"Drab... Dowdy and dull... Frumpiness of the sort that federal Washington can't resist." These are some of the harsh observations of a Washington Post style writer about the fashion preferences of Elena Kagan, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court.
Okay, maybe Kagan is no Lady Gaga when it comes to fashion. But for most Americans, the way Kagan, who is Obama's Solicitor General, outfits herself is just fine. She's not competing to be America's Next Top Model. What's in her mind and her heart are far more important than what's on her back, neck, or her ring finger.
So far, I like what I've learned of Kagan's mind and heart from her past writings and job experiences. In a way, they mimic her style of dress -- responsible, sensible, and utilitarian -- especially when it comes to her perspective on gun laws.
What we know is that Kagan, as a lawyer during the Clinton Administration, wrote a 1997 memo that led to an executive order banning dozens of imported semi-automatic weapons -- similar to the types of weapons that were used recently to shoot 10 D. C. youths in a matter of seconds. Kagan's decision made sense then, and it would make sense now.
We also know that Kagan spent four years working for President Clinton as both a White House lawyer and senior domestic policy advisor. Those were the years that ultimately saw Clinton support, sign, and defend the ground-breaking and highly sensible Brady Law, which requires background checks on gun purchases made from federally licensed dealers. Over 1.8 million "prohibited purchasers" have been stopped from buying guns because of this law.
Additionally, while working for President Clinton, Kagan apparently was in the loop when the Clinton Administration fashioned reasonable steps to require child-safety trigger locks on handguns and when cities, such as Chicago, brought lawsuits against gun makers. American children - more than any other children in the developed world - have suffered inordinate amounts of injuries and death due to gun manufacturers' refusals to spend, in some cases, only a few more pennies, to make their products safer.
Meanwhile, Congress' inexcusable exemption of gun makers from consumer product safety regulations and protection from legal liability have made it nearly impossible for gun violence victims to hold gun makers responsible for the foreseeable, and preventable, tragedies caused by their lethal weapons.
We've learned, as well, that in 1987, during her tenure as a clerk with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, she drafted a memo urging that the Court not hear the appeal of a D.C. man convicted of carrying a pistol without a license, possessing an unlicensed gun, and unlawfully possessing ammunition. When Kagan noted to Marshall that she was "not sympathetic" to the man's argument that the District's firearms laws violated the Second Amendment, she was standing on solid legal ground. Until the 2008 Heller decision, Supreme Court precedent limited the "right to keep and bear arms" to service in "a well-regulated militia."
In answers to recent questions regarding the Second Amendment and Heller, Kagan has said she considers the new individual right settled law. But even now, firearms registration laws and prohibitions on carrying guns in public remain constitutional, as they do not infringe on the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to possess guns in the home for self-defense, which is the right recognized in Heller. The Court was emphatic in Heller that other strong gun regulations, including restrictions on who can buy guns and where guns are taken, are "presumptively lawful."
It has also been reported that Kagan, a Harvard-educated lawyer, who rose to become dean of Harvard Law School, left a legacy of being able to bring feuding faculty factions together to make progress on all sorts of issues.
Just weeks into her new post, Kagan exhibited her willingness to listen to a variety of perspectives on gun policy by moderating a debate hosted by the law school's target shooting club between gun-control advocates and 2nd Amendment gun rights proponents.
In the coming days, as reporters and legal scholars continue to sift through the 46,000 Kagan documents just released from the Clinton Library, we'll learn more about her take on the law. Later this month, when Senate hearings start on June 28, we'll hear her speak about her views.
In the meantime, it seems clear that, like her choice of fashion, Kagan hasn't pushed the gun law envelope to an eye-popping, jaw-dropping extreme. She appears to have a healthy respect for American judicial precedent and the recognition that reasonable limits on access to firearms can help save lives. The American public can be thankful for that. I certainly am.
An often repeated, but factually incorrect statement that Paul and his buddies hope will gain traction with the American public if it is bandied about frequently enough.
