The ACLU & Heller

The ACLU & Heller
For many years, the ACLU (Anti-Christian Litigation Unit) claimed that the Second Amendment didn't protect an individual right--only a collective right. They held that position based on U.S. v. Miller (1939). Okay, wrong, but at least they had a fig leaf that they could wear to hide their intellectual nakedness.

Now, of course, the Supreme Court with D.C. v. Heller (2008) has recognized that the right is individual. So what is the ACLU's position now?

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.

And in response, there are 130 comments on their blog about it. Not a single one defends the ACLU's position--and large numbers indicate that money that used to go to the ACLU will be going to the Cato Institute or the NRA-ILA in the future. Many of the comments are very well thought out:

Face it, ACLU: The days of plausible deniablity are gone. Miller’s confusing language gave you some cover, Heller stripped it away.
You either accept that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right, or stand revealed as, not a neutral in this fight, but an *enemy* of this particular civil liberty. Because only an enemy of this civil liberty would persist in denying it’s existence at this point.
I’d be content with you admitting the right exists, and leaving it to the NRA to defend. You don’t have to be the one stop for defending all civil liberties.
But if you’re going to be a *civil liberties* union, you’ve got to at least refrain from ATTACKING any of them. And that’s what you’re doing at this point.

And this one:

As a working journalist on five continents I have defended the ACLU against all comers for the past 48 years. Even when I didn’t agree with you I defended you for I _knew!_ that your only client was the Constitution.
I’ve been betrayed.

And this one:

I’m a libertarian who has long believed that the right-wing critique of the ACLU was overstated but not without merit. I have long believed that the ACLU does worthy work, but adheres to a definition of “civil liberties” that comports with elite liberalism first and an honest and robust reading of the Constitution second.
I had hoped that the ACLU would demonstrate some moral courage and dispel those criticisms by embracing the Heller decision. I find it very sad, and very telling, that you’ve decided that you’ll have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accord the Second Amendment the same respect as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth.