Kagan's is going to be an interesting confirmation process. She already has more far-left liberals decrying her than right-leaning folk. Hm.
I have much reading to do, but here's what I've found of her 2A stance, focusing on
Heller, from
Kagan's responses during her Solicitor General nomination proceedings in early 2009.
Senator Grassley wrote:This past year, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, regardless of their participation in a “well regulated militia.” President-elect Obama stated that he supported an individual’s right to possess a firearm and signaled his support for the Heller decision. What is your personal opinion of the rights afforded by the Second Amendment?
Ms. Kagan wrote:The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Court granted this right the same status as other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as those protected in the First Amendment. Like other nominees to the Solicitor General position, I have refrained from providing my personal opinions of constitutional law (except in areas where I previously have stated opinions), both because those opinions will play no part in my official decisions and because such statements of opinion might be used to undermine the interests of the United States in litigation. I can say, however, that I understand the Solicitor General’s obligations to include deep respect for Supreme Court precedents like Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally. There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
Senator Grassley wrote:If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect an individual’s right to possess a
firearm?
Ms. Kagan wrote:If I am confirmed, I will commit to show Heller and the principles articulated in it the full measure of respect that is due to all constitutional decisions of the Court. Only highly unusual circumstances can justify the
Solicitor General’s office in asking the Court to reconsider a decision, especially one as thoroughly considered as Heller. Once again, 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.
Senator Tom Coburn, in follow-up questions wrote:Please discuss your view of the Second Amendment, in light of the recent Heller decision. I would like to better understand the lens through which you view this right, as you will surely be faced with related legislation as Solicitor General.
Ms. Kagan wrote:The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. In light of this right, the Court invalidated a ban on handgun possession in the home. At the same time, the Court stated that “some measures regulating” firearms would comport with this constitutional right. Essentially, the Court made clear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms should be treated like any other constitutional right – the Court, for example, offered an analogy to the First Amendment – providing strong but not unlimited protection. As I indicated at my confirmation hearing, my concept of the Solicitor General’s role includes respect for Supreme Court precedents such as Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally.
Senator Specter wrote:Would you ever give weight to other nations’ restrictions on gun rights when interpreting the Second Amendment?
Ms. Kagan wrote:A number of the Justices have considered foreign law in the Eighth Amendment context, where the Court’s inquiry often focuses on “evolving standards of decency” and then on the level of consensus favoring or disfavoring certain practices. By contrast, none of the Justices relied on other nations’ restrictions on gun rights in their opinions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and the grounded historical approach adopted in that case (and echoed even in the
dissents) would grant no relevance to arguments from comparative law in defining the scope of the Second Amendment right.