Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley Tuesday questioned U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Elena Kagan’s commitment to the constitutional right to bear arms, an issue he rephrased multiple times in attempts to get her personal take on the issue.Avoidance is practiced by both Kagan and the NRA (see David Codrea's article: Is NRA squelching dissent on Kagan?
“You don’t want to tell us what your own personal belief is? That’s kind of what I’m asking,” Grassley said at one point.
Grassley was specifically inquiring about previous cases when the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment secures an individual’s right to own a firearm.
Kagan redirected answers multiple times to repeat what previous court decisions have found. She stated that a citizen’s right to own guns is “settled law.”
Back to the Register article:
Kagan, as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987, said she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who said that his constitutional rights had been violated when he was convicted of carrying an unlicensed pistol. At that time, no lower court precedent had been established, she said Tuesday.That reveals what she thinks.
Grassley questions Kagan’s personal commitment to gun rights
Also, Grassley struggles to get the words right, but tries to get Kagan to go on record regarding whether the right to arms preexisted the Constitution.
Clip found at Grassley Asks Kagan: Didn't God Give Us The Right To Bear Arms? (yeah it's a lefty-rag blog and he didn't specifically ask if rights came from God, but it clearly shows why we need term limits and shows Kagan with a deer in headlights look)