The ACLU has been fighting the good fight for impoverished black people as well. They happen to be in the spotlight at the moment due to the Trump immigration executive order, but it's not as though 100% of the funds raised by YC will go towards fighting the immigration ban. It will support their countless other ongoing legal battles as well.
They are an unqualified, categorically "good" organization that is deserving of your donations. I'm personally of the opinion that a charitable act should not be diminished or castigated because one picked this time to donate and not other times.
Put another way, if a guy shows up to volunteer at a soup kitchen, I'm going to thank him for his time, not shout at him, "Where were you when we had the flood of Katrina refugees to feed!"
> They are an unqualified, categorically "good" organization
The ACLU is wonderful, no doubt about that. But I think some people do put an asterisk next to the group because of their (obviously somewhat strange) categorization of the protections of the 2nd amendment as outside the scope of American civil liberties.
I see the ACLU as an organization that isn't blind to all constitutional entitlements, and I don't believe they have any responsibility to be that. I see them as particularly interested in civil rights defense for the powerless against the powerful and untouchable, who are particularly antagonistic at the moment.
Firearms interests have their own highly influential advocacy already from more than one entity, so it puts this argument in the "all lives matter" category of flawed defenses.
A portion of the the First Amendment is protected by media litigators. It's got more than a few important protections that deserve defense. Besides, are you really complaining that there are too many organizations working to protect our civil liberties. Seems an odd complaint. If Second Amendment rights matter to you then, by all means, donate to the NRA or others fighting to protect that right. Doesn't mean the ACLU and others don't do important work as well.
I donate to a state-level 2nd Amendment rights organization, GeorgiaCarry.org, rather than the NRA. Why? Because GeorgiaCarry stands strongly against racial discrimination and is working hard to end Jim Crow era Georgia laws that to this day attempt to thwart non-white citizens voting and asserting their 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendment rights. By contrast, the NRA has a consistent record of remaining silent on race issues when they intersect with 2nd Amendment challenges.
The ACLU doesn't have a problem with 2A, but they see gun ownership as a collective right rather than an individual right. They have stood up for 2A rights in the past, but compared to the NRA and other 2A advocates, they have very limited resources, so they let the NRA / et. al. handle them.
> The ACLU doesn't have a problem with 2A, but they see gun ownership as a collective right rather than an individual right
To be specific - they disagree with one specific SCOTUS ruling that is less than a decade old (DC v. Heller). They do agree with the pro-gun arguments put forth by US v. Miller.
They have devoted (to my knowledge) no material resources towards fighting DC v. Heller despite their disagreement with it, and they explicitly leave most 2nd Amendment cases to other advocacy groups (namely the NRA) because those are much more well-funded and focused solely on the 2nd Amendment. The ACLU prefers to spend its much smaller and limited budget on cases which aren't really supported by many (if any) other advocacy groups.
Actually, the NRA themselves didn't want pursue Heller in the SCOTUS. They are not an effective watchdog.
They are, IMHO, far more interested in pursuing their own agenda, which only partially intersects with the right to self defense. More important to them, it seems, is acting as stooges for the GOP. I came to that conclusion after a local election in which the NRA endorsed the GOP candidate, who had a C rating, as I recall, while turning up their noses at his challenger who was an A.
I believe that their reticence to litigate Heller was for their own self-preservation. They can make a better case for donation when they're able to sow FUD about taking away our guns. Having a definitive answer to the question from Heller (and later McDonald, to get it incorporated under the 14th Amendment) impairs how much fear they can inspire in gun owners.
> I believe that their reticence to litigate Heller was for their own self-preservation.
As I recall, it's because they didn't believe a priori that it was the strongest case. They definitely do support the decision and defend it in subsequent cases. It's not unusual for an advocacy group to pick and choose its legal battles based on what it thinks is most likely to advance its long-term agenda - each case is a legal risk, and with a it's possible to end up losing ground instead of gaining it. There's a lot of strategic calculation that goes into it, which doesn't mean that it's always successful or correct, but it's not unusual or suspicious when it happens.
This is similar to how Rosa Parks was chosen as the figurehead for the legal battles surrounding bus boycotts, even though she was not the first Black woman to refuse to give up her seat (and she wasn't even the one whose case made it to the Supreme Court). She was believed to be the most sympathetic and favorable candidate for challenging the law. (Ultimately, Claudette Colvin's case was the one that was actually upheld by the Supreme Court.)
> I believe that their reticence to litigate Heller was for their own self-preservation. They can make a better case for donation when they're able to sow FUD about taking away our guns. Having a definitive answer to the question from Heller (and later McDonald, to get it incorporated under the 14th Amendment) impairs how much fear they can inspire in gun owners.
