From the ACLU website:
http://www.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
Gun Control:
"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment"
and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other
weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The
national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects
of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a
collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to
maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the
central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic
and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than
handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second
Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own
guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun
ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that
the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun
ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register
guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment
certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas,
missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even
submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how
much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then
it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation
of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller]
that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military
purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally
protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the
regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the
Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that
the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the
states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any
evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a
barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we
cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and
bear such an instrument," the Court said.
In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It
routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for
example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in
Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its
borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982),
cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most
important modern gun control case.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
I recently joined the ACLU chiefly for the purpose of trying to change some minds. I will enjoy debating these people. Prayer in schools? Answer: I believe it is dangerous to have the government involved in education. I think it is critical that the parents involved have the ultimate control over the schools their children attend. If you favor school prayer send your child to the appropriate school. Do the same with your child if you do not favor school prayer. And so forth.