Kagan Testifies on Heller & McDonald

June 29th, 2010

From SCOTUSBlog LiveBlog:

EK: I have not read all the way through the McDonald decision b/c it came out yesterday. But I suspect that going forward the Court will need to decide what level of constitutional scrutiny will apply to gun regulations.

Nothing is meant to suggest unconstitutionality of longstanding gun regulations, such as felon-in-possession law. My work in Clinton White House was all pre-Heller, didn’t apply this kind of scrutiny; what President Clinton was trying to do was propose a set of regulations that had strong support to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and insane. It was anti-crime.

Kagan noted that the proper decision of scrutiny–whether strict or intermediate, as teh Heller majority ruled out rational basis scrutiny–will come before the supreme court

Kagan noted that nothing in Heller suggested unconstitutionality of long-standing prohibitions, and that list is not exhaustive. There is some real work for court to do in this area.

Kagan noted that her work in Clinton white house was before Heller, so she didn’t apply this kind of scrutiny to gun control decisions. Her goal was to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, insane people (is that P.C?). Her focus was on crime. She did not consider those cases through the Heller prism. These cases may come before the Court and the Court will consider “regulation by regulation which meets the standard.”