"But even now, firearms registration laws and prohibitions on carrying guns in public remain constitutional, as they do not infringe on the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to possess guns in the home for self-defense, which is the right recognized in Heller. The Court was emphatic in Heller that other strong gun regulations, including restrictions on who can buy guns and where guns are taken, are "presumptively lawful.""
Paul loves to spin this into something it is not. The court was not stating that all such laws will withstand judicial scrutiny under constitutional interpretation. All they were saying is don't consider these laws to be overturned until they are heard on a case by case basis. "Presumptively lawful" simply means that Heller should not be read to overturn these laws en masse, but it does not mean that the law(s) will not be overturned eventually.
There's no such thing as "presumptively lawful." What would that be? Presumptuous nonsense. Brought to us by the NRA script writers and posted on HP.
Even in Heller, which was a 5-4 decision on if the DC law violated the Second Amendment, all 9 justices agreed that the Second protects an individual right.
As for you assertion about the USSC having issued decisions that the Second/RKBA is a collective right, sorry, but you are flat out incorrect.
"There's no such thing as "presumptively lawful." "
Well maybe you better break that news to Helmke, Sugarmann, and Henigan, as they all are hanging their hat on it. Oh, and you might want to READ the Heller decision instead of the Clif Notes, since it was stated in Heller.
It makes me wonder what he's got against her.
Gee, I hope it's an intern.
If not, Paulie is a D.O.M..
*shudder*
Ms. Kagan should not be a pawn for the Brady Campaign.
The perpetuation of the We Win They Lose Now Let's Get to Work!(tm) meme will continue.....
Now, for whatever reason, the BC has decided that it supports Kagan's nomination. The reasons why amaze me. First, there is the false assertion that President Clinton imposed the "sporting purposes" import ban in 1997. This obnoxious regulatory change was actually the product of President George H.W. Bush in 1989. [Don't you guys do **ANY** fact checking? It's on the ATF web page.] Second, there is the assertion that her recommendation to deny certiorari in a gun case should be read more broadly. Look, the Supreme Court rejects 99% of cert. petitions and the fact that she recommended denial means absolutely nothing.
Which brings us back to -- the Brady Campaign really has no business commenting on judicial nominations.
When the trigger lock requirement went active, they were providing quality locks.
Now?
The last 3 guns I bought came with trigger locks that I can open with a toothpick.
Careful what you wish for, Paul.
I have no problems with Gun Mfgrs supplying locks. They're way more expensive at Bike Line.
Totally false.
Paul wrote: "prohibitions on carrying guns in public remain constitutional"
Not because of anything that was said in Heller, Paul. To the contrary, the clear implication of Heller is that carrying weapons in public places is protected, except in "sensitive places"
Paul wrote: "The Court was emphatic in Heller that other strong gun regulations, including restrictions on who can buy guns and where guns are taken, are "presumptively lawful.""
To the extent that convicted felons and those adjudicated mentally ill can be excluded, yes. To the extent of any other restrictions, Heller was silent. I believe it is quite apparent that those on a top secret government terrorist watch list can not be excluded under Heller, much to your chagrin, Paul. As to where guns can be carried, Heller employed the terminology "sensitive places" such as schools and government buildings. Sorry Paul, Starbucks does not qualify as a sensitive place.
How many have been prosecuted? Certainly NOT 1.8 million. If even 25,000 of those denied were prosecuted, things might be different. Instead, the vast majority of those 1.8 million were either those with outstanding bench warrants for trivial misdemeanor offenses, or mistaken identity. Those who jumped through the hoops, were able to purchase their firearm after several months. And of those who tried that truly were felons, only a fraction were prosecuted.
I agree with you Jar Head, the first step at keeping guns out of violent criminals hands is to keep violent criminals off the streets. This is hardly rocket science, and Paul and the Brady Campaign know it. The problem is, successes at reducing violent crime that are found by means other than anti-gun laws that support their anti-gun agenda actually undermine their agenda. That is why they never even acknowledge options at reducing violent crime that don't involve more anti-gun laws.
