ACLU Supports Gun Owner

[JohnRich 4]

News:

ACLU steps up to help gun owner get weapons back

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

For 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 longtime 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.

Is this new alliance a sign of the apocalypse?

Not really, says Fort Lauderdale attorney Barry Butin, a cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Florida's Broward Chapter who is representing the gun owner, Pompano Beach retiree Robert Weinstein. Two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have affirmed the right to maintain guns in the home. "Under the Second Amendment, he has a right to have his guns in his house. He's not a convicted felon," Butin said. "It is unusual for the ACLU. But the ACLU supports all constitutional rights. We don't pick and choose."

Brandon Hensler, the ACLU of Florida's communications director in Miami, said: "This is the first time I know of in the ACLU's 90-year history that we have advocated on behalf of a citizen to have their weapons returned from law enforcement..."

Source: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_43a4236f-d37c-5404-bf04-e3a3ae7d1114.html

Pigs fly!

[airdvr 200]

Shocked and appalled...really

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

".... This is the first time I know of in the ACLU's 90-year history that we have advocated on behalf of a citizen to have their weapons returned from law enforcement..."
....

You sure Mr. Weinstein is not a founding member of ACLU?




BTW: He's in the age where most other oldies would give back thier drivers licence voluntarily. Hopefully, he's not killing his grand children coincidentally, so give him back his weapons...

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

He's in the age where most other oldies would give back thier drivers licence voluntarily. Hopefully, he's not killing his grand children coincidentally...

Do you think that old people can't be trusted with firearms, and should have them confiscated?

[billvon 2,465]

>Do you think that old people can't be trusted with firearms, and
>should have them confiscated?

Old people with dementia should. As should anyone else with dementia - but it's a lot more common with geriatrics.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>Do you think that old people can't be trusted with firearms, and
>should have them confiscated?

Old people with dementia should. As should anyone else with dementia - but it's a lot more common with geriatrics.

Additionally, I'd be concerned about a person who, for example, suffered from severe hand tremors and balance/orientation dysfunction secondary to advanced Parkinson's disease.

[billvon 2,465]

>Additionally, I'd be concerned about a person who, for example,
>suffered from severe hand tremors and balance/orientation dysfunction
>secondary to advanced Parkinson's disease.

I can see those things being issues, but provided they are still rational, sane and can orient themselves to the physical world, they can decide on their own whether or not using a gun is an unreasonable risk.

[scruffy 0]

The ACLU has always been somewhat of a pariah to conservatives because of its stance on not supporting individuals against state and local governments when these governments made laws that went against individuals "second amendment" rights.

However, I, while a conservative and huge 2A supporter, can see why they wouldn't do so. As I understand the incorporation process (I'm not an attorney, so those with actual backgrounds feel free to adjust my shot group here) since the 2A wasn't incorporated until last month, following the constitution there was absolutely nothing stopping a state or local government (if the state constitution didn't prohibit it) completely banning all gun ownership in their jurisdiction. Since it was not an individual right from those governments it wouldn't be part of the ACLU's jurisprudence to support individuals in cases that were trying to limit infringements on those 2a cases, because the 2a didn't apply.

I'm just really glad to see the ACLU is taking the Mcdonald ruling seriously and is actually doing it's job reflecting how the ruling has changed what the limits of state and local governments are now. I've always had hope for the ACLU being able to be look past the interest of it's lawyers and supporting the constitution as it is written, the Skokie case being the example I always use.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>Additionally, I'd be concerned about a person who, for example,
>suffered from severe hand tremors and balance/orientation dysfunction
>secondary to advanced Parkinson's disease.

I can see those things being issues, but provided they are still rational, sane and can orient themselves to the physical world, they can decide on their own whether or not using a gun is an unreasonable risk.

If that's the case, then that's a different standard than, for example, whether an elderly or infirm person should keep their driver's license due to physical issues even though they're full rational and sane. I'm conjuring up a picture of a rational elderly person having difficulty with aiming and trigger control due to severe, uncontrollable hand tremors. Should we apply more or less the same standard with guns as with driving, or a different one?

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

He's in the age where most other oldies would give back thier drivers licence voluntarily. Hopefully, he's not killing his grand children coincidentally...

Do you think that old people can't be trusted with firearms, and should have them confiscated?

Yep. No doubt. You cannot deny that reactions, actions, attention span, physical fitness etc. will decrease as one grows older. It's not a question of *trust*, more one of given facts.

For me that also refers to drivers, pilots and - skydivers.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Do you think that old people can't be trusted with firearms, and
>should have them confiscated?

Old people with dementia should.

Then the issue you address is not really about age, but rather about dementia.

Unless you also propose that young people with dementia are okay to own guns.

Would you also confiscate voter registration cards from people with dementia?
Driver's licenses?
Credit cards?
Power tools?
Kitchen knives?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Do you think that old people can't be trusted with firearms, and should have them confiscated?

Yep. No doubt. You cannot deny that reactions, actions, attention span, physical fitness etc. will decrease as one grows older. It's not a question of *trust*, more one of given facts.

