MNGunTalk.com

Strange bedfellows make for good First Amendment warriors in a case concerning guns, financial institutions, and free speech. Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced that it will represent the National Rifle Association (NRA) in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, which the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear. The case is an interesting one, with more than a bit of relevance beyond the NRA—particularly for entities related to sexuality or tolerant of sex work.

"We don't support the NRA's mission or its viewpoints on gun rights, and we don't agree with their goals, strategies, or tactics," the ACLU posted on X (formerly Twitter) on December 9. "But we both know that government officials can't punish organizations because they disapprove of their views."

[...]

The case involves actions taken by Maria Vullo in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in 2018. Vullo was superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), which has regulatory and enforcement power over banks and insurance companies in the state.

In April 2018, DFS issued a "Guidance on Risk Management Relating to the NRA and Similar Gun Promotion Organizations" to banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions. The guidance mentioned "several recent horrific shootings, including in Parkland" and noted the "social backlash" that these had produced against the NRA. They then encouraged institutions "to continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, if any." DFS also urged companies to think of their own "codes of social responsibility" and "to review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to manag[e] these risks and promote public health and safety."

Markemp wrote:If the ACLU is against it, it's probably a good idea to be against whatever it is too. The ACLU is an organization that actually cares about protecting the rights of Americans.

bstrawse wrote:

Markemp wrote:If the ACLU is against it, it's probably a good idea to be against whatever it is too. The ACLU is an organization that actually cares about protecting the rights of Americans.

Except the 2nd amendment.
b

bstrawse wrote:

Markemp wrote:If the ACLU is against it, it's probably a good idea to be against whatever it is too. The ACLU is an organization that actually cares about protecting the rights of Americans.

Except the 2nd amendment.
b

Markemp wrote:

bstrawse wrote:

Markemp wrote:If the ACLU is against it, it's probably a good idea to be against whatever it is too. The ACLU is an organization that actually cares about protecting the rights of Americans.

Except the 2nd amendment.
b

It's not in their charter. There are other organizations who can handle supporting the 2nd amendment. I wouldn't expect the MNGOC to tackle 9th amendment issues either.

The ACLU was founded to ensure the promise of the Bill of Rights and to expand its reach to people historically denied its protections.

Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees.

Firearms are therefore subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health.

Such regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use are appropriate, however, only when consistent with civil liberties principles such as privacy, due process, equal protection, and freedom from unlawful searches. Keeping those principles in mind, the ACLU will not oppose governmental regulation of firearms as long as such regulation is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest, such as protection of the public health, safety, or welfare. Deference should be given to legislative judgments limiting gun ownership or use so that state and local governments are allowed an opportunity to experiment with solutions to the complex problems involving guns.

Markemp wrote:Did a bit more reading, and it does look like they will take on second amendment cases. I stand corrected.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/second-amendment

Firearms are therefore subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health.

Such regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use are appropriate, however, only when consistent with civil liberties principles such as privacy, due process, equal protection, and freedom from unlawful searches. Keeping those principles in mind, the ACLU will not oppose governmental regulation of firearms as long as such regulation is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest, such as protection of the public health, safety, or welfare. Deference should be given to legislative judgments limiting gun ownership or use so that state and local governments are allowed an opportunity to experiment with solutions to the complex problems involving guns.

crbutler wrote:The ACLU is essentially ok with strict standing on every amendment but the 2nd

I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation. Thus the title of this essay- The Embarrassing Second Amendment- for I want to suggest that the Amendment may be profoundly embarrassing to many who both support such regulation and view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights (such as most members of the ACLU).

Markemp wrote:

crbutler wrote:The ACLU is essentially ok with strict standing on every amendment but the 2nd

You know that isn't true.

• be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
• be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
• be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.

Free speech is therefore subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health.

Such regulation of free speech is appropriate, however, only when consistent with civil liberties principles such as privacy, due process, equal protection, and freedom from unlawful searches. Keeping those principles in mind, the ACLU will not oppose governmental regulation of free speech as long as such regulation is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest, such as protection of the public health, safety, or welfare. Deference should be given to legislative judgments limiting free speech so that state and local governments are allowed an opportunity to experiment with solutions to the complex problems involving free speech.