PDA

View Full Version : Kagan Wrote Clinton Ban on Gun Imports


navyinrwanda
05-11-2010, 2:39 PM
According to Dave Kopel (http://www.davekopel.com/) at the Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/2010/05/11/were-bending-the-law-as-far-as-we-can-to-ban-an-entirely-new-class-of-guns-kagan-wrote-the-clinton-ban-on-gun-imports/):


The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/10/nation/la-na-kagan-profile-20100511/2): “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., she also drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles.”

When ban was announced, Clinton staffer Jose Cerda stated, “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.” [Los Angeles Times, Oct. 22, 1997].

The import ban was made permanent in the spring of 1998. Here’s an explanation I wrote, as part of an articl (http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/beware-the-rahm.htm)e on Rahm Emanuel for America’s 1st Freedom (http://www.nrapublications.org/a1f/index.html), which is a NRA member magazine:

In 1998, Clinton forbade the import of 58 types of firearms and their accessories...

Emanuel defended the ban on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, repeatedly claiming that the banned guns were ‘military weapons, not sporting weapons.’

‘Those weapons were designed for one purpose—military—and they don’t belong on our streets,’ he insisted.

Emanuel asserted that Clinton had banned “the AK-47,” which was pure nonsense. The AK-47, which is a fully automatic rifle, was not covered by the import ban. Indeed, not one of the guns banned was an automatic, nor were any of the guns manufactured primarily for military use.

All the banned guns were used in target competitions. Some had names like “Hunter” or “Sporter.” So how did Clinton and Emanuel get around the 1986 federal law requiring that imports must be allowed if the gun is “particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes”?

Emanuel argued that it was permissible to ban the guns because [a Treasury study found that] comments from hunting guides (http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/treas/treas-study-on-sporting-suitability-of-modified-semiautomatic-assault-rifles.pdf) showed that the guns were rarely recommended for hunting trips. As if the only gun that is a “sporting” gun is one used by people who can afford to take trips with a professional guide.

Emanuel further contended that the guns should be banned because they “accept rounds in the 20, 30, 40, in some cases 100 rounds at a case” [sic]. Of course, every gun that accepts a detachable magazine can accept a detachable magazine of any size. So Emanuel’s theory would actually set the stage for a ban on every gun that uses a detachable magazine.

Democratic Senator Pat Leahy, who was then the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to President Clinton (http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/importban-kf.htm) that he “strongly believes that using a Presidential directive to avoid the normal legislative process regarding any changes to the assault weapons ban is the wrong way to go.”

The list of banned guns is here (http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf), at page 167.

berto
05-11-2010, 3:14 PM
The question is whether Kagan is a true believer, a person just doing her job, or somewhere in between? By counting on Obama to pick an anti I can only be pleasantly surprised.

Ding126
05-11-2010, 3:19 PM
The more I hear reports on kagan's banning of military recruters on Harvard campus and her comments on socialism. I think she is a bad choice for America.

Dark Paladin
05-11-2010, 3:25 PM
The more I hear reports on kagan's banning of military recruters on Harvard campus and her comments on socialism. I think she is a bad choice for America.

To be fair she was protesting the military's policy of "Don't ask don't tell". Could she have chosen a better way to protest it? Sure. But that does not dismiss the point she was trying to raise. . . and definitely better than some other college administrations banning military recruiters just because they are the military.

GrayWolf09
05-11-2010, 3:34 PM
The more I hear reports on kagan's banning of military recruters on Harvard campus and her comments on socialism. I think she is a bad choice for America.

She did not ban military recruiters, she merely denied them access to certain locations. They were allowed on campus and allowed to recruit. She did so because all the major law schools subscribe to a policy of non-discrimination and unfortunately the US Military discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

By the way what branch of the service did Rush Limbaugh serve in? As I recall it was the same one as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Dick Cheney.
Nunquam Fi!

