Breyer Push For More Protection Illustrates Elite Double Standard

Ammoland ^ | 8 May, 2012 | David Codrea

[marktwain]

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. David Codrea

David Codrea in his natural habitat

Note: A version of this column with source reference links is posted at Gun Rights Examiner.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He is a field editor for GUNS Magazine, and a blogger at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance. Read more at www.DavidCodrea.com.

[OneWingedShark]

Second, IL is as bound by the 14th Amendment as any other state.

Funny thing about the 14th Amendment; it was never properly passed. See this.
Congressional records even indicate this, though I've misplaced my reference to indicate where.

[Monorprise]

If your going to make up rights under the 14th amendment’s irresponsible and undefinable “ privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” clause.

Then I’m afraid no state can abridge my privilege to steal what I like from you, nor my immunity from prosecution.
For that matter i could claim i have the privilege as a citizen of “the united states” to order you to do my bidding.

The radical nutcases that wrote the 14th amendment were the same people who just Finnish destroying the republic by waging war upon the self-government principle upon which it was founded.

[ApplegateRanch]

What kind of self respecting burglar steals “$3,500 worth of candlesticks and cutlery” from a home somebody like Breyer?

This coincidence smacks of a typical Leftist self inflicted “crime” , designed to “raise awareness” of his perceived need for additional protection for federal jurists.

Interestingly enough, his campaign was supposedly sparked by the death of Judge Roll in Tucson, when Rep. Giffords was shot; yet the judge was not a picked target, nor even expected to be there. Unless Breyer is asking for Secret Service details to shepherd judges and justices around 24/7, ‘extra protection’ would not have prevented that shooting.

[jpl]

That is precisely what this buffoon wants. Needless to say, there’s no chance he’s going to get it.

[Pontiac]

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.

Don’t jump to conclusions.

Breyer may assume that the body guard’s use of the weapon he carries is limited to the defense of Breyer alone and that any use of it for defense of the body guards life would be illegal.