The ACLU On Lawful Possession of Tasers in Michigan

[TheQ]

Please.  Post the exchange on other forums and reference it on your facebooks!  Let's make it viral....

When I read the ACLU of Michigan had a problem with the bill that would allow lawful citizens in MI to possess Tasers, I wrote on behalf of Michigan Open Carry to inquire about their position.  Here's my letter:

http://www.freep.com/article/20111201/NEWS06/111201008/Michigan-may-join-states-allow-carrying-stun-guns?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Some strongly oppose the legalization. "We feel a great number of questions need to be answered," said Mark Fancher, staff attorney for the Michigan Civil Liberties Union. "We are concerned about these devices, period."

To Whom it May Concern:

I am curious about the concerns your organization has "about these devices".  Why would an organization that concerns itself with the civil liberties of Michiganders oppose a bill that would allow these same Michiganders to carry a tool for their self-defense?  Surely the right to defend one-self from an attacker is a civil liberty?

Personally, I support all civil liberties, you name it, I'll support it if it's in the name of individual liberty.  I'm only curious why the Michigan ACLU won't support THIS civil liberty.

Our organization and I look forward to your response and learning more about your concerns.

--
Phillip Hofmeister
President
Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
PHofmeister@miopencarry.org

Here's the response I received:

From   Brenda Bove bbove@aclumich.org
to   "PHofmeister@miopencarry.org" <PHofmeister@miopencarry.org>
date   Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:47 PM
subject   Reply from the ACLU of Michigan
   Important mainly because of the words in the message.
   
hide details 3:47 PM (5 hours ago)
   

 

Mr. Hofmeister,

 

Your inquiry regarding the ACLU of Michigan and tasers was forwarded to me for reply. 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 in order to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.  In today's world that purpose is somewhat anachronistic.  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, such as licensing and registration.  We also do not oppose other types of government regulation and licensing such as the licensing of cars. Even many 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 then is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it.  In the case of tasers, many credible analysts have important questions about the effect of tasers on the human body, and we believe that in order for the legislature to protect the rights and safety of the citizens they represent and to make an informed decision about regulation and licensing, many of these questions about tasers must first be answered.

 

 

Mark P. Fancher
Staff Attorney /Racial Justice Project
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
2966 Woodward Ave., Detroit, MI 48201
(313) 578-6822 (office) (313) 578-6811 (fax)

Response to the ACLU's Response.

Mr. Fancher,

It is understood that each state chapter of the ACLU is free to form their own opinions on issues apart from the national organization.  If this is true, why would the Michigan Chapter only look at their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution when the Michigan Constitution of 1963 (in Article I, Sec. 6) clearly makes bearing arms an individual right?  Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.  In Michigan Open Carry, we believe the Michigan Constitution guarantees the possession of arms as an individual right to help enable self-defense.  We hope you can agree with our plain letter interpretation of the Michigan Constitution.

It is also understood that the purpose of the ACLU is to protect Liberties (as it defines them).  Assuming this is true, which liberty are you protecting by coming out against individual possession of tasers?  We'd be able to understand a civil rights group staying neutral on this issue long before we could understand them coming out against it.

Your previous response is appreciated, but seems inconsistent with your organization's mission and the Michigan Constitution.

--
Phillip Hofmeister
President
Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
PHofmeister@miopencarry.org

Now, I would encourage all of you to write Brenda and call their attorney, but I don't want to encourage you to waste the resources of the ACLU.


Please.  Post the exchange on other forums and reference it on your facebooks!  Let's make it viral....

[autosurgeon]

Unfortunatly I am not surprised at their position.... picking and choosing rights... rather than embracing them as a package 

[Bronson]

Follow the money.  Just like Make-A-Wish stopped funding hunting trips for terminally ill children due to pressure from their benefactors I'm sure that the vast majority of contributors to the ACLU are of a left leaning political bent and the ACLU is worried that taking on 2A cases would negatively impact donations. 

The ACLU is willing to sell out one section of society in order to keep the $$ rolling in.

Always follow the money.

Bronson