ACLU Supports Gun Owner

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

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

Yes, that is their long-standing traditional position, which is why this instant case is so startling.
I don't think the ACLU has actually changed their view of the 2nd Amendment, rather I think
that the lawyer who took this case is a "rogue" from the official ACLU position. I'll bet that the
ACLU is giving him heck for defending an individual's right to keep and bear arms, using their
name.

The ACLU hasn't bothered to change their position statement on the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/second-amendment

They're just like new Justice Sotomayor, who proclaimed during her congressional confirmation questioning that she accepted the Heller decision (Washington, D.C.) as established fact, and would respect that. But then she turned around and wrote against it in the McDonald case (Chicago), saying that the Heller decision was wrong. Funny how that goes. And no doubt, Kagan will also say all the "right" things to avoid controversy, and then do things completely different once her butt is in a Supreme Court chair.

[Amazon 7]

I like Michael Douglas take on the ACLU.

President Andrew Shepard

[quade 3]

Quote

I like Michael Douglas take on the ACLU.

I believe you mean Aaron Sorkin.

(sigh)

Nobody ever remembers who writes the very cool words the actors get to say.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I like Michael Douglas take on the ACLU.

I believe you mean Aaron Sorkin.

(sigh)

Nobody ever remembers who writes the very cool words the actors get to say.

Adn confuzzle them even more.... come on Paul....

[rhaig 0]

Quote

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.

that happens all the time here. Accounts inactive for more than (I think) 5 years can be closed (at least this happened to me in KS). I believe the money goes to the state.

I had an account with a whopping $14 in it in a KS bank, it had been idle for something like 8 years. A friend called me because they saw my name in the newspaper (they used to publish a list of people with accounts that were about to be closed and the amounts about to be taken). I chose not to make the several hour drive from Austin to the closest branch of that bank.

--
Rob

[DaVinci 0]

"Making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."

Sounds like a lot of posts around here.

But, the ACLU has not changed its position on the 2nd yet. Till they support ALL of the rights, then they will not get my support.

Seems kinda silly to support an organization that does not support your views... the same reason I am not a member of the NRA.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

that happens all the time here. Accounts inactive for more than (I think) 5 years can be closed (at least this happened to me in KS). I believe the money goes to the state.

Yes and no. Unclaimed funds, etc. are often turned over to the state, but usually the state does NOT simply take them; rather, most states maintain an escrow fund and keep the funds on deposit there in the name of the last record title-holder, pretty much indefinitely.

There are legitimate websites that you can go to to search for, and put in claims for, unclaimed assets being held in escrow by a state. Surprisingly, it's not bullshit; I have relatives who have successfully re-claimed funds from, for example, surrendered bank accounts of their long-deceased parents.

Here, check this out:

http://www.unclaimed.org/

http://www.missingmoney.com/

http://www.google.com/#num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=%22unclaimed+property%22&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=57d9c86769d1bf04

You can also do a state by state search of individual state's government websites.

Quote

I had an account with a whopping $14 in it in a KS bank, it had been idle for something like 8 years. A friend called me because they saw my name in the newspaper (they used to publish a list of people with accounts that were about to be closed and the amounts about to be taken). I chose not to make the several hour drive from Austin to the closest branch of that bank.

Here's the website of the Kansas State Treasurer's Unclaimed Property Division. Perhaps your money is there. If it is, you can probably get it pretty easily, right from your chair, by following their claims process.

http://www.kansascash.com/prodweb/up/index.php

[JohnRich 4]

Update:

ACLU lawsuit gets widower his guns back

With the slide of a drawer beneath a bullet-proof glass window at a police evidence warehouse, Robert Weinstein's Second Amendment right to possess firearms was vindicated on Wednesday.

"Thanks for keeping 'em safe for me," the 85-year-old Pompano Beach retiree told Yoli Brennan, evidence supervisor for the Broward Sheriff's Office.

She smiled at Weinstein as he placed his silver Colt semi-automatic .25-caliber pistol and heavy Wesson .357-caliber revolver in a brown paper bag.

Earlier Wednesday morning at the Broward County courthouse, Circuit Judge Dale Ross ruled in favor of Weinstein's petition by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida...

Source: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/07/aclu_lawsuit_gets_widower_his.html

Thank you, ACLU.

Now, about that anti-2nd Amendment statement on your national web site...

