(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Everyone interested, and especially the opposition, is scrambling for information on President Obama's enigmatic Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. In the absence of a body of decisions to give light to her views, how she will likely rule on the issues of the day should she be confirmed is foremost in a lot of people's minds, particularly gun owners concerned with judicial opinions affecting the Second Amendment.
The Washington Post, therefore, has provided a real service by posting documents pertaining to Kagan's earlier nomination for Solicitor General.
Click here for her background information, including education, career history and publications.
Of special interest to gun owners will be her answers to Second Amendment-related questioning. Click here for the questions and her responses, and then type "Second Amendment" in the search form to read complete exchanges. Summarizing her responses:
When asked if she would "give weight to other nations’ restrictions on gun rights when interpreting the Second Amendment," she replied:
[T]he grounded historical approach adopted in [Heller] (and echoed even in the dissents) would grant no relevance to arguments from comparative law in defining the scope of the Second Amendment right.
When asked if she believed Heller was "rightly decided," she answered:
I do not think it would comport with this responsibility to state my own views of whether particular Supreme Court decisions were rightly decided. All of these cases are now settled law, and as such, are entitled to my respect as the nominee for Solicitor General. In that position, I would not frequently or lightly ask the Court to reverse one of its precedents, and I certainly would not do so because I thought the case wrongly decided.
When asked her "personal opinion of the rights afforded by the Second Amendment," she responded:
There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans 'the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'
When asked if she will "commit to protect an individual’s right to possess a
firearm," she answered:
If I am confirmed, I will commit to show Heller and the principles articulated in it the full measure of respect that is due to all constitutional decisions of the Court. Only highly unusual circumstances can justify the Solicitor General’s office in asking the Court to reconsider a decision, especially one as thoroughly considered as Heller. Once again, 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.
By way of comparison, her position appears practically identical to that of "conservative Justice" Antonin Scalia. Yes, it falls far short of "shall not be infringed," and I don't think she's going to be answering my Gun Rights Questionnaire any time soon, but I'm wondering if there is any Obama nominee—or any nominee a Republican would offer up, for that matter—who would give better answers.
Be sure and read Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner Ed Stone's column from yesterday,"Supreme Court nominee finds no fault with Heller decision." Ed is a lawyer, so I find his take on this particularly insightful.
UPDATE
From The Los Angeles Times:
A centrist course meant negotiating with the firearms industry on a deal to put child-safety locks on guns rather than risk a legislative showdown. Gun-control efforts were a hallmark of the Clinton administration. Kagan had already been involved in an executive order that required all federal law enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons.
Those moves angered the National Rifle Assn., which became even more alarmed in late 1998 when Clinton proposed closing the "gun show" loophole that allowed firearms purchases without background checks. A legislative effort to do just that was launched as Kagan departed the White House for Harvard in 1999.
Not to say I trust Kagan, but, I've seen NRA back candidates with records a lot worse than that...
5/13 UPDATE: "Not sympathetic."
------------
"Intolerable Acts" part one
I finally got the video of my speech in Washington DC at the Second Amendment March. I compared conditions and events preceding America's rejection of British tyranny to present-day abuses of Liberty.
Here's part one, dealing with events leading up to rebellion.
I'll post part two tomorrow.
Many thanks to Oath Keepers and videographer Adam Ruff for providing this footage, and to St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner Kurt Hofmann for separating out and posting my part in this.
Comments
Who cares, they cant touch the 2nd amendment without a constitutional convention. She doesnt belong there, she is for Goldman Sachs and has no experience as a judge or even a lawyer...you all do the math...besides, the federal government is no longer recognized as any kind of authority when they breached 5the contract with the people,,,the Constitution. They are now a rogue and illegal entity. Stop giving them legitimacy, it only encourages them.
Let me start this bright and sunny No. Calif morning off on a positive note:
- She isn't a 2a basher, at least by her statements!
Now let's focus on what is just beyond the horizon:
- The Commie left wants guns banned and they don't need the SC to do it. The SC made themselves irrelevant to the leftists when they ruled on Heller. Will probably concentrate their efforts now on a international "treaty" or court decision....we already suspected that would happen anyway!
Gloom and Doom on the Horizon...I'm going to Starbuck's to calm down :-)
EdinSac says:
Gloom and Doom on the Horizon...I'm going to Starbuck's to calm down :-)
Don't forget your gun ;)
In my opinion, any feelings of gloom and doom are highly exaggerated. Trust the Constitution and the process. Any treaty has to go to the Senate for advice and then to committee. After Senate consent, it goes back to the President for ratification. I don't foresee the US ever having a gun-grabbing Senate.
Heller, while on the surface, appeared to be a favorable decision for the 2nd was not. I knew this within 15 minutes, and after months of analyzing, some of those in the pro-gun groups now agree with my interpretation. Larry Pratt, the head of Gun Owners of America, agreed with me.
Heller's decision allows the government to regulate any firearms out of existence. It protects an individual right to own any firearm that the government will allow. The second amendment, which is actually a militia amendment, demands that the individual be armed with the latest technology that can maintain a "free state."
After several months the anti-gun community realized the fact that the decision gave them a lot of avenues to ban guns. There are now many bills in the states, and federal government designed to regulate.
So, her statements using Heller says to me that she will come down on the side of regulation.
Nick, yes, exactly--they are intent on preserving power to restrict through regulation. Some of us were saying that back when Heller was still Parker, and even before that.
RSBL--a con con would have no moral authority to eradicate RKBA. After all, they didn't give us the right.
