Originally Posted by opaww
The appointment of Kagan would not of made a deference in this case, because she would be filing the shoes of the Supreme Court's most anti-gun/anti-rights Justice. That being the retiring Justice Stevens. She is not being appointed to replace a Pro-gun/pro-Rights Justice.
So had she been appointed the ruling would of still passed by a 5-4 vote.
My original post was to emphasize two things. One was that we have Supreme Court justices who would deny us our 2nd Amendement rights and the other was that we are only one justice away from adding another, after Kagan, that would result is our losing the argument, and our 2nd Amendment rights. I encourage everyone to read the dissenting justices' opinions. You’ll find things like
“there is no popular consensus that the private self-defense right described in Heller is fundamental” (Breyer opinion, p 9).
“…firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty” (Stevens opinion, p 35).
The Heller decision claims that the right to self-defense is “the central component” of the right to keep and bear arms but Justice Breyer disagrees and says “In my view, this is the historical equivalent of a claim that water runs uphill” (Breyer opinion, pp. 8-9).
There is more but I didn’t want to go back and dig them all out.