Kagan: 'Not Sympathetic' Toward Gun Rights

[Pasifikawv]

Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

(FYI: dude already had a criminal record)

As a nominee to be solicitor general last year, Kagan told lawmakers that she accepted that 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court.

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” she said.

 

[Pasifikawv]

During rounds and visits, Sen Hatch shows Kagan the reproduction Flintlock he recieved from the NRA. Kagan calls the firearm "beautiful" and "gorgeous"....

Video of the interaction available from ABC News...

 

[DonD]

While I am suspicious of Kagan's 2nd Amendment attitudes, what she might have said in 1987 as a much lower level individual doesn't have much to do with what she may rule as a Supreme Ct justice.

Many people grow into vastly more responsible positions when they realize that they have to be fair to the law and a large constituency even if that ruling isn't her personal belief. I hope that is the case with Kagan and that she realizes the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the courts have ruled the First Amendment is. Don

 

[oldman45]

May not be what you want to hear but likely she was right.

From what I understand in your post, the man was carrying an unlicensed weapon, in an area where firearms are not allowed and with a criminal record (not sure if felony or not).

The man did not have his rights violated. It was him breaking the laws in at least two ways.

I do not have any sympathy for those we get carrying weapons when they are forbidden to own or even be around weapons. Then the taypayers have to pay for their "violation of petitioner rights" lawsuits. We also have to pay for housing them while serving their time.

Now if you had a pristine citizen where these remarks were made, you may have a point.

However, my opinion is that she certainly will not be good for the conservative side. Neither was his last appointment. Nor will his next appointment.

 

[Wyatt Burp]

During rounds and visits, Sen Hatch shows Kagan the reproduction Flintlock he recieved from the NRA. Kagan calls the firearm "beautiful" and "gorgeous"....

Video of the interaction available from ABC News...

Did it have a trigger lock? I'm not being funny. One politician somewhere in the country had a couple flintlockson the wall in his office and was told to put trigger locks on them.

 

[badguybuster]

Kagan is a highly under-qualified mouthpiece for the Obama administration IMHO. I wouldnt trust anything she said.

 

[Harrison]

Kagan will say anything to get confirmed by the senate.
After she gets on the supreme court, she can rule literally anyway she wants, for life. If she wants to she can throw the constitution out the window. Short of commiting a high crime there is not anything anyone can do. She is not elected and serves for life. While she was the dean of Harvard Law, she did throw the constitution out. She made constitutional law an elective course, and made international law a required course. Her ilk believe in the end justifying the means.

 

[mike from st pete]

Politician Telling the Truth

Why in this wide world would anyone expect that to happen?

A politician says what the listener expects to hear and knows that the listener will be a believer, because he wants to hear that and disregards the actions and words of the past. The problem with Kagan is she has very little past to go on. It should be obvious to most observers that Kagan will do as her handlers order her to and say what is expected from her to obtain the seat on the Supreme Court.
The same goes for the past appointees. I have very little faith in these "life time Politicos" to keep their oath to the Constitution.

 

[MSgt G]

Kagan is a highly under-qualified mouthpiece for the Obama administration IMHO. I wouldnt trust anything she said.

Maybe she has experience as a community organizer

 

[badguybuster]

She's been Obummers friend for 20 years...trust nothing she says.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Liberals only accept the prcedents they approve of.

 

[MTKTM]

I truly hope that I am wrong, but I predict that Kagan will be nothing more than a youthful clone of Ruth Bader Ginsburg during the entirety of her tenure on the SC.

 

[gunlovingirl]

While I am suspicious of Kagan's 2nd Amendment attitudes, what she might have said in 1987 as a much lower level individual doesn't have much to do with what she may rule as a Supreme Ct justice.

SCOTUS appointee, Chicago hot dog czar, it doesn't matter to me. Anyone connected with, friendly with, spoken highly of, or appointed by Obama, is looked upon with a great deal of suspicion by me. And Kagan, like many other Obama appointees, is NOT qualified for the seat!

 

[hf1960]

"SHE" does not "share" our veiw of the 2nd Admin. I don't "share" her large frame's over eating by fork and spoon...

 

[Armyphotog]

The Second Admendment was written in a different time, and for a different reason. By the same token, I'm glad it is being misinterpreted today. Otherwise, we might all be defenseless, and without a "hook" to hang our six-guns on.

 

[silvercn]

I am so repeatedly disapointed in our government...
year after year. its only getting worse..... *sigh*

 

[PDL]

The Second Admendment was written in a different time, and for a different reason. By the same token, I'm glad it is being misinterpreted today. Otherwise, we might all be defenseless, and without a "hook" to hang our six-guns on.

The only thing misinterpreted so far is they've only concluded you have the right to own a gun for self defense in the home. It need to be fully and correctly interpreted as it is now in AZ. All law abiding citizens have the right to own, carry, and use arms for any lawful purpose.

 

[snowman.45]

Second Amendment

While the Second Amendment may have been written in a different time, I don't believe it was written for a different reason. If you have any questions about the intent of the Founding Fathers, you should read the Federalist Papers. It is clear that the reasons were based on safeguarding the rights of the people, and preventing the government from ruling us, as opposed to representing us. It is every bit as valid a concept and important today as it was then.

 

[RufusG]

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” she said.

Actually, there was no question BEFORE Heller either. Hey, I'm smarter than a Supreme Court Justice!

 

[bellevance]

Actually, there was no question BEFORE Heller either. Hey, I'm smarter than a Supreme Court Justice!

Sorry, but Kagan's right. In fact, there was a question (in the law) before Heller, clearly--because if there had not been any question there would have been no need for the Court's clarifying, definitive decision.