TexasCHLforum.com

oohrah wrote:The ACLU exists solely to protect the Bill of Rights (yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment)

That may once have been true, setting aside the Second Amendment (I'm skeptical they ever supported that). But like so many institutions in our society, the ACLU has been corrupted by the Left. Now it's just a vassal of the leftist agenda.

Alas. We need what they claim to be.

The ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment is published here: https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment

The heart of it is here:

The ACLU wrote:ACLU Position

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. 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.

Yea... They're protecting the Bill of Rights...............................................NOT!!!

Pawpaw wrote:The ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment is published here: https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment

The heart of it is here:

The ACLU wrote:ACLU Position

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. 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.

Yea... They're protecting the Bill of Rights...............................................NOT!!!

They were all on board to protest and fight for the denial of civil liberties, in reference to the "no fly list" right up until the time, that legislation was being pushed to deny people the right to purchase firearms, if they were on the list. Then it wasn't such a violation of rights.

But to be fair, if I ever see an ACLU member being attacked, I won't use my gun to protect them. I will just wait for a well regulated militia to come along and handle it.

J.R.@A&M wrote:Will they issue one for California related to my inability to bear arms there?

Or New York, or New Jersey, or DC.....

oohrah wrote:I can't believe what I'm reading! The ACLU exists solely to protect the Bill of Rights (yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment), you know, those amendments that protect the individual from the majority. This is the same group that is defending your right to keep and bear arms.

The "sanctuary city" bill went too far IMO ,because it gives the police near "papers please" powers. This bill will legitimize the profiling of honest citizens.

I support the basic intent of the bill that if you are illegal, you are a criminal, and should be handed over to the Feds, but the state is trying to tell local jurisdictions how to do their jobs.

In 37 years of being a legislative advocate for gun owners, I know of only one time when the ACLU supported a Second Amendment issue. That was in 2007 when we passed the Motorist Protection Act (HB1815). The ACLU employee who wrote the supportive article/report was later fired. The national organization diligently avoids taking a pro-Second Amendment position, at least to my recollection. I'd be interested in any information you have to the contrary. The ACLU claims to support all civil and constitutional rights, but that's not true. They pick and choose the rights they want to support and are conspicuously MIA when they disagree with a constitutional right.

The ACLU article/warning is full of false information and outright lies about constitutional rights. People who enter the U.S. in violation of our laws are not "immigrants," they are criminals. The job of law enforcement is to apprehend criminals and any elected official or law enforcement head that refuses to do so is unfit to hold their position. Equating illegal aliens to "immigrants" is an insult and disservice to millions of people who entered the U.S. lawfully, often after waiting for years to do so.

Chas.

Chas.

So what's their true agenda?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

oohrah wrote:I can't believe what I'm reading! The ACLU exists solely to protect the Bill of Rights (yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment), you know, those amendments that protect the individual from the majority. This is the same group that is defending your right to keep and bear arms.

The "sanctuary city" bill went too far IMO ,because it gives the police near "papers please" powers. This bill will legitimize the profiling of honest citizens.

I support the basic intent of the bill that if you are illegal, you are a criminal, and should be handed over to the Feds, but the state is trying to tell local jurisdictions how to do their jobs.

In 37 years of being a legislative advocate for gun owners, I know of only one time when the ACLU supported a Second Amendment issue. That was in 2007 when we passed the Motorist Protection Act (HB1815). The ACLU employee who wrote the supportive article/report was later fired. The national organization diligently avoids taking a pro-Second Amendment position, at least to my recollection. I'd be interested in any information you have to the contrary. The ACLU claims to support all civil and constitutional rights, but that's not true. They pick and choose the rights they want to support and are conspicuously MIA when they disagree with a constitutional right.

The ACLU article/warning is full of false information and outright lies about constitutional rights. People who enter the U.S. in violation of our laws are not "immigrants," they are criminals. The job of law enforcement is to apprehend criminals and any elected official or law enforcement head that refuses to do so is unfit to hold their position. Equating illegal aliens to "immigrants" is an insult and disservice to millions of people who entered the U.S. lawfully, often after waiting for years to do so.

Chas.

I think the Liberal left has managed, again, to infiltrate the English language with misnomers. Persons who are "immigrants" by definition, have gone through at least a semblance of the immigration process. Border jumpers, and those who have circumvented, the immigration process, are not immigrants, they are criminals. I think the term, Person(s) Here illegally, should be the new nomenclature, abbreviated to PHI. That takes away the Liberal position that a person can't be "illegal", but then removes the legitimate sounding term "immigrant." Additionally, it does not discriminate against anyone based on ethnicity, or country of origin. JMHO

I've always used the term "National Trespassers". They are trespassing on our nation.

Abraham wrote:Chas.

So what's their true agenda?

Advancement of the progressive, socialist agenda to destroy the United States.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:In 37 years of being a legislative advocate for gun owners, I know of only one time when the ACLU supported a Second Amendment issue. That was in 2007 when we passed the Motorist Protection Act (HB1815). The ACLU employee who wrote the supportive article/report was later fired. The national organization diligently avoids taking a pro-Second Amendment position, at least to my recollection. I'd be interested in any information you have to the contrary. The ACLU claims to support all civil and constitutional rights, but that's not true. They pick and choose the rights they want to support and are conspicuously MIA when they disagree with a constitutional right.

The ACLU article/warning is full of false information and outright lies about constitutional rights. People who enter the U.S. in violation of our laws are not "immigrants," they are criminals. The job of law enforcement is to apprehend criminals and any elected official or law enforcement head that refuses to do so is unfit to hold their position. Equating illegal aliens to "immigrants" is an insult and disservice to millions of people who entered the U.S. lawfully, often after waiting for years to do so.

Chas.

and amen!

Flightmare wrote:I've always used the term "National Trespassers". They are trespassing on our nation.

Not too long ago, they were officially known as "illegal aliens". I still think that title is true and correct.

There's a big difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien. They may come from the same country, but one did it legally and the other is a criminal.

Ignore this. I just deleted a duplicate post.

Flightmare wrote:I've always used the term "National Trespassers". They are trespassing on our nation.

"Foreign invaders" applies as well.

More propaganda from the Atheistic Communist Lovers Union.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

I think it's great because we're better off without more of the type of people who would avoid Texas because of a ‘Travel Advisory’ from the ACLU.