[animal]

Sandidge v. United States -1987 - As a law clerk under Marshall in the Supreme Court, she argued against hearing the appeal of a man convicted of possession of a firearm and ammunition. Because his defense was based on the 2A being an individual right, Kagen wrote that she was not sympathetic to him being granted an appeal.

The quote "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" was made as a nominee to the solicitor general position.
Notice that she qualifies the statement with "after Heller". This turns the rest of the statement into a recognition of "current reality" rather than her opinion of the RKBA or other rights. She further weakens the concept of RKBA as an individual right by adding "not unlimited protection against governmental regulation".
Notice that she did NOT say "as Heller showed" or anything of the kind. This type of wording is the mark of a living document theorist, where the Constitution is defined and redefined by the Supreme Court, rather than merely interpreting it’s meaning.