There are a lot of criticisms I could enumerate about the NRA's inconsistency with how it pursues Second Amendment battles, but if you're concerned with the broad right to self-defense, I don't think they apply. I definitely would not say that they oppose clear constitutional protections for gun ownership (such as the Heller outcome) simply to line their own pockets, which is what you are implying.
More specifically, I think the NRA regards the GOP as extremely useful. They actually stooge for the gun manufacturers. If somehow the Republicans and the Democrats flipped sides, the NRA would flip, too. LaPierre and his crew would have to go, but that's business.
The ACLU doesn't have a problem with 2A, but they see gun ownership as a collective right rather than an individual right.
And that's a problem. It betrays either a gross misunderstanding on their part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights, which is unlikely, or other less transparent motivations, which aren't. There are other civil liberties organizations that don't argue for a state monopoly on the right to self defense. Consider helping them out instead.
It's ridiculous to talk about how misguided, dangerous, or outright evil the government is, only to turn around and argue that they should own all the guns.
ACLU doesn't argue that "they should own all the guns". They don't defend the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment, but they don't argue against it, either. So, in effect, they're completely neutral on this.
They're also upfront about this position, so you can't claim that they're misleading you when they take your money.
When you donate money to ACLU, you do so in the knowledge that not go towards defending 2A rights[1]. But this is also the case for EFF, for example. Does that preclude you from donating to EFF, or any other organization? If not, then why do you demand that ACLU does something out of their declared scope.
[1] ACLU does actually defend 2A rights in contexts where they intersect with other rights. For example, they have collaborated with SAF to defend the rights of non-citizens to keep and bear arms - some states explicitly ban non-citizens from their shall-issue carry licensing provisions, or even firearm possession in general.
They explicitly interpret 2A as a "collective right," whatever that is. They also state their disagreement with Heller and presumably any number of lower court decisions in line with it.
Organizations like the EFF never claimed to be broad-based "civil liberties unions," so that's why I feel it's appropriate to hold them to different standards.
They interpret 2A as a collective right for the purposes of explaining why they (and note that this specifically refers to the national ACLU organization!) do not step in to defend it.
However, they never argue in court against 2A. Nor do they prohibit their member state organizations from taking a different position - and many do.
Yes, ACLU is a broad "civil liberties" organization. But there's no definitive list of civil liberties, and different people have different opinions on this. The fact that SCOTUS ruled on it doesn't change matters - SCOTUS rules on whether something is a constitutional right or not, not on whether something is a civil right or not. The latter is inherently a subjective assessment.
I appreciate your concern, but I also think it's misguided to dismiss the ACLU because of this single issue: it's not something they focus resources on. They're not actively campaigning against an individual's rights to bear arms. They're not even vocal about it. Gun rights or anti-gun rights are not what many people think of when they think of gun rights issues. You gotta pick your battles, and find allies where you can.
Sure, but "not doing anything to improve the state of 2A" is not the same as "fighting to impose a degraded view of 2A".
The ACLU has nothing to gain by promoting any particular 2A view, because that's the only right that's not universally a political sinkhole.
The inconvenient truth is that all civil rights (that aren't gun rights) have opposition nearly everywhere in America.
The only difference is incidentals- if you're in coastal California or urban New England, your subculture wants "hate speech" banned; whereas Arkansas has a more traditional version of obscenity (depictions of sex and promotion of other vices) it wants to eliminate.
So civil rights (in the traditional sense) has no defenders in legislature or society at large. Gun rights, on the other hand, still do in many areas of the country (coastal California and urban New England are the two big exceptions, of course), and as such I can't fault the ACLU's 'default' stance on a right that's not universally contested.
I probably should have said 'Northeast' rather than 'urban New England' specifically.
I mis-remembered; that area encompasses fewer states than I thought it did (and NH is a good counterexample- gun laws there are great, if I remember correctly).
Anyways, in the Northeast, the states with less liberal gun laws (NY/MD/CT/Mass./NJ) also happen to contain most of that area's population, especially in the larger cities like NYC/Boston/Baltimore. NH is good, but it's a very small piece of that region.
I think their reasoning on 2nd amendment work is sound. The NRA and affiliates have ~4x the ACLU's budget to spend on that one single issue, and they have shown themselves to be ruthlessly effective on that front.
But that's not really the point. SSDP and DPA, as specialized, wide-reaching, grassroots organizations, are more effective at drug policy reform, but this doesn't stop the ACLU from recognizing the threats that drug prohibition poses to civil liberties.
Similarly, the fact that there are larger and more specialized organizations doesn't prevent the ACLU from making statements in favor of advances in the rights guaranteed by the second amendment.
I am an ardent supporter of the individual right to gun ownership but you can't fault the ACLU for having a slightly different interpretation of 2A while still believing in the right.
