On July 5, pro-gun control SCOTUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s bodyguard shot a man trying to steal his car outside her home in D.C.
D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department gave an account of what happened at about 1:15 a.m. Friday in Northwest. The marshals were on Sotomayor’s security detail, law enforcement sources told News4 on Tuesday.The marshals were parked in separate vehicles when Kentrell Flowers, 18, of Southeast, got out of a vehicle, approached a marshal and pointed a handgun at him “in an apparent attempt to carjack him,” police said in a statement.The marshal drew his gun and fired several shots. A second marshal got out of another vehicle and also opened fire.Flowers was taken to a hospital with injuries that police described as non-life-threatening. The marshals were not hurt.The U.S. Marshals Service confirmed to NBC News that the marshals involved in the shooting were part of the unit protecting Supreme Court justices’ homes.
Sotomayor was not at home during the incident.
Flowers faces charges of armed carjacking, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a large-capacity magazine.
Let’s look at McDonald v. City of Chicago, which found that the Second Amendment applies to states since they are incorporated by the 14th Amendment.
The case revolved around Otis McDonald, 76, wanting a handgun due to the crime in his Chicago neighborhood. He had shotguns but didn’t trust them with a robbery. A handgun would be better.
But Chicago had a citywide handgun ban passed in 1982, making it impossible to register a handgun in the city.
McDonald sued the city.
On June 28, 2010, SCOTUS overturned the Seventh Circuit’s decision, with the majority (5-4) stating that the right to bear arms is “fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Therefore, Chicago’s handgun ban violated a person’s natural right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
Sotomayor joined the dissent, penned by former Justice Breyer.
In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, “fundamental.” No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment.
Did the Framers stutter, liberal justices? I don’t think so: “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.”
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY