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.”

  • quindraco@lemm.ee
    154·
    1 year ago

    No one who has actually read the 2A has ever thought it was “clear”.

    • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      319·
      1 year ago

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      Everything to the left of it is just a justification for why that right exists. Can you tell me with a straight face that that right is not clear?

      • EfwisEnglish
        71·
        1 year ago

        In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding “the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill” or restrictions on “the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons”.

        Please tell me where the Supreme Court, who is responsible for constitutional law understanding, was wrong?

        The constitution is supposed to be a fluid system, designed to be ratified and easy to apply to modern standards, if the country would actually do it, to create a better life for everyone I the United States.

        Even the Supreme Court says you are wrong.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          11·
          1 year ago

          The constitution is supposed to be a fluid system, designed to be ratified and easy to apply to modern standards, if the country would actually do it, to create a better life for everyone I the United States.

          No, that is one ideology called the “living constitution”. But there are many who oppose that ideology.

        • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          19·
          1 year ago

          The revolutionary war was won with the help of private warships. That would have been well known to the founding fathers who wrote the bill of rights. Do you think that they would suddenly not want the citizens to be able to defend the homeland because guns are scary?

          The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the “operative clause.” The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.

          The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.

          Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to “the right of the people.” When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.

          https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/

      • quindraco@lemm.ee
        42·
        1 year ago

        Yes, because you are violating the rules of English grammar in your claim. As was my original point, it is impossible to claim any interpretation of the 2A without violating grammar. As a result, it can have any meaning you want, since you will make up the rules you like in order to interpret it the way you want.