The American Civil Liberties Union apparently hates guns more than it hates arbitrary government-enforced discrimination. Even though the ACLU opposes the no-fly list—and is suing the federal government for violating the due process rights of several people on it—the civil liberties advocacy group is theoretically okay with depriving people on the list of their gun rights.
A spokesperson for the ACLU told Buzzfeed News that the organization had no formal position on legislation, supported by the Obama administration, which would deny the right to purchase firearms to people on the no-fly list:
“We don’t have a position on the legislation in question, but … have many criticisms of the overall watchlisting system as it currently operates,” ACLU’s media strategist Josh Bell told BuzzFeed News.
“There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform,” said Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU National Security Project.
This is striking hypocrisy. The ACLU recognizes that the no-fly list is a due-process travesty, but still thinks it could serve as a basis for gun control? The “but only with major reform” qualification is hardly reassuring.
Libertarian-leaning Republican Rep. Justin Amash criticized the ACLU for its inconsistencies on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/673966835302277120
Amash also wrote: “Putting someone on the no-fly list without due process and infringing on someone’s right to keep and bear arms without due process are both wrong.” He’s exactly right. Unfortunately, there aren’t very many consistent defenders of universal due process outside the libertarian sphere.
Shame on the ACLU for compromising its position in order to punish people for exercising rights it doesn’t like, and not for the first time.
“There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns,…”
Did I hear that right?
What planet is this?
The Constitutional scholars of the ACLU alike Obama don’t see the words and thus can pretend to not know the meaning of “Shall Not Be Infringed” unless it is as phrase applicable or beneficial to their organizational bias, and for sure they are not colorblind.
Obama, Pelosi and all other big names in politics constantly claiming to protect the Constitution. Well, yes, without telling you about the double meaning of it all. They only have to defend the paper the words are written on. Not the expressed ideas in writing on it.
Remember Baby Bush claiming that: Someone is changing the way ‘we’ live.. I bet you, me, and every other Joe Blow weren’t included in that ‘we’.. But we were allowed, even encouraged to think we were.
20/20 hindsight shows that for everyone in the US life has changed since 911.. Except for the rich. Their way of life shall not be infringed. Woops!!!