Left-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor claims that you do not have any right to self-protection even as her own security guards were seen gunning down a crook who was trying to steal the justice’s car.

Sotomayor’s Washington D.C. security detail jumped into action in the early morning hours of July 5 when a fool walked up to their car and pointed a gun at them and demanded they give him their car.

The would-be carjacker got just a tad more than he bargained for, though, because the men in the car he was trying to steal were armed U.S. Marshals who were on duty outside the justice’s home.

Instead of giving this halfwit their car, the marshals opened fire on the carjacker and hit him four times. Once in the mouth. Ouch.

While no one can feel sorry for an armed carjacker earning his just deserts, Sotomayor can feel lucky that she had armed security guards there to protect her.

But this is a privilege that she wants to ban you from having. Sotomayor says that you, my fellow Americans, have no right to own a firearm and you have no right to self-defense… you know, despite the clear words in that U.S. Constitution thingie she pledged to uphold.

Sotomayor was even part of the court that made the right to self-protection and an individual’s right to own a firearm secure.

She dissented in the five-to-four McDonald v. City of Chicago decision from 2010, the Supreme Court found that Second Amendment rights are incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Two dissents were written in the case, one by Justice John Paul Stevens and the second by Justice Stephen Breyer. The latter was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sotomayor.

In the dissent, Sotomayor insisted that “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”

Of course, the “fundamental” part came in the fact that the founders took it as given that Americans had the right to own weapons for self-defense because it was already a right for hundreds of years and recognized in the English Common Law, the system of law that undergirded American law.

The left-wing justices in the McDonald dissent stressed, “Further, there is no popular consensus that the private self-defense right described in Heller is fundamental.”

In the early portion of the dissent’s conclusion, Breyer/Ginsberg/Sotomayor claimed, “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.’”

Regardless where you stand on this particular fine point, the fact is Sotomayor wants your guns taken away but not those of her armed security services.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston, or Truth Social @WarnerToddHuston