At what age would you send the police to confiscate old people's guns?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

At what age would you send the police to confiscate old people's guns?

well, most cops have to maintain some level of fitness and training - so likely any cop prior to retirement age is fine with me......as long as they get to taze someone, I'm good

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

At what age would you send the police to confiscate old people's guns?

well, most cops have to maintain some level of fitness and training - so likely any cop prior to retirement age is fine with me......as long as they get to taze someone, I'm good

whooops, my bad, I read that wrong.

pretty much any newer gun. The older ones are collectibles and might be in ownership for sentimental reasons rather than for shaky handed shooting.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

At what age would you send the police to confiscate old people's guns?

well, most cops have to maintain some level of fitness and training - so likely any cop prior to retirement age is fine with me......as long as they get to taze someone, I'm good

whooops, my bad, I read that wrong.

pretty much any newer gun. The older ones are collectibles and might be in ownership for sentimental reasons rather than for shaky handed shooting.

whoops again

the old guy has rights to own property, unless he's demonstrated, through HIS OWN actions, that ownership of the property is a DIRECT THREAT to others, the government should keep their filthy hands off of any of his property - regardless of age, physical health, or type of property.

If his judgment is impaired, and a car or gun or hammer or WHATEVER inanimate piece of property, is a threat to public safety, then that fact needs to be PROVED, and the property should stay with his FAMILY, not be defaulted to the public bins. If he doesn't have family or a guardian, the gov't would have the responsibility to dispose of the property in HIS BEST INTERESTS. That means arrange for sale or gifting per the owner's wishes if possible and the proceeds to go to the owner. The property should NOT transfer to the gov't in any case.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

At what age would you send the police to confiscate old people's guns?

well, most cops have to maintain some level of fitness and training...

And that's because they have duties which require it. If you're suggesting that all gun owners should be required to maintain the same standards as police officers, then that's just plain wrong.

A little old lady doesn't need that level of fitness and training to defend herself from an intruder in her own home. She can even do it from a wheelchair.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the old guy has rights to own property, unless he's demonstrated, through HIS OWN actions, that ownership of the property is a DIRECT THREAT to others, the government should keep their filthy hands off of any of his property - regardless of age, physical health, or type of property.

If his judgment is impaired, and a car or gun or hammer or WHATEVER inanimate piece of property, is a threat to public safety, then that fact needs to be PROVED, and the property should stay with his FAMILY, not be defaulted to the public bins. If he doesn't have family or a guardian, the gov't would have the responsibility to dispose of the property in HIS BEST INTERESTS. That means arrange for sale or gifting per the owner's wishes if possible and the proceeds to go to the owner. The property should NOT transfer to the gov't in any case.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Thank you.
I was wondering how long it would take someone to talk about the actual issue in this case.

Over in England they're about to confiscate funds from dormant bank accounts to fund government services. Instead of that, they should be looking for the account holders, or their heirs, and give the money back to them. This concept that the government gets everything by default, is wrong.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

At what age would you send the police to confiscate old people's guns?

well, most cops have to maintain some level of fitness and training...

........ If you're suggesting that all gun owners should be required to maintain the same standards as police officers............

I guess you weren't getting the gag at that point. have a nice summer......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This concept that the government gets everything by default, is wrong.

that depends on the government in question

since the US government is founded on individualism and private property rights (including the ownership one's own labor) - then yes, that concept (of government default ownership) is wrong. If one keeps that forefront in any political discussion, then right vs wrong is usually VERY clear.



other governments and their agreement with their citizens - well that mileage may vary.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,465]

>Unless you also propose that young people with dementia are okay to
>own guns.

Nope. It is the degree of impairment, not age, that determines fitness to operate dangerous devices (cars or guns.)

>Would you also confiscate voter registration cards from people with
>dementia?

No.

>Driver's licenses?

If they can no longer operate a car safely, yes.

>Credit cards?

No.

>Power tools?

No.

>Kitchen knives?

No.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Unless you also propose that young people with dementia are okay to
>own guns.

Nope. It is the degree of impairment, not age, that determines fitness to operate dangerous devices (cars or guns.)

>Would you also confiscate voter registration cards from people with
>dementia?
>
>Credit cards?
>Power tools?
>Kitchen knives?
No.

I think that's narrow sighted - if it can be proved they are also a danger with knives, power tools, lighters/matches, or even a credit card......why have an inconsistent standard?

however, by establishing cars and guns have a similar standard in your mind - you have at least admitted that guns are property and not some mysterious tube of danger

so there's hope you can close the rest of the logic eventually

Me? If I had legal proof that an old codger has a vicious habit of taking his hammers and pounding on the paper boy - I'd think an appropriate initial response would be to take the hammer away and give it to the kids for safe keeping. But then, that's crazy - 'hammers' don't win votes or increase taxes I guess.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,465]

>if it can be proved they are also a danger with knives, power tools,
>lighters/matches, or even a credit card......why have an inconsistent
>standard?

Because it's harder to accidentally kill the neighbor's kid with a credit card.

> If I had legal proof that an old codger has a vicious habit of taking his
>hammers and pounding on the paper boy - I'd think an appropriate initial
>response would be to take the hammer away and give it to the kids for safe
>keeping.

Oh, definitely. But the question wasn't about what the family would do - the question is what should the government confiscate. They have a role in confiscating driver's licenses, guns, pilot's licenses etc in the case of dementia because those pose serious threats to others in the hands of someone who can no longer use them safely.

[headoverheels 292]

Quote

Would you also confiscate voter registration cards from people with dementia?

No, they probably will not remember to vote anyway. Either that, or they will try to vote every 10 minutes, without knowing that they already did.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

BTW: He's in the age where most other oldies would give back thier drivers licence voluntarily.

You think people should have rights taken away due only to age?

Quote

Hopefully, he's not killing his grand children coincidentally, so give him back his weapons...

Age has nothing to do with ill intent.

[DaVinci 0]

If the ACLU continues to defend the 2nd... I may join.

But until they change this position.... I'll wait:

http://www.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment

Quote

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.