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.”

  • SeaJ
    link
    fedilink
    7
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.

    • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      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.

    • @aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      18 months ago

      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

        • @aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          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.

          • SeaJ
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            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.