• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Kagan's Gun Problem

    Elena Kagan may be hostile to the view that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protects American’s individual right to keep and bear arms.  Bloomberg reports today, “Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument.”  With the evidence presented by the Los Angeles Times that Kagan was very active in the gun control agenda during her time as counsel for the President Bill Clinton Administration, a thorough examination of Kagan’s views on the 2nd Amendment is merited.

    Bloomberg Reports that “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.”  In the wake of the District of Columbia v. Heller decision holding that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, it is incumbent upon Senators to explore the views of Solicitor General Elena Kagan on American’s civil right to own a firearm. More from Bloomberg:

    Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal. 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.”

    This should open up an inquiry about Elena Kagan’s views on gun rights.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    22 Responses to Kagan's Gun Problem

    1. Pingback: Kagan “Not Sympathetic” Towards Rights of the People | RedState

    2. Pingback: Elena Kagan « Quarter Pounders

    3. Pingback: Kagan’s Gun Problem

    4. Jim - Ohio says:

      Law abiding citizens with guns are not the problem, and the progressives know it.

      They want us unarmed so that they can do what they want to us without a fight.

      Our constitution absolutely says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms,

      shall not be infringed', period. 'Outlaw guns and only Outlaws will have them".

      You will "NEVER" succeed in dis-arming Americans. We are the people who

      take up arms and die to defend our freedoms, and because 14% of the population

      wants us slaves, NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

    5. ChuckL says:

      It appears to me that Elena Kagan believes that the Constitution of the United States is obsolete and just a big impediment to progress in controlling the population of the country.

      Can anyone else say "Dictatorship"?

    6. Pingback: Today in Washington, May 14, 2010 | RedState

    7. Don Broome - Cumming says:

      There is so very much we don't know about elena kagan's position on so many and varied subjects. which can, and will, effect each and every one us. And now, just to prove his point that she will make a very good judge, barack obama has closeted ms. kagan and her family from the press, which effectively means she is closeted from the american public. Will he also preclude the senate's "advice and consent"??

    8. Ron R says:

      I've got one word in response to this woman's views exposed here – and that is a resounding NO as a candidate for Supreme Court Justice !!

      Beyond the additional problem of her NEVER SERVING AS A SITTING JUDGE IN ANY POSITION – and yet STILL being proposed by the Obama Administration for a seat on the Supreme Court – THE VERY IDEA OF SEATING SOMEONE ON THE SUPREME COURT WITH A PREDISPOSED DISPOSITION IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL IS ABSOLUTELY AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – The VERY CONSTITUTION THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS – ALL THE WAY UP TO THE PRESIDENT – ARE SWORN TO PROTECT !!! How in the H3LL can ANYONE support this woman for a seat on the NATIONS HIGHEST COURT ?!?!?!?

      Just ONE MORE STEP in a direction that the American public NEEDS TO PAY ATTENTION TO !!!!

    9. Ron R, FL says:

      I’ve got one word in response to this woman’s views exposed here – and that is a resounding NO as a candidate for Supreme Court Justice !!

      Beyond the additional problem of her NEVER SERVING AS A SITTING JUDGE IN ANY POSITION – and yet STILL being proposed by the Obama Administration for a seat on the Supreme Court – THE VERY IDEA OF SEATING SOMEONE ON THE SUPREME COURT WITH A PREDISPOSED DISPOSITION IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL IS ABSOLUTELY AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – The VERY CONSTITUTION THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS – ALL THE WAY UP TO THE PRESIDENT – ARE SWORN TO PROTECT !!! How in the H3LL can ANYONE support this woman for a seat on the NATIONS HIGHEST COURT ?!?!?!?

      Just ONE MORE STEP in a direction that the American public NEEDS TO PAY ATTENTION TO !!!!

    10. Sherry - Avon, Ma says:

      What did you expect from Obumma to nominate someone who is as far left as he is. This woman who isn't even a judge, has an agenda. They want to strip every thing from us till we have no dignity left. But guess what their dignity will be gone this November. I cant stand anymore. There are law abiding citizens that want to protect themselves and they think we are so stupid that we cant handle a gun when someone breaks into our house. They are out of their minds.

    11. Bobby Richardson Rot says:

      obama complies totally with the dictates of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

      To nominate this woman and get her confirmed would be just one step closer to achieving communist nirvana. Marx states "the end justifies the means". Therefore, the spin obama and his ghost cabinet and his puppets in congress put on her qualifications adhears to the lie, steal and/or cheat philosophy of Marx.

      Beware of the Wolf in Sheep's clothing.

    12. Pingback: Wonk Room » Right-Wing Lawmakers Demand SCOTUS Nominee Kagan Flank To The Right Of Scalia

    13. Christopher Keller G says:

      This administrarion is anti gun anti self defense anti properyt rights!!! I does not suprise me that the President picks a court nominee who has the same iedology like his!!!

    14. Pingback: Elena Kagan’s Gun Problem | Magnetic Expansion Business Site's

    15. Stephan Bowles, Wald says:

      Kagan's nomination is a preventive shot by President Obama to ensure a majority of gun control advocates are on the Supreme Court to eventually hear, AND SUPPORT, challenges to the United Nations Treaty that Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton has already supported. The Treaty will bring about worldwide gun control measures and limitations. Look not just to the past………look to the future and prepare to defend ourselves as President Obama and his friends/allies are doing.

    16. william stewart, mos says:

      nobody can justifiably support only the rights he or she agrees with. A judge should be (but seldom ever is) unbiased, ruling only on the constitutionality of an issue. also, many people think the constitution grants rights. it does not. it merely guarantees the rights already endowed by our creator, among which is our right to defend ourselves.

    17. Bear Strommer - Jone says:

      I was looking for more of a stance on the gun control issue.

      I hear a large number of people who say that Kagan is one of

      many who are trying to take away our rights to own guns.

      I have a hard time believing this.

      Can anyone clarify whether or not she supports complete gun control,

      or just in specific circumstances ???????

      Such as a persons right to carry an unlicensed gun.

      I might agree on some issues – and strongly dissagree on others.

    18. Rose Wisconsin says:

      They all call it "gun control". Well, I believe it is Freedom. The Freedom to bear arms if one so desires. They not only want our guns…they want to contol us and take our FREEDOM by way of making void the 2nd Ammendment.

    19. Eddie Louisiana says:

      these people would love to get the 2nd Ammendant minimized therefore making it easier to get the 1st Ammendant minimized. The Senate should never confirm anyone not will to protect and defend the Constituion as it was intended. We at one time called that TREASON

    20. Pingback: Michelle Malkin » SCOTUS theater: Kagan kabuki

    21. Pingback: Hot Air » Kagan proving to be an elusive target

    22. Jude Ca says:

      Her thinking, no surprise, is much like the ff. example: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states. "[I]f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms."

      Later in the arguments Roberts disputed that notion. "I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty, not any abstract system of ordered liberty. You can say Japan is a free country, but it doesn't have the right to trial by — by jury."

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×