Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment

Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment

This is a discussion on Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Suprise!! The American Civil Rights Union, Protecting the civil rights of all Americans Ken Klukowski: Elena Kagan's Opposition to Gun Rights www.theacru.org By Ken Klukowski ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 74
  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment

    Suprise!!

    The American Civil Rights Union, Protecting the civil rights of all Americans

    Ken Klukowski: Elena Kagan's Opposition to Gun Rights


    www.theacru.org



    By Ken Klukowski
    May 13, 2010

    A third instance of Elena Kagan opposing Americans' Second Amendment
    right to own a gun has now become public, and is sure to become a
    major issue in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. And it
    confirms that President Obama's gun-control agenda is to create a
    Supreme Court that will "reinterpret" the Second Amendment until that
    amendment means nothing at all.

    This year, no case on the Supreme Court docket is more important than
    McDonald v. Chicago, where the Court is deciding whether the Second
    Amendment right to keep and bear arms is only a right you have against
    the federal government, or instead if the Second Amendment (like most
    of the Bill of Rights) also secures a right you can assert against
    state and local governments. At issue is whether Chicago's law banning
    all guns even in your own home is constitutional.

    When the Supreme Court considered its last Second Amendment case,
    District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, then-U.S. Solicitor General
    Paul Clement filed a brief in the case, and then requested and
    received time to argue the federal government's position in that case
    as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

    When the McDonald case was argued before the Court on March 2 of this
    year, current Solicitor General Kagan argued... Nothing. Not only did
    she not ask for time during oral argument, she didn't even file a
    brief (which the solicitor general routinely does in important
    constitutional cases and the McDonald case is monumentally important).

    If someone asserts that the solicitor general shouldn't file a brief
    because it's a state matter as to whether the Second Amendment is
    "incorporated" to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (which
    is the issue in McDonald) the record speaks to the contrary. The last
    time the Supreme Court "incorporated" a right from the Bill of Rights
    to the states, in the 1969 case Benton v. Maryland, the solicitor
    general filed a brief, and then (just like Heller in 2008) got divided
    argument time to express the government's views in front of the Court.

    Why wouldn't Kagan file a brief expressing the view of over 75% of
    Americans that the Second Amendment is an individual right, one that
    every American citizen has against all levels of government?

    Aside from her shocking decision not to file a brief in McDonald,
    we've learned that Elena Kagan was part of the Clinton White House's
    gun-control efforts, where a Clinton staffer said, "We are taking the
    law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of
    guns."

    Then it became public that when the Supreme Court was asked in 1987 to
    decide if the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional (the same law that the
    Court eventually struck down in Heller), Kagan wrote to Justice
    Marshall on the Court that she was "not sympathetic" toward the
    argument that the Second Amendment doesn't allow D.C. to completely
    ban all guns.

    Three anti-gun decisions. Three strikes, and you're out.

    The bottom line is that Barack Obama supports the Chicago gun ban, a
    position he publicly repeated as recently as June 26, 2008 (the day
    the Heller decision was released). President Obama believes that
    there's nothing unconstitutional about the city or even the whole
    state where you live completely banning you from having any firearms
    for hunting or self-defense, even in your own home.

    As my coauthor Ken Blackwell and I discuss in our new bestselling
    book, The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and
    Build an Imperial Presidency, President Obama's gun-control agenda is
    to create a Supreme Court that will repeatedly rule that whatever gun-
    control laws come before it are okay. No matter how severe the anti-
    gun measure is, the Court will say, "This is constitutional."

    President Obama the most anti-gun president is American history has
    nominated for our highest court a close personal friend of his. And
    now we see that Obama has every reason to believe that his close
    personal friend shares his radical view on the Second Amendment, one
    that will work against the constitutional rights of 90 million
    American gun owners.

    Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings this summer could get very
    interesting. America's gun owners have a way of making their voices
    heard.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro


  2. #2
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Well, like it or not, she's going to be the new Justice on the High Court.

    The best way to look at it is there's a zero sum gain as she is replacing another liberal on the court. That's about the best that can be said.

