If Kagan gets appointed as the new 'justice' to the Supremes, those of us who understand and appreciate the protections currently afforded our 'Right to keep and bear arms' under the Constitution of the United States have just been put on notice that she intends to remove that protection as soon as possible. You may want to let your Senator know your thoughts on her being appointed as the 'Obama Surrogate' to the highest court in the land. Once she's in, it's all over but the cryin' ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-12/kagan-said-she-was-not-sympathetic-toward-gun-rights-claim-in-1987-memo.html

Kagan Said She Was `Not Sympathetic' Toward Gun-Rights Claim

By Greg Stohr and Kristin Jensen - May 13, 2010

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.”

Kagan, currently the U.S. solicitor general, has made few public remarks about the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled, in a case that overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, that the Constitution protects individual gun rights.

As a nominee to be solicitor general last year, Kagan told lawmakers that she accepted that 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court.

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” she said.

Review Denied

The Heller decision left room for states to require registration of weapons. The majority also said the ruling didn’t cast doubt on laws barring handgun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill, or restrictions on bringing guns into schools or government buildings.

The lower court ruling in the 1987 case, issued by the District of Columbia’s highest court, said the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to raise militias, and not individual gun rights. The ruling upheld Lee Sandidge’s conviction for carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.

The high court refused to hear the case, known as Sandidge v. United States. The memo to Marshall, found in his papers at the Library of Congress, includes a handwritten “D,” indicating that he was among those who voted to deny review.

oh yes, I would much rather ANY American who wants a gun own one,,,,,,,,

where the law requires a license and you have none,, Im not sympathetic either,,,,,what happened to illegal being illegal, what happened to the outrage about people crossing the border without proper documentation,,,but people having GUNS without documentation is a constitutional outrage?


I dont quite get it,,,

Very good question.

The " black and white " answer would be that the Constitution of this country has a direct statement in it about the people of this country having the " right to keep and bear arms ".

However, if a municipality or state decides that those weapons should be licensed, and makes that a law, then that is enough for me.

One thing to keep in mind is that, while pistols have to be registered, shotguns and rifles ( unless they are assault rifles ) do not have to be.

Requiring a license for a handgun, in my opinion, doesn't infringe on the right to bear arms.

After all, you can have all the shotguns and rifles you want. They are just MUCH more difficult to conceal and carry around with you.

As far as the outrage about illegals...show everyone where in the Constitution it states that they have the right to cross our borders illegally.

I do agree that the laws shouldn't be selectively enforced depending on one's personal opinions on any given subject.

Enforce them all equally, or enforce none of them.

There is a constitutional right to bear arms, there is no such right to enter the country how and whenever you please..

pretty simple I think..

Just one li'l problem here: States and municipalities do NOT supercede the U. S. Constitution.

its actually not simple,constitutional rights do have limits,, just like free speech doesnt permit you to yell fire in a crowded theater,,etc,,,,,there are common sense guidelines those with common sense should be able to figure out, not EVERYONE by mere essense of being american can and should be trusted or have access to a gun,

along with the constitutional right to bear arms is the STATE requirement for licensing,, if you dont have it, you are breaking the law,,,period

Again, you can own all the guns you want. You can own an entire warehouse full of them if you choose.

Shotguns and rifles are not required ( at least where I live ) to be registered.

Asking ( requiring ) handguns to be registered doesn't infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

The CONSTITUTION does not list 'registration' as a REQUIREMENT or CONDITION of the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Anti-gun zealots DO list 'registration' ... remember Germany in the '30s?

Stop with the paranoia. Seriously.

Handgun registration has been required for a good many years. No one has come along and tried to take away everyone's guns. Some laws are made for the good of the general population. Which is EXACTLY what our elected officials are elected FOR. There were an awful lot of instances of mentally unstable people getting hold of handguns and shooting a whole crapload of people. The registration laws ( and the waiting period involved ) were steps to make sure that mentally unstable people would be less likely to be able to buy weapons with which to kill masses of people. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from those laws. They simply have to wait 30 days to purchase a handgun. So what?

They won't be sending out the Gestapo ( to reference your Nazi Germany statements ) to collect everyone's guns any time soon.

There are simply too many people in this country for that to be a feasible idea.

Not to mention, if they WERE to try that, they KNOW they would face more resistance that it would be worth.

