To Thurgood Marshall,
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.”
She urged him to vote against hearing the man’s appeal in the case. Yet, when it came time to be confirmed as Solicitor General, she changed her mind. Bloomberg also reports
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.
Was this pandering to win approval? It reminds me of that infamous question, “Were you lying then or lying now?” The key phrase there is not unlimited protection. That leaves plenty of room for her brand of limits to be imposed on the citizens’ right to bear arms.
The memo to Thurgood Marshall probably reflects her true feelings. She probably would have voted in favor of the D.C. gun ban if she were on the Supreme Court. She will probably vote that way if another case comes before the Supreme Court.
Photo Credit: Public Domain from PublicDomainPhotos.net