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Reading the original article John linked to, it seems that Mr. Weinstein was distraught at the death of his wife, and mentioned to a sheriff's deputy that he was thinking of suicide using a gun ("blowing his head off" were the actual words). It seems to me this puts the LEO in a difficult situation. If he left the guns in Mr. Weinstein's possession, and Mr. Weinstein then used them to commit suicide, the sheriff's office could be held liable. An option might have been to have Mr. Weinstein involuntarily committed for psychiatric observation, but that would have had more drastic long-term legal consequences for Mr. Weinstein. Removing the guns (as Mr. Weinstein did not threaten to hang, poison, or stab himself) seems to me to have been a reasonable response to the circumstances. As the sheriff's office stated, though, once the guns were confiscated, a court order is needed for their return. Presumably the court order is to ensure that the initial reason for the removal is no longer an issue. It is a hassle no doubt, and the ACLU was correct in helping him with the process, which Mr. Weinstein may well have not understood. I think the news media is overstating the situation, though, to imply some big constitutional infringement in this case.

I don't think it's worth making a separate poll for this, but I am curious what people think the sheriff's office should do in a case where they are confronted with a person who is distraught for an understandable reason, such as the death of a spouse or child, and in the heat of the moment makes an unfortunate comment that they might shoot themselves. Should the deputy have:
1) done nothing. If the old guy kills himself, that's his choice.
2) taken the guns out of the environment and give the guy time to calm down. Hopefully he won't do anything else rash in the meantime.
3) called in the straight-jacket patrol to haul the guy to an institution for evaluation. Of course, then the guy will have on his record that he has been involuntarily committed, so he won't be allowed to own guns any more (this is my understanding, but I'm no expert on gun laws and if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be corrected).
4) something else (fill in the blank).

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
Thank you, ACLU.
....

Yep. And now that oldie is going to buy himself a more modern weapon, why not an AK-47 or similar? That will spare him to move his shivery fingers more than once.

Jeez, what a daft comment: *Thank you, ACLU*

Will you blame or thank ACLU in case the old doter kills himself of someone in his neighbourhood???

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I don't think it's worth making a separate poll for this, but I am curious what people think the sheriff's office should do in a case where they are confronted with a person who is distraught for an understandable reason, such as the death of a spouse or child, and in the heat of the moment makes an unfortunate comment that they might shoot themselves.

There's going to be a lot of armchair quarterbacking either way.

Quote

Should the deputy have:
1) done nothing. If the old guy kills himself, that's his choice.

2) taken the guns out of the environment and give the guy time to calm down. Hopefully he won't do anything else rash in the meantime.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

....
Thank you, ACLU.
....

Yep. And now that oldie is going to buy himself a more modern weapon, why not an AK-47 or similar? That will spare him to move his shivery fingers more than once.

Jeez, what a daft comment: *Thank you, ACLU*

Will you blame or thank ACLU in case the old doter kills himself of someone in his neighbourhood???

That's a pretty bigoted statement.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,426]

>If they're going to get blamed if he commits suicide with a gun, aren't
>they going to get blamed if he committs suicide by some other mean?

This doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're an S+TA, and someone is suicidal, and they tell you this, and you tell them "well, I'm not letting you jump today; you're not in a good state of mind to skydive" - would you be responsible if they go home and kill themselves?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>If they're going to get blamed if he commits suicide with a gun, aren't
>they going to get blamed if he committs suicide by some other mean?

This doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're an S+TA, and someone is suicidal, and they tell you this, and you tell them "well, I'm not letting you jump today; you're not in a good state of mind to skydive" - would you be responsible if they go home and kill themselves?

I'm unaware of any responsibility that an S&TA has outside of skydiving operations - can you show me where that's stated?

Makes perfect sense - if you're looking at the PERSON and not the TOOL they use. When you do that, "Why didn't you take his sleeping pills?" becomes equally as valid as "Why didn't you take his guns?" if you're looking to assign blame.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
That's a pretty bigoted statement.

*Bigot* is the wrong word in my context. Sometimes, bigotry comes with age. I still have some years left, before probably I have to deal with that .

As I am pretty grounded, I feel that thanking *ACLU* for giving back weapons to such an old man is hypocrisy.

*Bigot* is the right word for fanatical proponents of 2nd amendment, no matter what it might cost.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 2,426]

>I'm unaware of any responsibility that an S&TA has outside of
>skydiving operations

And I'm unaware of any responsibility a police officer has to manage a patient's prescriptions.

