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.”
It doesn’t matter. If the SC upholds the law (which is unlikely) the gun lobby will simply find someone more acceptable, and under slightly different circumstances, and bring up another challenge. They’ll keep going after gun laws the way the anti-choice side relentlessly attacked Roe.
I mean, this particular gun law violates the 14A, so it’s good for all of us if 2A supporters go after it.
How is putting guns in the hands of known abusers a good thing to do? Why is that person’s right to a gun more important to the lives of those around him?
The basis of this appeal is the question of whether a civil protective order can be tantamount to conviction for purposes of depriving enumerated Constitutional rights.
It is rote accepted practice in many divorce filings to file a restraining order as a preemptive measure even if the person being filed against poses no credible or historical threat of violence.
I think it makes sense to make someone a prohibited person for certain violent convictions but I’m more skeptical of civil filings that are often spurious or without evidentiary basis.
known abusers
Incorrect. For that to be correct, there would have to be a standard of proof. The correct term here is accused abusers.
Semantics are easy when you’re sacrificing other people’s lives.
It’s bizarre you think yourself a hero as you openly advocate putting the property of abusers over the safety of those they abuse, like temporarily losing access to firearms is a bigger tragedy than being executed by a former partner.
Are we supposed to politely ignore how that makes you look? People who hit their wives also post on social media and it shouldn’t come as a shock to people that they also tend see themselves the victim and right about everything.
You’re a big brave boy, you can handle a few months away from your beloved guns.
Burden of proof that a gun owner respects human life is on them. I’d like another amendment please.
It’s pretty clear that you don’t actually have any ideas here and are just like a barking dog.
So you engage in sophistry to avoid an actual argument. That didn’t fly in Ancient Greece and won’t fly here.
Because the 2nd Amendment is clear and any gun law is an infringement of the right.
Even gun loving conservative scholars agree that the 2nd amendment is a barely coherent grammatically tenuous mess. It’s notoriously unclear.
But for my part, I don’t see how any sane person reads “A well regulated Militia” and concludes that all regulation is prohibited.
Shhhh, the know-nothings don’t know this.
I don’t see how any sane person reads “A well regulated Militia”
Maybe because the country didn’t have the money or resources to equip the “well regulated militia” at that time therefore depended on the people to bring their own arms?
Even gun loving conservative scholars agree that the 2nd amendment is a barely coherent grammatically tenuous mess.
Who?
concludes that all regulation is prohibited.
I mean, “the right of the people shall not be infringed.”
Also, correspondence at the time sort of supports this.
Literally every serious constitutional scholar thinks it’s ambiguous, just as a matter of English language. Even Scalia, the arch-right Supreme Court justice who penned the majority opinion for Heller, the decision that established the right to own a personal firearm, wrote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
That isn’t a constitutional argument, that is a stare decisis argument.
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
Here is what is said above that, where it is clearly a constitutional argument, because it references the constitution as evidence- not other courts.
That’s the justification, not the right. The right is to bear arms. The militia is everyone able-bodied in the US.
Whether you personally think that’s the correct interpretation, if you’re intellectually honest you should at least be able to admit, as many conservative legal scholars themselves admit, that the wording is ambiguous.
I’ll buy that when one these “conservative legal scholars” aka moron federalists can produce a single primary source document that uses the phrase bear arms outside of a strictly military context involving uniformed, regimented troops, and instead refers expressly to an individual right of self defense.
Otherwise, it’s not ambiguous.
I was curious about this, so I looked into it. According to the Duke center for Firearms Law, one study found that “nearly 95 percent of all uses of “bear arms” conveyed the idiomatic sense relating serving in the military”. Another found usage to be 66% military, 21% both military and civilian, and 13% ambiguous. But it sounds like there are a lot of primary sources uses of non-military contexts, especially directly preceding the war for independence.
I’m on your side and I think this is an interesting point, but personally, I’m not convinced this is the strongest argument. We should be able to regulate firearms, even if “bear arms” means “carry arms for private use”.
Well he’s right about the able bodied bit at least. Under the legal definition of militia in the US every able bodied male age 17-45 is actively part of the militia. One could make the argument that women (outside the NG), disabled people, and old people shouldn’t have the right to guns with this I suppose but that feels sexist, ableist, and ageist (is that still a thing?)
“(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246#:~:text=(a)The,the National Guard.
The wording while ambiguous to some seems fairly clear to me tbh too, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is the only part that on its own makes a complete sentance, the prescriptive clause simply explaining that the reason “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms is because “the militia” as defined above is important. “Well regulated” is the only bit one could quibble over, however as “the militia” is defined, it seems clear to be intending “well maintained” as per historical definitions of “well regulated,” though historically it was used both as that and how we’d use it today.
