While I don’t think the name is appropriate, your general sentiment is correct. I heard a short sound clip today of her mentioning something about precedent and established law in the context of abortion. I took this to mean she wouldn’t consider overturning it. If she is to remain at all consistent, then, she needs to follow the most recent precedent, that of D.C. vs. Heller.
Time will tell, of course.
The liberal activist jurist (i.e., Sotomayor) would argue that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Gov’t (and thus D.C.) and not the state governments since the Bill of Rights was passed and originally understood to limit the power of the central gov’t and not the States. Liberals have applied various amendments in the Bill of Rights (i.e., the ones they like, which they call “fundamental”) into the 14th Amendment via the incorporation doctrine. Thus, the First Amend. “Congress shall make no law . . .” has been applied against the States. Liberals will argue that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental right even though the language clearly confers the right to the people as a whole (i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”). “Selective incorporation” is the way out for the libs with regard to Heller