Socalz
05-11-2010, 3:38 PM
A little reading to back up Ding's post. Also I find it ironic that she was protesting the "don't ask don't tell" policy which was a product of the Clinton administration that she later served as White House counsel.
http://www.thefoxnation.com/elena-kagan/2010/05/10/kagan-booted-recruiters-linked-gop-terror-proposal-dictatorships-wrote-thesis

Socalz
05-11-2010, 3:44 PM
She did not ban military recruiters, she merely denied them access to certain locations. They were allowed on campus and allowed to recruit. She did so because all the major law schools subscribe to a policy of non-discrimination and unfortunately the US Military discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

According to the article I just posted, she attempted to ban military recruiters from the career center, but was foiled by the Pentagon.

"Beginning in 2004, Kagan changed established Harvard policy and barred recruiters from the school’s career center. The Pentagon responded by invoking the Solomon Amendment, a 1994 law that explicitly requires universities that receive federal funding to allow military representatives at least as much access to campus as any other group. With Harvard’s $400 million in annual grants on the line, Kagan was forced to surrender."

Gray Peterson
05-11-2010, 3:46 PM
The question is whether Kagan is a true believer, a person just doing her job, or somewhere in between? By counting on Obama to pick an anti I can only be pleasantly surprised.

She was doing her job.

That being said, the reason for the ability to ban was via the "Sporting Purposes test" of the Gun Control Act of 1968. That needs to be struck down.

bwiese
05-11-2010, 4:14 PM
I'm in no way pro-Kagan, but I suspect she may be the best we get (i.e, the next rabbit pulled out of the hat will likely be worse).

I've been made aware that Dave Kopel has certain issues that can cloud his views going beyond (and interfering) with gunrights - and rereading some of his pieces I can see that now.

Several comments to the comments above:

1.) While I'm in no way in favor of anyone touching a gun ban, Kagan, ~50 today, would've been about 29-30 when the additonal
'sporting use' crap came about. That means she was just outta law school and a clerkship or two and into Justice Dept. If Kagan
had anything to do with it, it was being Rahm Emmanuel's "typist".

And even if it didn't occur there, 922(r) (via Jolene Unsoeld, D-WA) would have covered these matters.

2.) I'm not in support of her banning military recruiters at Harvard, but that was Harvard's decision until they decided to keep Federal
funding. This is a bit smoke & mirrors anyway: I really doubt how many top-tier Harvard law graduates go to .mil service from there
anyway: WTF would anyone turn down $150+K and screw up career progress, or could instead clerk for a Fed judge or Supreme
Ct justice?

Note that this was the official SCHOOL stance too - not just hers.

3.) Again, I find her comments on Heller to be reasonably refreshing. I again worry about "what's worse down the pipeline" than her.

five.five-six
05-11-2010, 4:18 PM
To be fair she was protesting the military's policy of "Don't ask don't tell". Could she have chosen a better way to protest it? Sure. But that does not dismiss the point she was trying to raise. . . and definitely better than some other college administrations banning military recruiters just because they are the military.


well her sexual persuasion is irrelivent.... did I mention that her being Lebanese is irrelevant? well it's irrelevant :TFH:

Dark Paladin
05-11-2010, 5:08 PM
well her sexual persuasion is irrelivent.... did I mention that her being Lebanese is irrelevant? well it's irrelevant :TFH:

Uhh. . . where the heck did you read me saying anything about her sexual persuasion? Please stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks! :rolleyes:

advocatusdiaboli
05-11-2010, 6:36 PM
The question is whether Kagan is a true believer

No, the first question is did she draft the memo--nothing in your quote even mentions her name.

kagan's banning of military recruters on Harvard campus

She banned them because the military, as a group which violates Harvard Law School's non-dsicrmination laws, is banned from activities on campus. Not saying I agree, but the rules are on her side--she is pro-military but off campus until they stop discrimination. Not saying I agree, but it was her call and she stuck to the rules and strictly speaking she was right.

her comments on socialism
The US is socialist in some aspects now and has been since the 1930s. Depends on how far she'd take it and how she separates that from 2A. Jerry Brown does it, maybe she can too. I am suspicious and on alert, but none of these are smoking guns in my book.

Bottom line for me? I am still waiting to see a solid reason to oppose her. Obama could have done far worse and might if we eliminate her for no good reason.