Incorrect djcrsn, although that was the claim made by Steven's dissent... the majority found two seperate rights, to wit to "keep arms" and to "bear arms"
Prohibition of firearm components based solely upon the country of origin and manufacture is unreasonable. Your advocacy of such prohibition is consistent with my observation that civilian disarmament advocates are irrational.
"Meanwhile, Congress' inexcusable exemption of gun makers from consumer product safety regulations and protection from legal liability have made it nearly impossible for gun violence victims to hold gun makers responsible for the foreseeable, and preventable, tragedies caused by their lethal weapons."
Your advocacy of attempting to bankrupt firearm manufacturers through the filing of frivolous lawsuits against such organizations by claiming them liable for criminal misuse of their lawfully produced and sold products is also consistent with my observation that civilian disarmament advocates are dishonest and irrational.
" Until the 2008 Heller decision, Supreme Court precedent limited the "right to keep and bear arms" to service in "a well-regulated militia."
Your claim is a demonstrable lie; such dishonesty is consistent with my observation that civilian disarmament advocates are dishonest and irrational.
Speaking of which, you will note that there is no authority whatsoever cited in support of the proposition that "Supreme Court precedent limited the 'right to keep and bear arms' to service in 'a well-regulated militia.'" Personally, as a practicing lawyer, whenever I say "Supreme Court precedent . . ." the next thing that follows is . . . citation to Supreme Court cases. Where is all this well established precedent? I am only aware of Miller v. United States, which intentionally dodged the issue.
Yep.
"which intentionally dodged the issue."
Actually it did not. The problem was that it was so poorly written (by one of the all time worst justices to ever sit on the bench of SCOTUS), that both sides could, with a straight face, claim that it supported their standpoint, either a weapons centric or militia centric ruling. That is unless and until they actually read the case cited by Miller in the crucial portion of the opinion which is the subject of the controversy.
Actually, Paul, if you read the entire Miller decision, you would find that your above statement is indeed incorrect, and has only been interpreted like that in the last 30 to 40 years, mostly by BC/VPC misdirection and misinterpretation.
The Miller "decision" simply found that a sawed off shotgun had not been shown to be a weapon that would be useful to the militia. For that reason, it was returned to the lower courts. Since Miller was dead before the SCOTUS hearing and the retrial, it became a defacto law, as the lower court could simply enter any judgment they wanted and no defendant would answer. Because of this, the law passed in 1934, I believe, was held to be constitutional, and machine guns, short barreled rifles/shotguns, and silencers were subject to an enhanced tax for possession. They were not outlawed, per se, just made too expensive for the general population to be able to afford to keep.
So, as you can see, the court found that the weapon did not fit with the militia, not that the right belonged to the militia.
Apparently she was not.
"Until the 2008 Heller decision, Supreme Court precedent limited the "right to keep and bear arms" to service in "a well-regulated militia."
An epic stretch indicative of the copious denial required to attenuate one's self to your radical agenda. How about some truth for a change?
I applaud you, sir. Not only could I have not said it better, I don't think I could have put together the sentiment nearly as succinctly. Bravo.
Right, like when a criminal steals a gun and the Brady Center tries to sue the manufacturer for crimes committed with it. That made about as much sense as sueing Coors after a 7/11 sells beer to an adult who then gives it to a minor.
The Brady Center just doesn't like the law because it threw out all their unfounded lawsuits, which they were hoping would be gold mine for years to come. Since they have no members or popular support, they need to get their money from somewhere, and these absurd lawsuits were going to be the answer to their prayers.
The city lawsuits against the gun industry were not about making guns safer. Modern guns already have all the safety features they need. The lawsuits were about money and assigning blame (mayors didn't want to take blame for their cities crime rates, so they tried to put it on gun makers). That's why the "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act" was needed to put those lawsuits where they belonged: In the trash bin.