claim that they're misleading you when they take your money.

When you donate money to ACLU, you do so in the knowledge that not go towards defending 2A rights[1]. But this is also the case for EFF, for example. Does that preclude you from donating to EFF, or any other organization? If not, then why do you demand that ACLU does something out of their declared scope.

[1] ACLU does actually defend 2A rights in contexts where they intersect with other rights. For example, they have collaborated with SAF to defend the rights of non-citizens to keep and bear arms - some states explicitly ban non-citizens from their shall-issue carry licensing provisions, or even firearm possession in general.

I hear what you're saying, but it's clearly at odds with the position described at https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/heller-decision-and-seco... .

They explicitly interpret 2A as a "collective right," whatever that is. They also state their disagreement with Heller and presumably any number of lower court decisions in line with it.

Organizations like the EFF never claimed to be broad-based "civil liberties unions," so that's why I feel it's appropriate to hold them to different standards.

However, they never argue in court against 2A. Nor do they prohibit their member state organizations from taking a different position - and many do.

Yes, ACLU is a broad "civil liberties" organization. But there's no definitive list of civil liberties, and different people have different opinions on this. The fact that SCOTUS ruled on it doesn't change matters - SCOTUS rules on whether something is a constitutional right or not, not on whether something is a civil right or not. The latter is inherently a subjective assessment.

The ACLU has nothing to gain by promoting any particular 2A view, because that's the only right that's not universally a political sinkhole.

The inconvenient truth is that all civil rights (that aren't gun rights) have opposition nearly everywhere in America. The only difference is incidentals- if you're in coastal California or urban New England, your subculture wants "hate speech" banned; whereas Arkansas has a more traditional version of obscenity (depictions of sex and promotion of other vices) it wants to eliminate.

So civil rights (in the traditional sense) has no defenders in legislature or society at large. Gun rights, on the other hand, still do in many areas of the country (coastal California and urban New England are the two big exceptions, of course), and as such I can't fault the ACLU's 'default' stance on a right that's not universally contested.

Been to Manchester, NH lately?

Anyways, in the Northeast, the states with less liberal gun laws (NY/MD/CT/Mass./NJ) also happen to contain most of that area's population, especially in the larger cities like NYC/Boston/Baltimore. NH is good, but it's a very small piece of that region.

Similarly, the fact that there are larger and more specialized organizations doesn't prevent the ACLU from making statements in favor of advances in the rights guaranteed by the second amendment.

And has others have stated, I'd much rather have the ACLU focus on things like 1A, 4A, etc. Leave 2A to the NRA and other 2A-specific advocacy groups.

I don't think the National Association of Realtors has a dog in this race.

[1] http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/lobbying-groups-gop...

One sticking point right now is drugs. Per federal law, any "user of an unlawful substance" is prohibited from firearm ownership, period. This includes anyone in states that legalized marijuana, including medical users. And the feds have been trying to maintain state records for medical marijuana card holders.

NRA, SAF and the rest of the bunch are unwilling to not just do anything about it, but to even speak out at all. I'm a SAF member, and I actually wrote to them about this several times, with no response. Ironically, the only gun rights org that has been consistently speaking out on this is the otherwise extremely right wing GOA.

And recently, both NRA and SAF organizations have enthusiastically endorsed Jeff Sessions, which is a huge middle finger to anyone concerned about this law...

That said, ACLU generally does get involved in cases which are centered on 2A, but involve other rights. So my hope is that they'd get involved in this as well, if a suitable case came up.

http://www.ccrkba.org/call-your-senators-to-confirm-sessions...

“Senate confirmation of Jeff Sessions as our next Attorney General will bring about much-needed change at the Department of Justice. Instead of promoting or defending schemes that impact law-abiding Americans, his track record shows that he will go after genuine criminals.”

“The nation is in serious need of an attorney general who knows the difference between civil rights and criminal wrongs”

For those who are aware of the track record of Sessions as attorney, the highlighted bit especially is appalling.

I don't think my city's tax on gun and ammo sales is an effective or constitutional measure and I want to support organizations that will fight that type of measure.

I did not support Obama's "common sense" ban on gun sales to people on the no-fly list because I don't believe the no-fly list itself is constitutional.

I do want to take steps to reduce gun violence in America but my current choices on the political front are either ineffective and/or unconstitutional laws from the left or a complete unwillingness to even try from the right.

I do not support Jeff Sessions for Attorney General because I think the entire bill of rights is valuable and applies to everyone and I don't think he will uphold it effectively.

That said, it is still a very uneasy compromise, because the person who uttered all the things I consider despicable on behalf of CCRKBA is also the person who is the founder and the most prominent spokesperson of SAF, and my conscience only permits so much ability to distinguish their opinions depending on which "hat" they wear.

My takeaway from all this is that there's no bipartisan gun rights organization in US, and there probably cannot be in the current political climate. Thus, pro-gun liberals have to establish their own, that would be the left-wing counterpart to NRA and SAF.

The good thing is that with all the tumult that the Democratic party is going through right now, with a massive grassroots platform rewrite going on, this is the time to speak up about this sort of thing. Pay attention to new left-wing groups that spring up promising to upend the status quo on the left. Check their platform and issues. If they do speak about gun control (most do), and you see something there that you believe is wrong, get in touch with them, and let them know that 1) you're on their side in general, but 2) you do not agree with them on this, and here's why.

To give a specific example, here's Justice Democrats (essentially an attempt to formally organize a "Sanders wing" of the party):

https://justicedemocrats.com/platform/

If you scroll down, you'll see "Enact common-sense gun regulation" bullet point, and a bunch of stuff underneath. If you find anything disagreeable, email them, with a polite and well-reasoned refutation. I did that, and they actually replied and told me that they're still in the process of hashing the platform out, and are listening to all feedback.

In the meantime, a good way to get left-wing politicians to notice us is via the Liberal Gun Club. It's not a political organization, and it isn't involved in legal fights, so it's not an NRA/SAF replacement. But it is a focal point to assemble forces; and if it has enough members, it can be used as a foundation to build future organizations, and to draw attention in intraparty politics.

If you think they do good work in that arena, great!

If you think they do good work in that arena and others do good work elsewhere, hey, you know what? That's still great!

(And if you think they do poor work, or work on the wrong goals or whatever, well, of course that's your prerogative.)

If you're particularly worried about the 2nd amendment there are organizations (extremely powerful and effective organizations at that) to sue on your behalf.

It makes perfect sense that the "soup kitchen support union" would then concentrate all their efforts on the other 7 soup kitchens which don't get nearly as much support.

The distinction is frequently omitted, and used to paint the national group with the sins of local ones, and vice-versa.

And that's not the view of the national ACLU, at all. Perhaps they don't place the emphasis on it you'd like to see, but that's quite different than considering the 2nd "outside the scope".

It's well established that the ACLU refuses to defend the individual civil right to armed self defense.

Not to mention that orgs like the NRA have many times more funding than the ACLU and dedicate every action to that one issue.

Or the fact that you're dealing with a organization that has been one of the biggest and best defenders of oppressed groups in recent history and you're cranky that they're not gonna help you own a handgun like most of congress is.

You asked for a cite, I linked you one. That's it.

Please take this in the manner it was intended: Avoiding an unnecessary argument.

If an organization that was instrumental in protecting your right to a fair and speedy trial, was against opposed to the idea of free speech, I would still condemn that org for holding that specific position, while still recognizing that they have done good in other areas.