Anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s bodyguards shoot alleged carjacker multiple times in self-defense

07/12/2024 / By Kevin Hughes

Two members of the United States Marshals Service assigned to protect the Washington, D.C. residence of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor shot an alleged carjacker in an incident that observers have remarked stands in stark opposition to the liberal justice’s notorious anti-gun stance.

A report from the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC) noted that the shooting incident occurred at around 1:15 a.m. on July 5, and the person injured was Kentrell Flowers, an 18-year-old resident of the district. He allegedly tried to carjack a vehicle occupied by one of Sotomayor’s security detail.

The MPDC said in a press statement that Flowers approached the marshal’s car and pointed a gun at the marshal. In reply, the marshal at the wheel drew his service weapon and fired multiple shots at Flowers. A second marshal left the vehicle and also started shooting at the suspect.

The MPDC noted that Flowers was later moved to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries after the shooting incident. None of the marshals were harmed, and Sotomayor was not in her home during the incident.

Flowers is facing charges of armed carjacking, carrying a pistol without a license and possession of a large-capacity ammunition feeding device.

Anti-gun Supreme Court justice requires armed guards for her safety

Observers have pointed out the irony that the marshals foiled the carjacking attempt using firearms, despite Sotomayor’s steadfast opposition to the Second Amendment and gun rights.

The incident triggered criticism of Sotomayor’s Second Amendment positions during her tenure on the high court, along with one decision where she co-signed a dissent that said the Constitution does not protect “a private right of armed self-defense.”

In the Supreme Court case McDonald v. City of Chicago, Sotomayor joined then-Justice Stephen Breyer in dissenting against the majority opinion that approved the right to armed self-defense under the Second Amendment.

“The carrying of arms for [self-defense] often puts others’ lives at risk,” Breyer, with Sotomayor joining, debated. “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.”

Similarly, in the case of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. (NYSRPA) v. Bruen, Sotomayor dissented against the majority decision that brought down a New York law requiring residents to show “proper cause” to acquire a concealed carry pistol license. (Related: Supreme Court strengthens Second Amendment by striking down restrictive NY “concealed carry” law.)

“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,” wrote Breyer with Sotomayor concurring.

“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, said in an interview with 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.”

Sotomayor, who was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 by then-President Barack Obama, took criticisms from legislators who were worried about her Second Amendment ideology.

In 2004, she joined an opinion that mentioned as precedent “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” Sotomayor also joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the American states.

Follow SecondAmendment.news for more stories about the gun rights of Americans.

Watch the video below about the Supreme Court ruling in the NYSRPA v. Bruen.

This video is from the Truth Health Freedom channel on Brighteon.com.