Tweet
USA --(Ammoland.com)- An early May robbery at the Washington, D.C. home of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was the second time the jurist has been victimized since February, The Washington Post reported Thursday. While no one was home in this latest incident, the earlier one involved the jurist and his wife being confronted by a machete-wielding home invader at their Caribbean vacation house.
“The robbery comes a month after Congress allocated nearly $1 million to hire 12 new Supreme Court police officers, according to The Hill,” Fox News related in a follow-up report. “Breyer had been among the group pushing for that greater protection after U.S. District Judge John Roll was among six people killed in a gunman’s rampage at a Tucson shopping mall last year…”
That Breyer demands armed police protection provided at taxpayer expense illustrates no small amount of elitist hypocrisy considering his dissent in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case, in which the Supreme Court majority held the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals in federal enclaves to possess a firearm in the home for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense.
“We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment,” Breyer wrote in an opinion shared by Justices Souter and Ginsberg. “The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.”
Breyer dissented again in the Chicago v. McDonald case. Joined by Justice Sotomayor and again by Justice Ginsburg, Breyer rejected the application of the Second Amendment to the individual states.
If left to Stephen Breyer, forget bearing arms. Americans wouldn’t even be allowed to keep them in their homes, and it would all be perfectly consistent with “shall not be infringed.” Despite an earlier Supreme Court ruling that police have no Constitutional duty to protect individuals, Breyer deems those same individuals to have no Constitutionally-recognized right to possess firearms for self-defense. And naturally, no such restrictions apply to his taxpayer-subsidized armed bodyguards.
Comment