Nice job David you "carried the day" and held the crowd with a history we sometimes forget..
Only 4 million people in the NRA, but there are 300 million Americans...why does a minority group have such sway?
I have to admit I know nothing about this lady but I must also admit that, IF she answered these questions truthfully and sincerely, those answers do give me some level of comfort.
I don't think we can ever expect to KNOW in advance how a prospective SC justice might actually rule once on the bench.
I would like to see legislation in the near future, possibly after the 2012 elections (if there are any), that would provide a due process manner to remove a judge from a lifetime appointment if they don't issue rulings that a majority of Americans believe are commensurate with the Constitution.
No treaty can "trump" the U.S. Constitution in America! And, even if they try to outlaw firearms, they still have to do the dirty work of coming and confiscating them - another "day that will live in infamy."
To NRA SUCKS: Because we have guns and are willing and know how to use them if it becomes necessary. My grandkids are already dedicated Second Amendment supporters so your dreams of disarming the people, say like in WWII Germany, will go no further in the future.
We in the 2A community are gearing up our training and message to introduce more and more young people to the shooting sports and benefits of gun ownership. It's the only way to preserve our rights and freedoms for our posterity.
To all you 2A supporters: We need your help so get active and involved with your local gun clubs and ranges etc. Appleseed, CMP etc.
Thanks.
A View on Elena Kagan’s appointment:
The Constitution doesn’t require a Supreme Court justice to be a lawyer or to have ever been a judge. Maybe it’s a good idea to have someone on the bench who has never had an occasion to make judicial decisions that she doesn’t have to live with. I have observed over 40 years in the criminal justice that a well read peace officer generally knows criminal law better than the typical lawyer. The peace officer deals with penal codes and codes of criminal procedure, and is required to make life altering decisions on a day-to-day basis, while the typical lawyer does so only when preparing for trial or researching a particular question of law. My guess is that most of you reading this comment have a better understanding of the Constitution than do most lawyers and judges for the simple reason that you actually read the Constitution rather than just reading other people’s opinions on the Constitution.
[W3]
David,
I really enjoyed your history lesson and will be hauling out my Thomas Paine for a re-read. Am looking forward to seeing part II.
[W3]
I'm sure she's just another pre-programmed authori-bot.
To NRA sucks: I am a socialist (not a democrat, a real life socialist) and I am a life member of the NRA. Yeah they are mostly a bunch of idiots. Yet I do not trust the democrats when it comes to my gun rights anymore than an unemployed person trust the GOP to support a safety net for poor people (or common people in general). I got a surprise for you though with that last comment... the democrats also do not care about poor people. Both parties only care and answer to people worth 8+ digits (no decimal points).
She is a lawyer. What she says does not mean what the peons think it does.
NRA SUCKS! says:
Only 4 million people in the NRA, but there are 300 million Americans...why does a minority group have such sway?
Well, of all of the non-profit groups, NEA, NOW, ACORN, etc., NRA is by far the largest in membership and dollars.
Hmmmmm..... Is Kagan Anti-gun? Ummmmmmmm.... Well she's a Marxist who doesn't like the First amendment. Not enough governmental controls on free speech for her...
Yeah, I know but is she anti-gun?
#$*&*%*$!@* !!!
Nick, I wrote the very same thing with analysis of the wording of Heller the day the decision was published. All the "smart" 2A advocates pretty much tried a beat down on me. Now, they are seeing I and others were right, but they will present their brand new "discoveries" as original thought that those who saw it first weren't "qualified to see". And then they will plead for more pragmatism. I thank God daily that I am not that "smart". It would be too damn embarrassing.
The problem with the Courts, Congress and Washington DC is that they are full of lawyers! We need fewer lawyers and career politicians in public office and more good citizens with good old fashion common sense running our states and nation. We need to get back to the basics (The Constitution & the Bill of Rights) these documents are pretty straightforward. If there are any misconceptions as to their true meaning all one needs do is read the opinions & thoughts of our founding fathers for clarification. The Constitution isn't flawed, it isn't subject to some lawyers/politicians interpretation, & it isn't a living-breathing document... It sez what it sez and it means exactly what it means. Period. It's written in English so even a lawyer could understand it. It's time we the American people took our country back, It's time to throw the Lawyers and carrier Politicians out of office and reestablished the rule of law in this country that are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
In brief. The SCOTUS intentionally narrowed the question they chose to render an opinion on in such a way as to avoid revealing the fact that the Federal gov’t has been in violation of the law written via the IIA prohibiting so much as an ‘infringement’ on the RotptKABA since the 1930’s.
Their ruling effectively sanctioned every rights-violating law previously enacted by the D.C. Counsel with exception given to the uh, right, to uh, legally keep a handgun and a working firearm, but, uh, only in the home. While begrudgingly admitting the RKBA to be a right, they set a legal precedent for reasonable restrictions on the part of gov’t. on this right.
The D.C. gov’t is now uh, 'working out the details' for what will be used in the future as the National Standard for all legal civilian ownership of any and every firearm.
Registration, forms, taxes, fees, background checks, fingerprints, ballistic testing and permission by gov’t officials to legally own a firearm, uh, in your home.
Elena Kagan, as a law clerk, wrote an opinion for Justice Thurgood Marshall about whether to hear a case in 1987 that was eerily identical to the Heller case of recent years. Her reasoning for denying the appeal was "I am not sympathetic". www.fed-soc.org/docLib/20100603_SecondAmendment.pdf
This document clearly states what Kagan's opinion on Heller would be, and thus why she is unfit for the Supreme Court.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!