They may be devious, but they are not stupid.

this is, as usual , the problem with the Constitution,,,it wasnt exactly SPECIFIC about conditions or requirements and even its WORDING leaves constitutional scholars debating whether the right referred to individual citizens, militias, or state governments,,, whether it pertained to keeping and bearing on private property or in public, etc,,,


perhaps an amendment is in order, but as the law stands licensing is required and if you dont have it,, you break the law, and you have no sympathy

It's so easy to get the people who want to take our guns away to self-identify ...

Ever think about the fact that the Constitution is a bit like the Bible??

Some people take every word of it literally. No room for interpretation.

Some folks refuse to accept that it was written in a time that was very, VERY different from the time we now live in and that not all of it SHOULD be taken as " gospel " so to speak.

The Constitution IS an extremely important document. But the intention behind it, in my opinion, was that it was set forth for the better good of the masses. Therefore, it has been amended many times to SUIT the times.

Really?? Would it, perchance, be ANYONE who doesn't agree with your position??

I live in an area that is big on hunting. I know of no one here ( including myself ) who thinks that taking away all guns is a good idea.

I also know that, around here, it simply couldn't happen.

yes, I have, and I am glad that amendments are possible.

Only difference is that the Constitution is the law of the land,,enforced on us ALL while we are living,,,the Bible is the law of God, which we can choose or not choose with no mandated or humanly enforced consequence.

Actually, I regard the 'bible' as an interesting story only ... I can't put a lot of credence into something written 300 years AFTER the fact. That is NOT the case with the CONSTITUTION. I will NEVER agree to the chipping away of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT by incrementalism which removes 'em bit by bit until we wake up to find it gone. Want examples? Look at the 4th Amendment. And while we're on the topic, I will never support the concept of a 'Constitutional Convention' with the current crop of Libs, 'Progressives', and Communists who'd be in attendance to re-write the governing document of our nation.

actually, MOST of the bible was written Before Christ, and the four gospels are believed to have been written closer to 70 AD


and as far as the constitution, good luck living in a MODERN CULTURE where every maniac, extremist, mentally or emotionally ill person who happens to be a citizen is carrying a gun,,,,

Im glad for the regulations,,,,people have different lifestyles, different resources, and FAR different values than when the constitution was written

If I had a hand gun I would be glad to register it cause I have nothing to hide.

Are you an ex-vet?
Have you ever in your life expressed a dissatisfaction with the Gov.?
Did you ever support Ron Paul?
Are you a conservative?

Answer yes to any of those questions and all firearms, registered or not could legally be confiscated and you could also be held indefinitely without any one knowing where you was.

Don't believe it? Check the Patriot Act.

I don't see the need for registration any longer. Rim fire ammunition sold now has tracking numbers and you sign to buy them. They know what you have by the numbers.

BTW. If you're caught with ammo that is not trackable, it's a Federal crime. They'll jump over any illegal to get to you.

MsHaminy, I don't understand. Please, help me out here.

On one hand you say freedom of speech has its limits.

On another thread, you state some folks aren't restricted to these limits.

Like carrying a gun and yelling, let's kill Americans. Does that cross a line or no. I'm a bit confused here.

Another point. Should that person be permitted access to a firearm?

Help me out here, please.

I never stated 'some folks arent restricted'

lol,,,was newton ever charged with not being LICENSED to have those guns? if so , thats another issue,, nice deflection though

if he broke a licensing law, I am sure it was addressed at that time and rightly so,,,, the limits on freedom of speech applied to him as well, but I dont know of him yelling fire in a crowded theater(or yelling lets kill americans, lets face it, that would have made him an instant target and the feds job much easier) or inciting anyone to a state of panic that would cause harm,,,,


of course, I am only going on the word of literature and my BLACK FAMILY members who lived during that time,,, it may have been more peaceful to sit back and take whatever the segregationist laws and racist authorities(those who were racist, not stating at all that every authority was though) did to him or his loved ones or his community,, it may have been EASIER for all for those discriminated against to just accept second class citizenship,,,but he chose another option which I think for the conditions in those times was understandable....


perhaps you could help me out though,, what are a people to do if , when faced with being excluded from representation or aknowledgement in their country they are told on one hand they should be 'doing it for themself' and then on the other hand (when they do it for themself) they are accused of 'reverse racism' or discrimination

which is it,, should people fight for their own rights when their rights are non existent or violated or is that just SEPERATIST, DEFEATIST, and RACIST behavior