Sotomayor Under Fire After Security Detail Shoots Carjacker

Over the years, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor has blasted gun rights, looking to dial back the Second Amendment as much as possible.

Now, after her security detail shot a carjacker in the face, her critics are coming out to remind her about her stance.

It was not that long ago that Sotomayor claimed owning a firearm in this country is “not a fundamental right.”

That Pesky Second Amendment

If you missed the original report, earlier this month, a carjacker approached the vehicle of a U.S. Marshal assigned to Sotomayor’s security detail.

Rather than turn over the vehicle, the Marshal pulled his weapon and fired off a few shots, hitting the carjacker right in the face.

When Sotomayor’s critics saw the report, they immediately fired off attacks at Sotomayor over several of the opinions she had written or supported in the past to try to tear down the Second Amendment.

For instance, in the 2010 decision on McDonald v. Chicago, Justice Breyer wrote, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense,” which Sotomayor joined.

In another dissent, Sotomayor called bump stocks unconstitutional, stating, "Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress's definition of ‘machinegun’ and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose.

“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.

“A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.”

As noted above, this had her critics frothing at the mouth to go on the attack.

Parker Thayer of Capital Research stated, "Sotomayor is protected by the same guns she has repeatedly written that civilians do not need and should not own."

Erich Pratt, senior vice president for Gun Owners of America, stated, "Justice Sotomayor has aggressively opposed the individual right to self-defense in her dissenting opinions on several major Second Amendment cases over the years.

"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.”

Just another case of do as I say, not as I do.

Unlike abortion, which Democrats continuously say is a constitutional right, the Second Amendment clearly outlines our rights on this.

You should also keep in mind this is the same justice who stated that presidential immunity would allow a sitting president to use SEAL Team 6 as a personal hit squad to take out political enemies without repercussion.

If there is any justice who should be impeached, it would be Sotomayor because she clearly does not understand the law or our Constitution.