And has others have stated, I'd much rather have the ACLU focus on things like 1A, 4A, etc. Leave 2A to the NRA and other 2A-specific advocacy groups.
I'm not so sure of that. It may be that their willingness to look at 2A in a completely different framework, claiming that the meaning of "the people" is different in just this case, will eventually undermine their defense of the rest of the Bill of Rights as well.
There are some aspects where 2A intersects with other rights, where NRA and others are unwilling to go.
One sticking point right now is drugs. Per federal law, any "user of an unlawful substance" is prohibited from firearm ownership, period. This includes anyone in states that legalized marijuana, including medical users. And the feds have been trying to maintain state records for medical marijuana card holders.
NRA, SAF and the rest of the bunch are unwilling to not just do anything about it, but to even speak out at all. I'm a SAF member, and I actually wrote to them about this several times, with no response. Ironically, the only gun rights org that has been consistently speaking out on this is the otherwise extremely right wing GOA.
And recently, both NRA and SAF organizations have enthusiastically endorsed Jeff Sessions, which is a huge middle finger to anyone concerned about this law...
That said, ACLU generally does get involved in cases which are centered on 2A, but involve other rights. So my hope is that they'd get involved in this as well, if a suitable case came up.
The fact that there are larger and more specialized organizations doesn't prevent the ACLU from making a simple statement in favor of advances in this particular civil liberty.
While I value my second amendment rights I will not allow that to prevent me from supporting the ACLU. I also can't stomach supporting the NRA. It's a challenging position to be in because I do care about my rights but I'm not sure where to turn to support my second amendment rights specifically.
There are a few other groups that aren't as heavy on deep-South cultural baggage (https://www.saf.org/).
Whether or not they're sufficiently dissociated is another matter entirely, though.
For what it's worth, CCRKBA - which is essentially to SAF what NRA-ILA is to NRA (involves most the same people, in particular, Alan Gottlieb; but is a political campaigning counterpart to the non-profit) - endorsed Jeff Sessions. And how!
“Senate confirmation of Jeff Sessions as our next Attorney General will bring about much-needed change at the Department of Justice. Instead of promoting or defending schemes that impact law-abiding Americans, his track record shows that he will go after genuine criminals.”
“The nation is in serious need of an attorney general who knows the difference between civil rights and criminal wrongs”
For those who are aware of the track record of Sessions as attorney, the highlighted bit especially is appalling.
This is the problem for me. I want an organization that will fight for my second amendment rights but that also isn't advancing a secondary agenda that I disagree with.
I don't think my city's tax on gun and ammo sales is an effective or constitutional measure and I want to support organizations that will fight that type of measure.
I did not support Obama's "common sense" ban on gun sales to people on the no-fly list because I don't believe the no-fly list itself is constitutional.
I do want to take steps to reduce gun violence in America but my current choices on the political front are either ineffective and/or unconstitutional laws from the left or a complete unwillingness to even try from the right.
I do not support Jeff Sessions for Attorney General because I think the entire bill of rights is valuable and applies to everyone and I don't think he will uphold it effectively.
For the time being, I have compromised by remaining a SAF member, since they haven't formally endorsed Sessions (and they can't, as a 501(c)3), and are not involved in any court cases that do not pertain to gun rights. Meanwhile, I have terminated my CCRKBA membership, and called them and explained why I did so.
That said, it is still a very uneasy compromise, because the person who uttered all the things I consider despicable on behalf of CCRKBA is also the person who is the founder and the most prominent spokesperson of SAF, and my conscience only permits so much ability to distinguish their opinions depending on which "hat" they wear.
My takeaway from all this is that there's no bipartisan gun rights organization in US, and there probably cannot be in the current political climate. Thus, pro-gun liberals have to establish their own, that would be the left-wing counterpart to NRA and SAF.
The good thing is that with all the tumult that the Democratic party is going through right now, with a massive grassroots platform rewrite going on, this is the time to speak up about this sort of thing. Pay attention to new left-wing groups that spring up promising to upend the status quo on the left. Check their platform and issues. If they do speak about gun control (most do), and you see something there that you believe is wrong, get in touch with them, and let them know that 1) you're on their side in general, but 2) you do not agree with them on this, and here's why.
To give a specific example, here's Justice Democrats (essentially an attempt to formally organize a "Sanders wing" of the party):
If you scroll down, you'll see "Enact common-sense gun regulation" bullet point, and a bunch of stuff underneath. If you find anything disagreeable, email them, with a polite and well-reasoned refutation. I did that, and they actually replied and told me that they're still in the process of hashing the platform out, and are listening to all feedback.
