ACLU expressed 'significant concerns' about Harry Reid's gun bill

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 6, 2013 9:58 p.m.

    @mg Scott
    Of course there could be no reason, like say to push unconstitutional laws, policies or behaviors.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    April 6, 2013 5:28 p.m.

    @ spring street

    In answer to your question. YES. I have stopped to think about it, and no there is no other reason than the ACLU is liberally biased. If they weren't, there would be no reason for the Alliance Defense Fund.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    April 6, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    Tea Party conservatives think the ACLU is "liberal" because often it is "conservative" legislation that is violating someone's Constitutional rights. These so-called conservatives often fail to realize that when "liberal" government action violates civil liberties, the ACLU is right in there as well. Am I crazy about the fact that the ACLU has a problem with this legislation? No. But I respect that the ACLU's only goal is trying to make sure that Constitutional rights are protected.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 5, 2013 10:02 p.m.

    Did you ever stop to think there maybe another reason beyond simple bias why it is that the ACLU has to defend "liberal" causes more often?

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    April 5, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    @ Tolstoy

    Interesting the examples you gave which you say could go on for pages, but I'd be willing to bet that the pages would still number ten to one in favor of liberal causes. You know the old saying about the broken clock is still right twice a day.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 5, 2013 4:35 p.m.

    sorry abbreviated not appriviated

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    April 5, 2013 2:54 p.m.

    "The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights." --American author H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 5, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    So this very appriviated list that could go for pages is all things you appose?
    The ACLU of West Virginia backed an LDS student who lost his state-funded merit-based scholarship because he left college to serve a two-year church mission.
    THE ACLU of Utah (1999) supports the rights of LDS youth to participate in missionary week in at their schools.
    In 2011 the ACLU of Texas, Nebraska and Colorado opposed school district’s in their states policies prohibiting students from visibly wearing rosaries, crosses, and other articles of faith.
    The ACLU of New Jersey (2010) submitted an amicus brief in support of a public school student’s right to express her religious beliefs about abortion by wearing an armband with the word “LIFE” on it.
    The ACLU of California (1989) defends Sean Hannity when Hannity was fired from his job as a radio DJ for expressing views that the station felt where “homophobic”

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 5, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    I trust the NRA - I don't trust Harry Reid.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 5, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    I guess you will believe what ever consperecy will help you sleep tonight.

  • teleste Austin, TX
    April 5, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    @atl @Kalindra

    Instead of making fun of the conservatives for their past disagreements with the ACLU, maybe y'all should approach this differently. It looks like y'all are really missing the point (or choosing to ignore it).

    If the ACLU and the gun-toting conservatives agree that what the Feds are suggesting as legislation is bad policy that infringes on the citizens' rights...maybe it really is all that bad. (And by "maybe" I mean "yes it certainly is.")

    Will you two have the same smirks on your face when the Feds come after the Constitutional rights you hold dear? I think not...but if your tune doesn't change, *I will* at that point.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 5, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    if the aclu is libertarian, the pope is a haitian voodoo priestess.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 5, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    does having a knife fork and a spoon make me fat.

    April 5, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Harry Reid is even an embarrassment to all other politicians. Harry is a non-producer of anything useful for the American people. He is 100% politician and 0% patriot/statesman.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 5, 2013 10:12 a.m.


    Exactly right. Many people don't have the intellectual curosity nor the love of freedom to even seek this farewell speech from Geroge Washington out and READ IT. It condemns lengthy foreign alliances and going to war in foreign countries. I think we should only have a war if the enemy is on our own land. Anything else is unjustifiable.

