Regarding gun laws, Kagan says she has “no reason to believe that the court’s analysis was faulty” in the 2008 Supreme Court case striking down the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control laws. And she added that her office would likely “continue to defend” against constitutional challenges on various federal regulations concerning firearms.
I'm not sure what that means exactly. Couldn't it be one of those ambiguous statements that could be followed with just about any kind of voting?
One thing I'll admit, she's not one of those ACLU types who believe the 2nd Amendment has been twisted and manipulated in recent years. Too bad for that.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.