Mulay El Raisuli
05-12-2010, 5:42 AM
3.) Again, I find her comments on Heller to be reasonably refreshing. I again worry about "what's worse down the pipeline" than her.


So, what were her comments?


Also, one news story mentioned that for the first time ever, there will be no Protestants on the Court if she's confirmed. Not really relevant or anything, but an interesting little factoid nonetheless.


The Raisuli

Scarecrow Repair
05-12-2010, 6:00 AM
Also, one news story mentioned that for the first time ever, there will be no Protestants on the Court if she's confirmed. Not really relevant or anything, but an interesting little factoid nonetheless.

Also, there will be no male named Stevens on the Court if she's confirmed. Not really relevant or anything, but an interesting little factoid nonetheless.

ZombieTactics
05-12-2010, 6:29 AM
...
By the way what branch of the service did Rush Limbaugh serve in? As I recall it was the same one as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Dick Cheney.
Nunquam Fi!
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? At any rate, military service is not a prerequisite for being informed. I can point to any number of people who have served who are bolted-down, intelligent patriots. I can also point to lying sacks of crap like Jack Murtha or John Kerry who - despite their service and injuries - have brought more actual dishonor to the military than anyone I can think of. "Nunquam Fi!", indeed.

AFAIK, none of those you mention have ever been anything other than enthusiastically supportive of the military and it's personnel. I think this demonstrates quite a bit more "fidelis" than you ignorantly presuppose.

GrayWolf09
05-12-2010, 6:52 AM
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? At any rate, military service is not a prerequisite for being informed. I can point to any number of people who have served who are bolted-down, intelligent patriots. I can also point to lying sacks of crap like Jack Murtha or John Kerry who - despite their service and injuries - have brought more actual dishonor to the military than anyone I can think of. "Nunquam Fi!", indeed.

AFAIK, none of those you mention have ever been anything other than enthusiastically supportive of the military and it's personnel. I think this demonstrates quite a bit more "fidelis" than you ignorantly presuppose.

Yeah they talk the talk but have they ever walked the walk. Talk is cheap. Anyone can talk, but I am always very mistrustful of anyone who is gung ho for something they claim to believe in but have not done. Have you ever been in the military? It is always the cooks and the admin types that are talking about combat this and firefight that and not the guys shooting and getting shot at. Those that have been know the reality, the others do not. That is why I have a lot more respect for war heroes like John Kerry and for the late Jack Murtha than I do for these clowns.

ZombieTactics
05-12-2010, 9:59 AM
... That is why I have a lot more respect for war heroes like John Kerry and for the late Jack Murtha than I do for these clowns.
40 years or so ago, Jack Murtha was a hero. A lot can happen in that amount of time. My personal opinion regarding Murtha is that he gave up any right to be called a "war hero" when he started calling US soldiers "cold blooded murderers" - without any proof or even decent evidence - purely for political effect.

Kerry is not a "war hero" by any stretch of the word, for similar reasons.

Certainly no thinking person can believe that military service or even devastating injury gets one membership into some "I am a hero forever, so you can't question anything I say" club. If you believe otherwise, read a little bit about Julius Caesar or Benedict Arnold. Some of the biggest traitors in history have prior stellar military records.

I appreciate their service, but they have dishonored themselves and their fellow soldiers through their craven disregard of the truth. They trashed their country, its military and their fellow soldiers with callous disregard simply for political posturing and personal gain. Getting shot up in battle is not carte blanche to lie under cover of your military status for craven political gain. Maybe you have a different definition of "Semper Fi", or perhaps "honor" has you stymied. In either case, a good dictionary and a healthy respect for simple truth might be a good refresher for you.

AGAIN: What does this have to do with Kagan's nomination?

cmaynes
05-12-2010, 10:00 AM
as far as this choice for a new Supreme- think seriously about who she is replacing-

Stevens has been a militant anti-second amendment voice on the bench- Do you want this choice (who is actually pretty moderate) or a more "traditional" anti-gun nazi?