  • jayhawker kearns, UT
    April 5, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    Never in my life did I expect to see the ACLU weigh in on gun legislation outside of the anti gun corner. I've often wondered where they, the great defenders of the constitution were when it came to the second amendment. As an organization for legal rights, can they pick and chose their battles, or should they defend every conflict of constitutional legality equally? I'm all for the ACLU even though I don't agree with them most of the time, but knowing they are there, the "watch dog of constitutional rights" so to speak, gives me comfort. I would like to see them defend the 2nd amendment rights of U.S. citizens as fervently as they do the constitution as a whole. The signers of the constitution must have thought that the rights of the people to own firearms is important because its number 2 on the list, right after our freedom of speech which we exercise every day both good and bad. ACLU, today you ROCK!

  • W.Brent Centerville, UT
    April 5, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    George Washington warned against the stupidity of having permanent alliances and permanent enemies saying it would lead one to make poorly informed decisions based on feelings and not current facts.

  • Chase Saint George, UT
    April 5, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Background checks on citizens: yes. It will keep us safe.
    Background checks on alleged illegal immigrants: now that's unfair.

    Why do I feel that illegal immigrants get the white-glove treatment. Free fake identity. Free health care. No background checks.

    The bigger the government the more constituents to please, the more backs to scratch, the more position appointment paybacks, the more corruption, etc, etc, etc.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 5, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    I'm guessing Heck just froze over. I'm acutually agreeing with the ACLU. What an apparent moment of clarity they are having.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 5, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    FoxNews, Jan.2004:

    ""For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.
    "But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," Simon said.
    The ACLU contends that state law enforcement officers violated Limbaugh's privacy rights by taking possession of his medical records as part of their criminal investigation into the commentator's alleged "doctor-shopping" to feed his prescription-drug addiction."

    In 1989 the Santa Barbara chapter of the ACLU defended Sean Hannity, and won, when he was fired from a broadcasting job.

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    April 5, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    @atl: "more libertarian" can be parsed in many ways. As my former Senator brother used to say, "if the ACLU, the UEA or Tom Barberi opposes me, I know I am on the right course"

    @editor: the following
    "The first concern is the bill treats records for unlicensed gun sales differently than purchases made through unlicensed sellers."
    should probably say
    "...through licensed sellers."

    As with any legislation, there should be very clear objective(s), very clearly stated objective measurement(s) for meeting the stated objective(s), and a very clear sunset (removal of the legislation as law) if the objective(s) are not met.

    A very high percentage of all of this knee-jerk "feel good" gun CONTROL legislation does not in any way serve to reduce crime. Unlawful people are NOT going to suddenly become law-abiding citizens just because of legislation.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 5, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    @lost in DC
    As someone who pays more attention to the ACLU and isn't busy demonizing it all the time as haters of freedom, I am not surprised one bit by them taking this position and expected they would. This is not a token gesture on their part. Really, they're more libertarian than liberal.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 5, 2013 6:48 a.m.

    spring street,
    you can rest easy, I don't think the aclu really beleives this. As I said, I think this is just a token gesture on their part. They won't push very hard, if at all. If they actually got involved in litigation, I'm sure it would just be to sabotage the opposition to harry's bill.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 4, 2013 11:30 p.m.

    It just can't be true that you and the ACLU might actually agree on something.

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    April 4, 2013 10:28 p.m.

    A national registration system for firearms as a public safety measure versus the right to privacy is not a black and white issue. The history of American distrust of a national government has been embedded as part of its founding. Paradoxically, Republicans have contributed to this paranoia by their past support of tougher law enforcement, policing policy that can intrude upon the rights of innocent citizens, while Democrats have supported stronger federal oversight on the presumption that it protects the rights of minorities and less powerful. Now with police support for background checks, once a Republican preference, we now find that conservative Republicans are also championing individual and privacy right issues that have long been the domain of the liberal Democratic party. The lines of political party purity have become blurred.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 4, 2013 4:07 p.m.

    token gesture by the ACLU to say "we aren't ALWAYS anti-American"

    they do it every now and again, but since harry's bhill won't pass, they know they don't have to put any real energy or effort into their "objections"

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 4, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    Well, if the ACLU is against it, I am for it! We all know they serve no purpose but to take away our rights and religious freedoms!