Reply #10: The Moral Majority's justifications are much weaker than the ACLU's...

[Solon]

"The Moral Majority is neutral on the issue of book control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of books. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register books.

Most opponents of book control concede that the First Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own child porn or detailed plans for nuclear weapons. Yet these, like novels, manuals, and even encyclopedias, are books.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict book 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."

The 1st Amendment protects PRODUCERS of written materials under the "Freedom of Speech/Press" sections in the Amendment. However, this doesn't legalize crimes committed to produce such materials, nor does it exempt you from those particular crimes when you consume said products.

Child Porn is a classic example of this, the producer will have to commit a crime, the sexual molestation of a child, in order to produce the product. Being a consumer of that product means you gave material support for a felony, usually in the form of money, hence neither you nor the producer of the material are protected by the First Amendment.

As far as the second example, actually, you CAN own the detailed plans to build a nuclear weapon, gathering the materials to actually build one is another question entirely(2nd Amendment?). Also, you can possess books that describe child pornography or pedophilia, as long as no underlining crime is committed.

You seem to assume that the ACLU is a POLITICAL Advocacy Group, they are NOT, they are a group of people who LEGALLY advocate for people. Those are TWO separate issues, one group advocates through the legislature, the other through the courts. The ACLU, to be blunt about it, COULD take up 2nd Amendment cases, however, they know this is fruitless, a waste of time and resources. The courts have consistently taken the position the ACLU describes, and it doesn't look like its going to change anytime soon.

The ACLU doesn't go to legislatures to beg for laws that strengthen the Bill of Rights, they watch the legislature to see if they do something stupid, and watch other places, and when violations of the BoR occur, they are there to bitchslap those who violated the Bill of Rights.

Has any 2nd Amendment advocacy group challenged U.S. v. Miller yet? If not, why not?