Shocker, ACLU attorney hypocrisy

Carolinatlc

Member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
2,628
Location
Mint Hill, NC
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Interesting comment in the Charlotte Observer today talking about the school walkout planned for this week. I think someone needs to talk to this attorney with the ACLU. Why do I have to give up my constitutional rights when I walk in the school doors?
FEBFAED5-5ABA-4C77-8E74-8F5D714FD4D5.jpeg
 
Interesting comment in the Charlotte Observer today talking about the school walkout planned for this week. I think someone needs to talk to this attorney with the ACLU. Why do I have to give up my constitutional rights when I walk in the school doors?
View attachment 45940
I'm confused. It says they don't have to give up their rights...which is what you're also saying?
 
I'm confused. It says they don't have to give up their rights...which is what you're also saying?

He’s making the 2A/disarmed argument while the ACLU is staunchly backing 1A. They’re both contitutional rights so why is one supported and not the other
 
He’s making the 2A/disarmed argument while the ACLU is staunchly backing 1A. They’re both contitutional rights so why is one supported and not the other
Got it. I'll go back to sleep now. :D
 
If they were property named they would be defending our 2A rights . They only defend the rights that get them in the national spotlight.
 
ACLU has sided with the NRA more than once.
I thought I had remembered that as well. Actually, I'm somewhat surprised that the ACLU hasn't been more vocal about gun laws having a racial component. There's obviously an economic one. Without guns, who's going to protect economiclly disadvantaged blacks, gays, Hispanic, etc.? The police? The police they don't trust? Dwell on that a moment. Why isn't the ACLU speaking out on that one? Why does the ACLU not see this as a problem?
 
Last edited:
He’s making the 2A/disarmed argument while the ACLU is staunchly backing 1A. They’re both constitutional rights so why is one supported and not the other

Supreme court voted 7-2 that the First Admendment applied to public schools in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969).
The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."[4] Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was "based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam." The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," that the conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."[5] The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech. (from the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District )

There has been no affirming of the second admendment in public schools that I am aware of.
 
Supreme court voted 7-2 that the First Admendment applied to public schools in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969).
The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."[4] Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was "based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam." The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," that the conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."[5] The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech. (from the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District )

There has been no affirming of the second admendment in public schools that I am aware of.

1973:
ypt1cjB.jpg



Sorry, the Constitution did that for us, I thought. So we need EXTRA permission huh
 
1973:
ypt1cjB.jpg



Sorry, the Constitution did that for us, I thought. So we need EXTRA permission huh

I disagree with the gun free school crap myself. I remember going to school when some students would have their hunting rifles in the back of their cars. That being said, if an unconstitutional law is passed, it can be challenged. It is an open question about whether that challenge will be successful. Gun law challenge's would more likely be successful if gun owners actually made sure to vote every election to make sure the judges (or congressmen and president who appoint the judges) are of the persuasion to act positively to maintaining our rights.
 
I see school the same way I see my job. Sure, I may be free to express an opinion by walking out. But I am not, and they should not, be free from the consequences of said walking out. Pretty sure anyone that does that locally will end up in ISS. If I did it, I may well end up unemployed. If your cause means that much to you, be sure you are fine paying the price. Or find a more appropriate way of expressing it. School is for education, and I hear "we don't have enough time" way too much to think walking out of class is a positive or appropriate thing.
 
No surprise here; the ACLU always engages in disrupting the established order of society. The ACLU does not officially support 2A rights and when it appears the ACLU is supporting our rights, you can bet it is only because that action promotes some disruption that the ACLU is more interested in.
 
ACLU's historic position has been that 2A rights are a "collective right", instead of an individual right; however they are also in the process of reviewing their position.

The reason for the review is that they are concerned that 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.

An acquaintance of mine is an ACLU attorney and this was the insight that she shared with me a year or so back.
 
Back
Top Bottom