Posted on 07/11/2024 2:49:35 AM PDT by grundle
The incident sparked criticism of Sotomayor's Second Amendment positions during her tenure on the high court, including one decision where she co-signed a dissent that said the Constitution does not protect "a private right of armed self-defense."
In that case, McDonald v. Chicago, decided in 2010, then-Justice Steven Breyer dissented from the majority which ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun against the regulations of state and local governments.
"In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense," Breyer wrote.
Parker Thayer of Capital Research commented on X, "Sotomayor is protected by the same guns she has repeatedly written that civilians do not need and should not own."
"Justice Sotomayor has aggressively opposed the individual right to self-defense in her dissenting opinions on several major Second Amendment cases over the years," Erich Pratt, senior vice president for Gun Owners of America, told Fox News Digital.
"So it is incredibly ironic, even hypocritical, that her own private protective detail was forced to exercise this basic and universal right to protect themselves in a very dangerous situation. Hopefully, this incident will open her eyes, but we won’t hold our breath," he said.
In 2004, she joined an opinion that cited as precedent "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."
In 2009, she also joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Guns for me but not for thee
Well, if the “wise latina” really believes her Hypocritical Position, then shouldn’t her bodyguard be arrested for attempted murder? I don’t recall any report that the jacker first had a gun pointed at the bodyguard.
Just Curious.
Even their blood is irony-poor.
And yet, people back then went on owning and using "private" firearms in self-defense, and no one in government gave a hoot. The SCOTUS justices probably owned and used firearms themselves.
How does a moron like Breyer get on SCOTUS anyway? Sheesh!
Impeach her.
Let the Meritless Garland appoint a special prosecutor.
[Like the private citizen Jack Smith...]
Let me guess, another Carl Rowan moment?
They don’t call her a “wise Latina” for nuttin’!
With most children, threatening a spanking only cements in the focus to behave worse as a dare.
Child minds need the actual spanking to consider the errant behavior results in pain and highly negative connotations.
And did the shooting happen in DC where anyone (non-elite) caught with a gun is automatically sent to jail forever, regardless?
Just do what slo joe does, ignore them!
“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. “. Seems pretty straight forward to me!
Sotomayor’s hired guns have shot more people than my private guns have.
The obvious thing for the wide Latina to do is renounce her security detail and take her chances like the rest of us.
2nd amendment doesn’t apply to the states. It is only a right for foreign invaders.
She is a dimwitted hypocrite. What’s new?
I can do this you cant, period
“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. “. Seems pretty straight forward to me!
Well regulated meant well trained to fight as a group and not just a bunch of individuals acting independently and going off half cocked.
“ In that case, McDonald v. Chicago, decided in 2010, then-Justice Steven Breyer dissented from the majority which ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun against the regulations of state and local governments.
“In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense,” Breyer wrote.”
———————
Why is what Breyer wrote in any way related to what the wide Latina’s utterly shameless hypocrisy?
There is nothing “dimwitted” about our rulers having armed guards while demanding we disarm.
It is pure evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.