Furthermore, from other historical papers that might offer context, we have quotes like these:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
I think it’s pretty clear what they intended. Not to say you can’t disagree with their intentions themselves, but it does seem pretty clear what they did intend.
Cool citations for things said after the amendment was passed. Curious why the convention voted down unanimously an amendment that included an express individual right.
Any citations from before 1776 describing an individual right to bear arms in the common law?
The bill of rights does not add any new right which did not already then exist at common law.
Those things are from the year or the years shortly following, they are by far more historically relevant than the 2023 usage.
So I stopped when you claimed the definition of militia was males 17-45. That definition came WELL AFTER the passage of the 2nd Amendment. Considering you started with something incorrect, I’m not so sure I put much stock in the rest of your gish gallop.
That is the CURRENT legal definition, like it or not, and if you’d continued reading it would’ve provided more context yet you remain willfully ignorant. This is your choice and you are free to make it.
intending “well maintained” as per historical definitions of “well regulated,” though historically it was used both as that and how we’d use it today.
This is always a bizarre argument. Okay sure, it means “well maintained”. Now explain how “well maintained” means “full of morbidly obese men who have zero combat training, wouldn’t follow orders and can’t prove they can even safely handle a gun, let alone do anything useful with it and also they might be suicidal, psychotic or eager to kill a room full of children”.
No army in the world would indiscriminately accept American gun owners just for being American gun owners. Not even shitty militant groups fighting in the lowest GDP countries.
Well I don’t think “no guns for fatties” is a good look tbh, and it seems to be simply mean rather than something “effective” or “useful.” Besides, the militia back then was mostly made up of farmers without military training, but yes, they weren’t “fatties.”
It is far from ambiguous. The first half tells you why the right exists and only part of why. The second half is the right itself, which is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The whole question is whether the beginning is a merely “prefatory clause” that has no effect on the application of the second half. The other interpretation is that the beginning is not just idle small talk: People have the right to keep and bear arms insofar as it’s conducive to a well-regulated militia.
Now, you may disagree with that interpretation, but the existence of at least two rival interpretations is the very definition of ambiguity.
It’s only unclear if you have an ulterior motive.
A metric by which no other amendment is interpreted, otherwise we could insist completely dumb shit like “soldiers must remain homeless for the duration of their service”.
The justification is actually to “protect state security.” It’s right there in the text.
Security of a free state.
Most non violent prisoners of any country to ever exist, as a whole population, and per capita. free lol.
Sounds like you need to start executing politicians for the tyranny of “food safety standards” then because the only metric by which America is more “free” than comparable countries is “guns sold to idiots, extremists and domestic terrorists”.
By justification, you mean the spirit of the law right?
By justification I mean the reason for the right. The right being the right to bear arms.
That sounds like well regulated militia is the spirit of the law. The reason for it, the intention, however you want to word it.
It says right in the text the purpose is to protect the security of the state.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”
It follows that the state is what may regulate the militia.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Important parts in bold.
The reason for the law is because the militia was used to defend the US. That changed very quickly when the founders figured out that loosely organized militias were no match to even fight Natives in the Northwest Territory. So the justification is moot now since militias play almost no part in the defense of the US.
I saw a YouTube video or maybe a website article years ago stating that the U.S. can never be conquered, that if an organized foreign military defeated the organized U.S. military they will have a hard time with the millions upon millions of guns in the country.
I mean, if they defeated the military what can a militia do?
The second amendment is not clear and has been given the broadest possible interpretation. Are you a member of a well-regulated militia?
Not well regulated but yes I am part of the militia. Well regulated means well supplied. The militia is everyone able-bodied in the US.
Well regulated means well supplied. The militia is everyone able-bodied in the US.
No it doesnt
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.
Where are you getting that well regulated means well armed? It meant, and still means, trained, able to take orders, and battlefield ready. Where do you think the term “regulars” comes from in the context of historical warfare and what do you think that term means?
Did you throughly misunderstand collective rights theory or something? Could you possibly point me to the interpretation where it claims “well regulated” means “well armed” in the context of the 2nd amendment? I certainly couldn’t find any sources to back that claim and it seems like you might have pulled it out of your backside.
It doesn’t really matter what it means because the right is the right of the people to keep and bare arms. The militia is merely the justification for that right. I’m not putting in the effort here because I don’t have to. It is extremely clear and simple.
