Texas defendant challenging federal gun law at the Supreme Court says he doesn’t want firearms anymore | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
Texas defendant challenging federal gun law at the Supreme Court says he doesn’t want firearms any more

Zackey Rahimi, the Texas criminal defendant challenging a federal gun law before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, said this summer that he no longer wanted to own firearms and expressed remorse for his actions that got him in trouble with the law.

“I will make sure for sure this time that when I finish my time being incarcerated to stay the faithful, righteous person I am this day, to stay away from all drugs at all times, do probation & parole rightfully, to go to school & have a great career, have a great manufacturing engineering job, to never break any law again, to stay away from the wrong circle, to stay away from all firearms & weapons, & to never be away from my family again,” Rahimi, who is being held at a Fort Worth jail, said in a handwritten letter dated July 25.

He continued: “I had firearms for the right reason in our place to be able to protect my family at all times especially for what we’ve went through in the past but I’ll make sure to do whatever it takes to be able to do everything the right pathway & to be able to come home fast as I can to take care of my family at all times.”

  • blazera@kbin.social
    0·
    1 年前

    Well regulated means well supplied. The militia is everyone able-bodied in the US.

    No it doesnt

    • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      1 年前

      Yes. It. Does. Just because the common definition for militia changed doesn’t mean that the meaning of the writing with the definition of the time is different because you want it to be.

        • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          1 年前

          Even if that were true, it doesn’t matter because the militia is not the right. The right is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

          • Hobo@lemmy.world
            0·
            1 年前

            I think there’s subtleties that you’re ignoring to push an agenda. I do think it’s important to understand the question on the table though. The question isn’t what rights you have, but when is the government allowed to take away those rights.

            Maybe we should take a step back. Do you think the government can revoke a person’s 2nd amendment rights? For example do prisoners have the right have a shiv in their cell? The question posed in this instance is whether or not a restraining order for domestic assault rises to the level of due process for taking away that right. It’s already firmly written into law that the government can leverage due process to take away rights. Unless you’re arguing that it is an absolute right, and we should all be allowed to have nuclear bombs and prisoners should be allowed to have shivs, then I think you’re missing the point.

            You also seem to have a very tenuous definition of the 2nd amendment that you’re willing to change when it doesn’t fit your needs. It seems like you might want to think it through a bit more, and perhaps try to get at the root of the question at hand, instead of spouting that everyone should be allowed to have arms no matter what. The implication of that statement is a bit terrifying, and is well outside of our current legal adjudication of the 2nd amendment.

              • Hobo@lemmy.world
                0·
                1 年前

                Federal courts in the decade since have found many restrictions on the right to own and use weapons perfectly congruent with that decision. Heller merely says the government can’t enforce laws that prevent (most) Americans from possessing commonly used weapons in their homes for self-defense.

                From the introductory paragraph in your own link. Again this isn’t whether most Americans can posses weapons but does a domestic abuse restraining order rise to the level of due process. Which oddly falls in line with the second paragraph of the source you linked:

                Courts have found that Heller does not preclude laws that prohibit anyone younger than 21 from buying guns in retail stores; laws that bar people who committed a single nonviolent felony from ever owning a gun; laws that severely restrict the ability to carry a gun outside the home; laws that ban commonly owned magazines of a certain capacity; or laws that require handguns to incorporate untested, expensive, and unreliable “microstamping” technology.

                There’s nothing I found in the article you linked which claims that the 2nd amendment is an absolute right that cannot be revoked. You’re arguing something that simply isn’t a thing and avoiding the actual question at hand.