"Civil liberties" mean just that to the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.
By stating it respects the individual's right to bear arms, subject to constitutionally permissible regulations, and that it will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights, the state ACLU chapter deserves high praise indeed.
It apparently is the first state affiliate to oppose the national ACLU's position on the Second Amendment, according to The Associated Press.
The Nevada ACLU board of directors was rightly guided by the Supreme Court's landmark June ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller. The court found that the Second Amendment is not a collective right but an individual right. (Incredibly, D.C. Council this week might implement new gun legislation that still doesn't meet constitutional snuff.)Chapter Executive Director Gary Peck said that the individual's right also is declared in the state Constitution, reflecting Nevada's "long, proud tradition of libertarian skepticism of government overreach," the AP reported.
Mr. Peck might be an ideal candidate to succeed Nadine Strossen, who is retiring as president of the national ACLU organization. He might be able to convince others at the ACLU that a civil liberty means no one should be forced to beg the state's permission to be allowed to defend oneself and loved ones.
Story found here
Meanwhile in DC, the Dhimmicrat politicians continue to ignore the law believeing somehow, they are above the law:
It's been barely three weeks since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment, tossing the District of Columbia's strict ban on handgun ownership as an unconstitutional infringement on the individual right to bear arms.
As you'd expect, D.C. officials have been busy little bureaucrats since then, trying to figure out a way to get around the high court's decision.
On Monday, the D.C. council announced emergency legislation designed to update the gun ban. As expected, it's a joke.
Instead of simply acknowledging that individuals have a right to own handguns in the district, the legislation would still require that all firearms be kept in the home unloaded and disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Some handguns would be allowed, but only those that carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.
Those who wish to register a handgun in the district must pass a battery of tests and will be limited at first to only one weapon.
In other words: Purchase a handgun, but if you're lucky enough to jump through the registration and regulatory hoops, don't count in a practical sense on ever being able to use it to defend your home.
"Clearly, D.C. is doing everything they can to ignore the Supreme Court ruling," said Chris W. Cox, an NRA lobbyist.
The district is setting itself up to lose another costly legal challenge. Last time we checked, D.C. wasn't so flush with cash money that it could afford to keep its lawyers focused on finding ways around the Bill of Rights rather than attempting to comply with them.