    I just hope the remaining conservative and constitutional Justices stay healthy and don't retire under Obama's administration.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    It is significant that supreme court appointees are seldom seriously questioned about their views on the 2nd Amendment. The political hacks in congress
    are more concerned about feel good stuff.

  4. #4
    Ex Member Array Cold Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    West Carrollton, Ohio
    Posts
    1,059
    And somebody is surpised because...?

  5. #5
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    And somebody is surpised because...?
    Exactly. Obama nomination. What did you expect?I am sure she was properly vetted in the Marxist ways before she was selected.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,994
    No surprise. Had it not been on her resume and stamped on her forehead, at least when read between the lines, she never would have been considered for nomination.

    ... or instead if the Second Amendment (like most of the Bill of Rights) also secures a right you can assert against state and local governments. At issue is whether Chicago's law banning all guns even in your own home is constitutional.
    It continually astounds me how these questions can even be an issue. They are, of course, because of what has been taken from the People.

    The war of independence was fought to secure the right of free individuals to speak, associate, bear arms, redress for grievances, be defended, not be accused or taken without due process, and the whole truckload.

    The People were intended to be free, with these liberties intact. The misreading of the Constitution that allowed appalling laws to be inflicted upon the People would never have been so broadly accepted in the case of the 1A. But with weapons and the 2A, it's claimed to be only a right of organized militias under the command of government, not even an individual right, only applies to a federal yoke but not one of a state, covers "carrying" but not concealed (or even openly) if an entity but bans it, blah blah blah.

    The People were meant to have these liberties. A war was fought to secure these liberties. It was recognized that without these, the People would not be free. The protections were put in place to (hopefully) withstand the depredations of a tyrannical and abusive government that operated separate from and against the People. The bulk of the historical record supports this. IMO, it's that simple.

    If the robes have any honor, they'll seek to restore what has been taken from everyone these past ~150yrs. Though, I fear they'll all take the political path and fail in their duty, yet again. Bits and drabs are what we can expect, this time 'round the wheel.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    I just want to quibble a bit with the thread title, "(X) opposes Americans' Second Amendment"

    I seldom hear people say, or see them write, that they oppose an article in the BOR anymore than someone will say they oppose our constitution as a whole.

    I do often hear lots of people argue, or write argument, about what one of the first ten amendments means in practical everyday terms.

    Reasonable people disagree about the meaning of almost every word and phrase in our constitution. We call them judges, lawyers, politicians, editorial writers, insightful, irrational, solid, nuts, and so forth.

    We have our point of view.

    One of these days, maybe The Supremes will provide clarity and agree with us. Maybe they won't.

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,085
    The Constitution is quite clear. You don't need to rationalize and strain the meaning of it unless you are violating it. This pile Kagan doesn't see that and does not deserve the bench seat she is going to be getting.

  9. #9
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    The Constitution is quite clear. You don't need to rationalize and strain the meaning of it unless you are violating it. This pile Kagan doesn't see that and does not deserve the bench seat she is going to be getting.
    Exactly. They wrote it that way on purpose.

    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

    "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage

    GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array obxned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OBX, NC
    Posts
    2,655

    Elena Kagan opposes Americans' Second Amendment

    She is not real fond of the rest of the Bill of Rights either.
    "If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan

  11. #11
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    Fools that believe they are smarter than everybody else often make the mistake of underestimating the people they scorn. When the sleeping giant finally awakes, seeing his gun rights and many other sacred rights have been taken away, he will fight with his bare hands, if necessary, against the tyrant. They can't kill us all, for if they do, they will find no one left to pay for their tyranny.

  12. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662

    re: Gun Geezer

    Quote Originally Posted by GunGeezer View Post
    Fools that believe they are smarter than everybody else ...
    You mean like the rest of us offering our views on things that have been before the courts innumerable times during the life of our country? We are smarter than generations of Federal Judges?

    Its not like lawyers and judges and prosecutors and legislators don't wrestle with the meaning and scope of 2A every single day; and have, since the very start of our country.