It wasnt the definition of the time either. It has always meant what it means today.
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.
reg·u·late verb past tense: regulated; past participle: regulated control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly. “a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function” Similar: control adjust manage balance set synchronize modulate tune control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations. “the organization that regulates fishing in the region” Similar: supervise oversee police superintend monitor check (up on) keep an eye on inspect administer be responsible for control manage direct guide govern rule order keep tabs on keep a tab on keep a beady eye on set (a clock or other apparatus) according to an external standard. “the standard time by which other clocks were regulated”
sup·ply verb past tense: supplied; past participle: supplied make (something needed or wanted) available to someone; provide. “the farm supplies apples to cider makers” Similar: give contribute provide furnish donate bestow grant endow afford impart lay on come up with make available proffer dispense allocate allot assign disburse lavish shower regale fork out shell out minister serve confer equip rig out outfit clothe fit arm kit out endue provide (someone) with something needed or wanted. “they struggled to supply the besieged island with aircraft” be adequate to satisfy (a requirement or demand). “the two reservoirs supply about 1% of the city’s needs”
Seems Oxford’s disagrees.
Actually if you’d like to look at the definition in a historical context, it used to be used as both “governed” and “in proper working order.”
This is from that same oxford dictionary, the years are next to the quotes.
Yes, as we all know words never change. Have a gay day.
Not that much. You are way the fuck off.
Wow you just make up words now and say they mean whatever you want?
Regulated and Regimented are more synonymous that whatever you are talking about.
No. Well regulated meant in working order which is why people who owned weapons had to register them and have them inspected. Do you have yours registered with the government? When was the last time you had them inspected by the government to make sure you can defend the US as art of the militia?
for the purposes of a well regulated militia
Yeah we don’t have those anymore chief. We have this thing called a military instead and I already saw your “everyone is a part of the militia” opinion, that’s some straight up bullshit.
- I never agreed to be in one so I’m definitely not.
- how the fuck can you possibly well regulate a militia with ~10 million people?
Their constitution says the US isn’t even supposed to keep a standing army. There’s lots of discussion about that by the people who wrote it and decided on the specific language.
Also, you’re right about the 2nd amendment. The part about the well regulated militia is part of the right, a qualifier, not subsequent.
But, people in the US, both government and citizens, clearly don’t follow their constitution very well. It’s used to justify whatever they want to do when they can and freely ignored when inconvenient.
Sounds like the Bible.
Tell me about it, I get to suffer living here listening to all of the creative interpretations of the constitution. My favorites are when someone clearly hasn’t read it says a quote is in it and says it to me who used to read and carry a copy of the constitution.
“(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246#:~:text=(a)The,the National Guard
Sooo really sounds like only men between 17 and 45 or women in the national guard get the right to a firearm per the writing of the constitution.
Militia is to conscripted military member as jury pool is to petit jury.
Yeah, which is sexist as fuck so tbh I don’t prefer that interpretation, and do 17yos really need to be able to pass NICs checks? Like, rn they can have one if a parent buys it for them, but to expand that seems…iffy at best…
I think I mentioned my favorite part but to reiterate, once you hit 45 you just lose the right to own a gun. Really doesn’t sound like freedom to arms to me.
Yeah also there’s no gay marriage in there so we should ban that, abortion, medical transitioning…
Yeah I’m not the biggest fan of the literalist interpretation. Seems like playing with fire. Furthermore as you’ve pointed out quite succinctly, the literalist interpretation is silly as fuck.
It doesn’t fucking matter. The right is not for a militia. The right is for all the people to bear arms.
And well regulated meant well supplied. The militia has plenty of guns when the militia is the people and the people have plenty of guns.
well regulated meant well supplied.
Please tell me more about what people you’ve never met defined something to be. Or preferably tell us that’s your interpretation
There are other, primary sources, that back up this interpretation. The Federalist Papers is a good starting point.
I don’t know the real answer, but it seems that defining a collective right as the second in a list of nine other individual rights doesn’t seem logical. I, personally, believe the individual right is what was intended. I also believe that over 200 years have passed and it needs to be updated. Arguing the semantics isn’t going to help anyone and simply attempting to re-interpret what’s supposed to be a living document is absurd. That being said, it would take a lot more people being a lot more rational to ever have a hope of making those changes.
Yeah, quoting the federalist papers to me is about as good as me quoting some other source that as equally invalidates that opinion.
Sure it’s a source and sure you can based an opinion on it but it’s not definitive by any means no matter how much conservatives would like to suggest otherwise.
