Sotomayor’s Bodyguard Saved By Second Amendment Self-Defense Right That Justice Rejected
A deputy U.S. marshal used a firearm to thwart an attempted carjacking in Washington, D.C., while protecting the residence of notoriously anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Eighteen-year-old Kentrell Flowers allegedly pulled a gun on one of the two deputy U.S. marshals parked outside of Sotomayor’s residence around 1:15 a.m., The New York Post reported. Sotomayor was reportedly not home at the time of the incident.
One marshal reportedly drew a firearm and shot the suspect, who was later treated at a hospital for non-life-threatening injuries, according to the report. Flowers has been charged with “armed carjacking, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a large capacity magazine,” the New York Post reported.
Notably, during Sotomayor’s nomination hearing she claimed to have accepted the Supreme Court’s earlier decision establishing the individual right to keep and bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller.
“I understand … how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans,” Sotomayor testified. “And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized.”
As with most left-wing hacks, once in office her tune changed. Sotomayor signed onto the 2010 dissent in McDonald v. Chicago to argue the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to self-defense.
“The carrying of arms for [self-defense] often puts others’ lives at risk,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the minority. “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”
But as my colleague David Harsanyi pointed out, “history has never backed up this contention … The notion of individual ownership of firearms was so unmistakable and so omnipresent in colonial days — and beyond — that Americans saw no more need to debate its existence than they did the right to drink water or breathe the air.”
Sotomayor, writing a concurring opinion in United States v. Rahimi, all but endorsed Congressional efforts to erase constitutional rights based off partisan, fleeting whims.
“In my view, the Second Amendment allows legislators ‘to take account of the serious problems posed by gun violence’ not merely by asking what their predecessors at the time of the founding or Reconstruction thought, but by listening to other constituents and crafting new and appropriately tailored solutions.”
Sotomayor also joined a dissent in 2022 in the landmark Bruen decision lamenting that purely partisan leaders would be hamstringed in their efforts to strip Americans of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds,” Breyer wrote for the minority. “The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.”
“In my view, when courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms,” the dissent continued.
The “gun violence” referred to is the same “gun violence” that could have killed Sotomayor’s bodyguard. Washington, D.C., has put in regulations in-part hoping to curb gun violence, but they’ve been largely ineffective.
It’s why former Trump administration official Mike Gill — who wasn’t as fortunate to have armed security like Sotomayor — was murdered in January during a similar carjacking incident in the nation’s capital.
Despite liberals’ naivety, criminals don’t follow laws. But Sotomayor lacks that understanding.
If Sotomayor had things her way, ordinary Americans would be defenseless against teen thugs who are willing to use deadly force while elites like herself can rest assured knowing they’re protected by men with guns — whether or not they’re even home!
Sotomayor’s life is not any more valuable than Mike Gill’s, the U.S. marshal’s, or even mine. Unfortunately, she’s just itching for the opportunity to cement that hierarchy because she’ll never have to worry.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.
Comments are closed.