I think she is a good choice, and I do hope she is a lesbian. because she would have first hand knowledge of what presecution and physical threats are to the average(?) Jane or Joe would be.

I also am quite sure that Obama (not the Democratic Party) has come to the understanding that the 2nd Amendment is his "third-rail"- and that if he even alludes to touching it the whole house of cards is in jeopardy.

PEBKAC
05-12-2010, 10:18 AM
Like Bill said, probably the best we will get out of Obama. She certainly does not appear to be in the same vein as Sotomayor so this is an improvement. Especially over who she is replacing.

Now, the question becomes if she isn't outright harmful to us, but not a slam dunk either, can some of our friends in congress try to force a deal to make the confirmation go smoothly...throw us a bone of some sort perhaps? Seems like an opportunity to put the backroom deal tendencies of Washington to good use for a change...

navyinrwanda
05-12-2010, 2:49 PM
3.) Again, I find her comments on Heller to be reasonably refreshing. I again worry about "what's worse down the pipeline" than her.

So, what were her comments?

The Raisuli

Here's (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4266772#post4266772) what she had to say when she was up for the post of Solicitor General.

Hoop
05-12-2010, 3:12 PM
I too think this is the best we will get out of O. TBH she doesn't seem that bad (yet).

Mulay El Raisuli
05-13-2010, 7:16 AM
Here's (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4266772#post4266772) what she had to say when she was up for the post of Solicitor General.


Thank you. In general, I tend to agree with you. She probably is the most Second Amendment-friendly nominee that we could hope for given the current President and Senate.

Also, as she said, there's a difference between an advocate & a judge. There's a BIG difference between judge & Supreme Court Justice as well. I think the reason presidents get surprised is that the sheer awesomeness & power of the job changes those put on that particular bench.


The Raisuli

goodlookin1
05-13-2010, 7:53 AM
I too think this is the best we will get out of O. TBH she doesn't seem that bad (yet).

This just in:

Kagan supports the restriction on First Amendment rights so long as the governments' "motives are right".....IE: If the speech does "harm".

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Private-Speech-Public-Purpose.pdf - Article written by Kagan

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2511965/posts
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65720


I'm sorry, but this woman is bad news. Just another uber-liberal judge that subverts the original intention and meaning of the Constitution and puts a spin on it that further restricts the God-given rights to U.S. Citizens; rights which were found to preempt even the government itself. Obama will seize every opportunity to radicalize the U.S. into his vision of a "proper U.S.". Kagan will be no different than any other hyper-liberal that he would appoint.

Eckolaker
05-13-2010, 8:07 AM
My apologies if this is a repost...

Kagan Argued Against Second Amendment in Gun Case (http://www.infowars.com/kagan-argued-against-second-amendment-in-gun-case/)

tankarian
05-13-2010, 8:20 AM
By the way what branch of the service did Rush Limbaugh serve in? As I recall it was the same one as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Dick Cheney.
Nunquam Fi!


And the relevance of that to the issue at hand is? :confused:

lioneaglegriffin
05-13-2010, 11:24 AM
yea i think she could give the Nuremberg defense for most things. just following orders.

i saw some other stuff related to firearms in a times article.

A centrist course meant negotiating with the firearms industry on a deal to put child-safety locks on guns rather than risk a legislative showdown. Gun-control efforts were a hallmark of the Clinton administration. Kagan had already been involved in an executive order that required all federal law enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons.

Those moves angered the National Rifle Assn., which became even more alarmed in late 1998 when Clinton proposed closing the "gun show" loophole that allowed firearms purchases without background checks. A legislative effort to do just that was launched as Kagan departed the White House for Harvard in 1999.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/11/nation/la-na-kagan-profile-20100511

cmaynes
05-13-2010, 11:43 AM
Bloomberg is running this piece saying she doesnt support the second amendment- which of course means she is an enormous threat to his idea of gun control.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPI35t8uR6Gs

Cos
05-13-2010, 10:14 PM
I'm no big fun of this site, but this article on Kagan just jumped at me
http://www.infowars.com/elena-kagans-opposition-to-gun-rights/