>Makes perfect sense - if you're looking at the PERSON and not the
>TOOL they use. When you do that, "Why didn't you take his sleeping pills?"
>becomes equally as valid as "Why didn't you take his guns?"

?? I suppose if you think he could "blow his head off" with sleeping pills that might make sense. Can you show me someone who's done that?

But to answer your question another way, if he called in to 911 and said "I'm about to kill myself by taking sleeping pills" then it would make sense to confiscate them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

*Bigot* is the right word for fanatical proponents of 2nd amendment, no matter what it might cost.

you misspelled "civil libertarian." Easy mistake to make when you live in a place without freedom of speech.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

*Bigot* is the right word for fanatical proponents of 2nd amendment, no matter what it might cost.

you misspelled "civil libertarian." Easy mistake to make when you live in a place without freedom of speech.

I didn't *misspell* anything - come to Germany, dear. You will find paradise

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Reading the original article John linked to, it seems that Mr. Weinstein was distraught at the death of his wife, and mentioned to a sheriff's deputy that he was thinking of suicide using a gun ("blowing his head off" were the actual words). It seems to me this puts the LEO in a difficult situation. If he left the guns in Mr. Weinstein's possession, and Mr. Weinstein then used them to commit suicide, the sheriff's office could be held liable.

Fear of liability doesn't warrant seizure of property. I'm not convinced they're liable in the first place. This brings back the recent thread of the bedridden nut with a gun that the cops tazed to prevent possibility of her killing herself. Maybe we can simplify matters and say that this is not a obligation by the cops.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I'm unaware of any responsibility that an S&TA has outside of
>skydiving operations

And I'm unaware of any responsibility a police officer has to manage a patient's prescriptions.

Another false argument - the doctor and pharmacist does that.

Quote

>Makes perfect sense - if you're looking at the PERSON and not the
>TOOL they use. When you do that, "Why didn't you take his sleeping pills?"
>becomes equally as valid as "Why didn't you take his guns?"

?? I suppose if you think he could "blow his head off" with sleeping pills that might make sense. Can you show me someone who's done that?

Sure can't - can you show me someone whose breathing reflex was depressed until death occured due to an overdose of guns?

Quote

But to answer your question another way, if he called in to 911 and said "I'm about to kill myself by taking sleeping pills" then it would make sense to confiscate them.

Since you're focusing on the mechanism of harm rather than the person, I'm sure it does - because NOBODY has ever chosen an alternate way to kill themself if their primary choice wasn't available.

I'm also sure that's why families NEVER sue the DZ, rig/canopy maker, pilot, aircraft manufacturer etc etc etc when their son/daughter dies in a skydiving accident, right?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I didn't *misspell* anything - come to Germany, dear. You will find paradise

I've been there...good beer and sidewalk food, questionable civil rights.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

to such an old man

Thanks for proving it yet again, in case anyone was undecided.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

....
Thank you, ACLU.
....

Yep. And now that oldie is going to buy himself a more modern weapon, why not an AK-47 or similar? That will spare him to move his shivery fingers more than once.

Jeez, what a daft comment: *Thank you, ACLU*

Will you blame or thank ACLU in case the old doter kills himself of someone in his neighbourhood???

Nope
He will be blamed as it should be
But that has not a damned thing to do with this thread

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,426]

>Another false argument - the doctor and pharmacist does that.

Uh, right. That's my point. Doctors and pharmacists, not cops, manage people's medication. A cop (or S+TA) is not liable for people's misuse of that medication.

>Sure can't - can you show me someone whose breathing reflex was
>depressed until death occured due to an overdose of guns?

Nope. And that has nothing to do with what happened here.

>Since you're focusing on the mechanism of harm rather than the person,
>I'm sure it does - because NOBODY has ever chosen an alternate way to kill
>themself if their primary choice wasn't available.

Of course they have. But a cop can't make someone non-suicidal; all they can do is respond to a threat that someone makes to kill themselves (which is, BTW, a crime.). If they threaten to do so with a gun, it makes sense for them to remove the gun. If they threaten to do so with sleeping pills, it makes sense for them to remove the sleeping pills. In both cases it may also make sense to get a psychiatrist involved either immediately or as soon as possible.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

I didn't *misspell* anything - come to Germany, dear. You will find paradise

I've been there...good beer and sidewalk food, questionable civil rights.

I know. 65 years ago, life was a bit harder here.

BTW: Our sidewalk food never was that good.

dudeist skydiver # 3105