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.
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.”
I'm sure that's enough for the gun folks to fear her, but is it really all that worrisome? Isn't a 2nd Amendment argument by a criminal illegally in possession of a gun weak at best? Do gun rights people demand total loyalty to the 2nd Amendment, even applying it to situations like this?
I've got an idea, maybe someone should research Ms. Kagan's high school diaries. She might have made some disparaging remarks about guns in them, which would indicate how she really feels.
What do you think?