Carolinatlc
Member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I'm confused. It says they don't have to give up their rights...which is what you're also saying?Interesting comment in the Charlotte Observer today talking about the school walkout planned for this week. I think someone needs to talk to this attorney with the ACLU. Why do I have to give up my constitutional rights when I walk in the school doors?
View attachment 45940
I'm confused. It says they don't have to give up their rights...which is what you're also saying?
Got it. I'll go back to sleep now.He’s making the 2A/disarmed argument while the ACLU is staunchly backing 1A. They’re both contitutional rights so why is one supported and not the other
I thought I had remembered that as well. Actually, I'm somewhat surprised that the ACLU hasn't been more vocal about gun laws having a racial component. There's obviously an economic one. Without guns, who's going to protect economiclly disadvantaged blacks, gays, Hispanic, etc.? The police? The police they don't trust? Dwell on that a moment. Why isn't the ACLU speaking out on that one? Why does the ACLU not see this as a problem?ACLU has sided with the NRA more than once.
He’s making the 2A/disarmed argument while the ACLU is staunchly backing 1A. They’re both constitutional rights so why is one supported and not the other
Supreme court voted 7-2 that the First Admendment applied to public schools in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969).
The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."[4] Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was "based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam." The Court held that for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," that the conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."[5] The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech. (from the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District )
There has been no affirming of the second admendment in public schools that I am aware of.
1973:
Sorry, the Constitution did that for us, I thought. So we need EXTRA permission huh
Twice.ACLU has sided with the NRA more than once.