Justice Sotomayor’s controversial gun confiscation hypothetical reveals a critical tension between judicial remedies and constitutional rights that could impact how Americans defend their Second Amendment freedoms.
At a Glance
- Justice Sotomayor repeatedly used a hypothetical scenario about nationwide gun confiscation during recent Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship
- Her line of questioning explored whether individual lawsuits would be practical if a president ordered military confiscation of all firearms
- Historical precedents like the American and Texas Revolutions show that attempts to disarm citizens have previously led to armed resistance
- Judge Kozinski’s opinion in Silviera v. Lockyer argues the Second Amendment exists as a last-resort safeguard against government tyranny
- The Supreme Court’s ability to resolve certain constitutional crises has inherent limitations that highlight the importance of armed citizenry
Sotomayor’s Provocative Hypothetical
During recent Supreme Court oral arguments regarding birthright citizenship, Justice Sonia Sotomayor deployed a startling hypothetical scenario that grabbed the attention of Second Amendment advocates. Sotomayor posed a question about what would happen “when a new president orders that because there’s so much gun violence going on in the country…he has the right to take away the guns from everyone…and he sends out the military to seize everyone’s guns.” Her query was part of a larger argument about the practicality of nationwide injunctions versus individual lawsuits in cases of executive overreach.
This line of questioning from Justice Sotomayor is consistent with her approach during oral arguments, where she often repeats similar questions to different parties. The gun confiscation scenario was specifically used to challenge the government’s position that nationwide injunctions should be limited, suggesting that individual lawsuits would be impractical if a president ordered the military to seize all civilian firearms. This hypothetical raises profound questions about constitutional remedies and the courts’ ability to address such crises.
— @amuse (@amuse) May 15, 2025
Historical Precedents for Armed Resistance
The hypothetical scenario of nationwide gun confiscation evokes historical precedents that should give pause to those contemplating such executive action. Both the American Revolution and the Texas Revolution began in part as responses to government attempts to disarm the populace. In April 1775, British troops marching to Concord to seize colonial weapons caches sparked the “shot heard round the world.” Similarly, in 1835, Mexican authorities’ attempt to confiscate a small cannon from settlers in Gonzales, Texas, triggered resistance under the now-famous “Come and Take It” flag.
“If we’re afraid that this is or even have a thought that this is unlawful executive action, that it is Congress who decides citizenship, not the executive, if we believe, some of us were to believe that, why should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action, as unlawful as an executive taking the guns away from every citizen?”, said Justice Sotomayor.
These historical examples illustrate that attempts to disarm a citizenry often lead not to court cases but to armed resistance. The Founders understood this dynamic, which is precisely why they enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution as a check against government overreach. Justice Sotomayor’s hypothetical, while seemingly designed to explore judicial remedies, inadvertently highlights why the Second Amendment exists in the first place—as a last resort when legal remedies fail.
The Limits of Judicial Authority
Judge Alex Kozinski’s dissent in Silviera v. Lockyer provides crucial context for understanding the Second Amendment’s purpose beyond hunting or self-defense. Kozinski wrote that the Second Amendment represents the Founders’ recognition that armed citizens are the ultimate defense against a government that becomes tyrannical. This perspective acknowledges that some constitutional crises cannot be solved through normal judicial channels, especially if the government itself becomes the primary threat to constitutional rights.
“–it got rejected repeatedly. We can go into the history of citizenship, but I still go back to my question. You claim that there is absolutely no constitutional way to stop, put this aside, to stop a president from an unconstitutional act, a clearly, indisputably unconstitutional act, taking every gun from every citizen, we couldn’t stop that.”, added Sotomayor.
This understanding leads to an uncomfortable but necessary conclusion: not all constitutional problems can or should be solved by courts. The American system of government was designed with multiple safeguards against tyranny, with the judiciary being just one component. When Justice Sotomayor questions whether individuals must wait for courts to address nationwide gun confiscation one case at a time, she unintentionally reveals the wisdom of the Second Amendment’s placement in our constitutional framework. Sometimes, the true remedy for unconstitutional government action exists outside the courtroom.