In the meantime, a good way to get left-wing politicians to notice us is via the Liberal Gun Club. It's not a political organization, and it isn't involved in legal fights, so it's not an NRA/SAF replacement. But it is a focal point to assemble forces; and if it has enough members, it can be used as a foundation to build future organizations, and to draw attention in intraparty politics.
It's more like, in a world with exactly eight soup kitchens, the "soup kitchen support union" specifically excluding one from its support network and issuing a statement that, despite its soup having similar origins and ingredients, doesn't qualify as soup in to today's palette unless consumed collectively by all of society.
They're not the American Bill of Rights Union. They have a conception of what "civil liberties" amounts to which many sympathize with, and they fight for that.
If you think they do good work in that arena, great!
If you think they do good work in that arena and others do good work elsewhere, hey, you know what? That's still great!
(And if you think they do poor work, or work on the wrong goals or whatever, well, of course that's your prerogative.)
You're stretching the metaphor beyond its breaking point. There's no limit on the number of civil rights organizations out there; the ACLU does not have any exclusive right to sue over certain issues or coordinate other groups, it's just particularly old, effective, and respected.
If you're particularly worried about the 2nd amendment there are organizations (extremely powerful and effective organizations at that) to sue on your behalf.
I don't see the problem there, when that one particular soup kitchen, for various reasons, has several other support unions which are dedicated exclusively to supporting that soup kitchen, and ignore all the other ones.
It makes perfect sense that the "soup kitchen support union" would then concentrate all their efforts on the other 7 soup kitchens which don't get nearly as much support.
Keep in mind that there are actually many ACLUs - the national body, and a lot of local chapters. The chapters are pretty independent, and occasionally do things that I personally disagree with.
The distinction is frequently omitted, and used to paint the national group with the sins of local ones, and vice-versa.
And that's not the view of the national ACLU, at all. Perhaps they don't place the emphasis on it you'd like to see, but that's quite different than considering the 2nd "outside the scope".
That all seems pretty clear to me. It's not up to you to interpret the 2nd Amendment for them.
Not to mention that orgs like the NRA have many times more funding than the ACLU and dedicate every action to that one issue.
Or the fact that you're dealing with a organization that has been one of the biggest and best defenders of oppressed groups in recent history and you're cranky that they're not gonna help you own a handgun like most of congress is.
Any time I read "friend" in this context I feel like you can replace it with just about any word someone wouldn't say in any professional context, and it's more true to the intent.
I am cranky that they aren't willing to make simple statements of support for it.
If an organization that was instrumental in protecting your right to a fair and speedy trial, was against opposed to the idea of free speech, I would still condemn that org for holding that specific position, while still recognizing that they have done good in other areas.
> They happen to be in the spotlight at the moment due to the Trump immigration executive order, but it's not as though 100% of the funds raised by YC will go towards fighting the immigration ban. It will support their countless other ongoing legal battles as well
On that note - do we actually know that the YC funds are generally available to the ACLU? Oftentimes when non-profits receive large donations, the donor specifies the usage of the funds (usually by specifying a general area that the non-profit is working on, or donating to a specific fund)[0]. These restrictions are legally binding.
I'm not opining on the use of funds here - I'm just curious if YC donated to a specific fund in the ACLU.
[0] Those who went to colleges will know this firsthand - the donation solicitations you receive usually give options like "for financial aid", or "for the $BUILDING_NAME construction project"
The amount of money the ACLU would get as a consequence of being accepted into a YC batch is a triviality compared to the amount of money they pull in from direct fundraising. Presumably, the benefit to ACLU of being directly engaged with YC is acceleration of their technical and outreach work, and perhaps improved access to wealthy donors in Silicon Valley.
Equally worth knowing: individual ACLU chapters receive funding from the national ACLU, but are also on the hook for raising some of their own funding.
> The amount of money the ACLU would get as a consequence of being accepted into a YC batch is a triviality compared to the amount of money they pull in from direct fundraising
Yes, I agree . I'm pretty sure the ACLU matched donation offers I saw flying around Twitter yesterday already exceed the amount YC gives to nonprofits.
I'm more just curious if YC specified their intended target with this decision, or if they decided to leave the allocation decisions up to the ACLU. My guess is the latter, because the nonprofits YC normally funds are much younger and smaller, but maybe YC had a specific goal in mind.
> Equally worth knowing: individual ACLU chapters receive funding from the national ACLU, but are also on the hook for raising some of their own funding.
They are an unqualified, categorically "good" organization that is deserving of your donations. I'm personally of the opinion that a charitable act should not be diminished or castigated because one picked this time to donate and not other times.
Put another way, if a guy shows up to volunteer at a soup kitchen, I'm going to thank him for his time, not shout at him, "Where were you when we had the flood of Katrina refugees to feed!"