Let me get this straight, you don’t believe that the words mean something and claim we can’t know their intent, then when offered additional context provided by some of the people who wrote the words you disagree with you dismiss it out of hand?
What would be a proper source to you then? Or do you prefer to revel in willful ignorance? Because that sounds like a pretty conservative view to me.
Read the first sentence again.
The right is solely because the founders meant for the US to rely on the militia for defense. That changed very fucking quick because the state militias were uncoordinated garbage so the federal government recognized the need for a large standing army. Militias being our main defense has not been a thing since the mid 1790s. You are a couple hundred years behind.
That’s funny, because it looks to me like the PEOPLE were guaranteed a right.
Because they thought the militia was necessary for the defense of the state. They found out that idea was wrong pretty quickly.
any gun law is an infringement of the right.
Ok, boomer
Shall not be infringed.
So you can buy any weapon in any manner of firing, including full auto or are there laws in place to prevent this?
You should be able to but there are infringements in place like the originally excessively expensive $200 tax stamp for fully automatic weapons.
Even for people with a history of gun violence? Does this also prohibit separate penalties of disarmament when someone is found guilty?
You understand how this interpretation of the law can’t have a positive effect on society right?
If they’re too dangerous to be trusted in polite society then why are they released? If they just so happen to try it in a polite society that’s well armed we won’t have to worry any longer.
So they can be infringed?
No one who has actually read the 2A has ever thought it was “clear”.
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?
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.
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.
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/
Yes.
You are either disingenuous or an idiot.
Or neither
Well you seem to be both.
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.
You know that half the states had restrictions (no open carry, concealed carry, registration, etc) when the 2nd Amendment was passed and continued to have those restrictions after, right? For something being so clear, a good portion of the states sure misunderstood it…or maybe it’s you that does.
It’s much easier to just argue that a “well regulated militia” means “morbidly obese with neither training nor discipline”.
It’s why they never have any other skills that would be useful in a war, like establishing ad hoc communication networks, piloting a drone, field medicine, even working as a team.
Their entire contribution would just be “have gun” and if their staunch opposition to wearing masks in a pandemic is anything to go by, they wouldn’t even offer their country that.
Do you have a source?
Also, for some time it was interpreted that the constitution was only a limitation on the federal government and not state governments iirc
The only “restriction” there are relevant to control was registration. But that wasn’t to control that was to require you had at least one weapon. If your job requires you have steel-toed boots, that doesn’t limit your ownership of other boots.
You don’t consider safe storage laws, banning open and concealed carry, and loyalty oaths to fall under gun control? If not, then 👍.
You would have to register all your guns and they were inspected to make sure at least one was in working order. That is if you owned a gun. Some states did require you to own one unless you feel under one of the myriad of exemptions they allowed.
But yeah, if you don’t consider those things control, I’m largely fine with your level of what most would consider control.
Of course he will say all that while incarcerated and trying to get out on good behavior.
Gonna be real hard to accomplish all that with a federal felony firearms conviction on your record. Not to mention being involved in five separate shootings in a three-month period.
And he is NOT dropping the suit for what, “exactly”?
Whoever paid for his lawyers won’t let him.
The Constitution is definitely clear. Due Process of Law is required to deprive a citizen of their Constitutional rights.
Do Civil proceedings pass the bar of “Due Process”? This is what the SCOTUS must decide.
Personally I don’t think they are sufficient enough Due Process alone. I do however suspect that if criminal charges are filed and one is convicted of violence, a Civil court judge may still be within their rights to suspend the rights of the accused to own a firearm temporarily to protect someone.
Rahimi was issued a restraining order in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend in Arlington, Texas. A court found that he had “committed family violence” and that it was likely to occur again.
So this man was already convicted of gun violence once by a criminal court.
When the police ultimately obtained a search warrant for his home, they found a rifle and a pistol, and Rahimi admitted that he was subject to the protective order that had been entered in the civil proceeding.
The evidence shows he’s been sanctioned by a protective order.
A federal grand jury indicted him, and Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. He lost his court effort, but then the Supreme Court issued the landmark Second Amendment decision.
He’s been indicted on criminal charges. Yep. I think this guy in particular probably did not have his Constitutional rights to own a gun intact.
Rahimi, who is challenging his conviction under a federal law that bars individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing a firearm, is being held at the jail under separate charges stemming from a series of gun-related incidents.
Ah yeah. This. He definitely should not be allowed to own a gun if convicted under these separate charges.
Relatedly, I also see there’s a federal law on the books. Hmm. This sounds like the people already believe this civil proceeding is Due Process!
