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.”

  • aidan@lemmy.world
    22·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
      2·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        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.