    If it were crystal clear there wouldn't be any controversy, now would there?
    Last edited by Hopyard; May 28th, 2010 at 04:10 PM. Reason: corrected a punctuation mark.

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    The lawyers, judges, prosecutors and legislators who wrestle with the scope and meaning of 2A every day have a liberal agenda and are trying to argue the meaning of words to suit their needs. Not unlike W J Clinton's obvious lie to a congressional committee about the Monika Lewinski affair. I find the spirit and meaning of 2A crystal clear.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    Well, like it or not, she's going to be the new Justice on the High Court.

    The best way to look at it is there's a zero sum gain as she is replacing another liberal on the court. That's about the best that can be said.

    I just hope the remaining conservative and constitutional Justices stay healthy and don't retire under Obama's administration.
    This. ^^

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  15. #15
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662

    re: Gun Geezer

    Quote Originally Posted by GunGeezer View Post
    The lawyers, judges, prosecutors and legislators who wrestle with the scope and meaning of 2A every day have a liberal agenda and are trying to argue the meaning of words to suit their needs. Not unlike W J Clinton's obvious lie to a congressional committee about the Monika Lewinski affair. I find the spirit and meaning of 2A crystal clear.
    You mean in all of our two hundred year history we didn't have conservative judges? You know, the ones who upheld slavery, upheld Jim Crowe, allowed internment of Japanese and more?

    Look, I didn't post what I posted to argue with you or get involved in name calling, liberal or conservative viewpoints, or rehash the Lewinski mess--not that that is in any way relevant to this thread.

    I was merely pointing out that everyone who claims the words and the meaning are clear and apparent (on either side actually) is being rather naive. Were the words and their meaning clear and apparent, we wouldn't be holding these discussions. Cases wouldn't be pending with The Supremes either. It all would have been settled 220 years ago.

    If there is one part of the BOR which actually is not clear and apparent in meaning, either way, it is 2A. And there is 200 + years of jurisprudence to make that rather obvious.

    We have folks here who will not agree that 2A is a limit on state's behavior. We have other folks here who will insist that 2A should limit state's behavior. The former is the conservative position but means also that IL, CA, etc., can do what they darn well please on gun laws. The latter is a liberal viewpoint, but would mean that 2A actually applies to the states.

    Once we get that far, and the Supremes haven't gotten there yet, we still need to hear from them as to how broadly or narrowly they will interpret its meaning with respect to what ordinary citizens may or may not do.

    When it comes to interpreting our constitution, we aren't "the deciders."

    Now frankly, I do not think The Supremes--and I'm talking here actually about Scalia himself and Alito-- are going to be very generous toward broad 2A freedom. They are both too pro-authoritarian in their outlook. They didn't bite the apple very deeply the chance they had in Heller. And not only that, the courts have always upheld the innumerable restrictions on gun possession in various Federal enclaves and property. The courts could not do that if the meaning of the phrase "shall not be infringed"s were as clear as we think it is.

    Now back to Kagan, I think she will take the liberal view that 2A is incorporated through the 14th amendment.
    What might flow from that determination (which Scalia hinted at as his position too), who knows.

    BTW, it has been reported recently that Scalia took the unusual step of commenting publicly and apparently favorably on her qualifications for the position of Justice of the Supreme Court.

    The future as usual (especially with SC decision making) is unpredictable.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Elena Kagan at gun range???
    By DaveH in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 25th, 2010, 08:34 PM
  2. Halloran Opposes Proposed Rule Amendment Regarding Gun Licenses
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 26th, 2010, 02:59 PM
  3. Fight Elena Kagan nomination at SCOTUS
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: July 1st, 2010, 10:38 PM
  4. NRA Issues Gag Order to Its Board Members on Anti-Gun Elena Kagan Hearings
    By Sgt Z Squad in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 30th, 2010, 08:53 PM
  5. Second Amendment Protects All Americans, Supreme Court Told
    By JonInNY in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 18th, 2009, 10:01 AM

Search tags for this page

elena kagan opposing american second amendment

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors