Texas defendant challenging federal gun law at the Supreme Court says he doesn’t want firearms anymore

MicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 147 points –
Texas defendant challenging federal gun law at the Supreme Court says he doesn’t want firearms anymore | CNN Politics
cnn.com

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.”

137

You are viewing a single comment

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.

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%20National%20Guard.

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.

https://www.oed.com/search/advanced/Quotations?textTermText0=Well+regulated&textTermOpt0=QuotText

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."

Well I don't think "no guns for fatties" is a good look tbh

Neither is 70% of mass shooters being legal gun owners or legal gun owners murdering their partners but hey, not hurting their feelings is important too.

mean rather than something "effective" or "useful."

So militaries having minimum health requirements is just them being big meanies?

the militia back then was mostly made up of farmers without military training

And they were almost entirely worthless until they were rounded up and given that training, which the founding fathers were absolutely aware of when the amendment was written.

Anyway, whatever definition you go with, gun owners are meeting neither.

How many gun owners become mass shooters? Lets see, 333,287,557 people, 50% (generous, it isn't quite 50 but for easy math) ownership for 166,643,778.5 people owning guns, and I'll be generous and include gang shootings (because I know the number) at 547 for the year, turns out, 547 is 0.00032824507756826% of 166643778.5, meaning 0.00032824507756826% of gun owners are likely to pull off a mass shooting in any given year. Sure seems like they aren't the problem to me.

You can't ban rights from people for physical maladies or differences. Well, you can, or could, before the 13th ammendment but it is a commonly held belief that that was "bad." Turns out "banning the (blank)" from say "voting," or "free speech" is "wrong" and so "no guns for cripples and fatties" is also "wrong." "The military" doesn't have to take you but they also can't just kill you for being fat.

Well, Thomas Jefferson is directly quoted as contradicting your opinion, so I'm gonna say he knew better than you the parlance and attitudes of whiskey brewers that just overthrew a government in the 1700s.

Preventable deaths are preventable deaths and the gun laws you fawn over have caused tens of thousands.

Thomas Jefferson is directly quoted as contradicting your opinion

Oh, you mean the guy who owned over 600 slaves? What were his thoughts on who should vote and have free speech?

Oh, you mean the guy who owned over 600 slaves? What were his thoughts on who should vote and have free speech?

Well I didn't realize you were one of those "no guns for the blacks" types...

You mean like Jefferson, the slave owner?

Keep working on your awkward manipulation tactics if you want but you've already shown open support for the opinions of a man who genuinely believed all the racist things you're trying to attribute to me.

Just because the definition of "people" needed work doesn't mean it isn't good to apply those rights to today's definition of people and we both know it, the slave owner bit is a deflection to invalidate the argument without attacking the argument but attacking the person delivering it, which is classic ad hominem. Of course I'm not taking your logical fallacies seriously.

You should stick to the talking points the gun lobby gives you. Maybe then you won't accidentally align your morality with that of a literal slaver while you awkwardly try and call other people racist.

He also fucked a 14 year old when he was nearly 40, so does paedophilia get your thumbs up as well? After all, sexual assault of minors is only a small percentage of sex overall and Jefferson thought it was cool, so you can support it with exactly the same dogshit arguments you use for guns.

5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...

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.

Then I guess there are a lot of pro-gun conservatives who have an ulterior motive! The sentence isn’t even grammatical according to the rules of modern English because the controversial comma separates a subject from its predicate.

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".

5 more...

The justification is actually to "protect state security." It's right there in the text.

Security of a free state.

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".

1 more...
1 more...

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.

Stick your fingers in your ears and yell as loud as you want, its not gonna make the well regulated portion go away.

Not even beginning to mention the founders intentions of the constitution evolving over time, as the lethality, proliferation, and criminal usage of guns has skyrocketed since that amendment was written.

At least some of the founders had the intention of the second amendment allowing the population to overthrow tyrannical rulers.

Yeah i dont think guns are gonna get you very far with that.

Arms, not guns. Also, tell that to the Vietnamese, and Afghanis.

Since we're ignoring morality and effectiveness in favor of semantics and self-centredness, I propose that "arms" meant literal arms, attached to your body.

After all, you can't have a well regulated militia full of double amputees.

Right, civilians with fighter jets and stealth bombers.

We arent talking about law in other countries, the second amendment only pertains to the US. So it would only pertain to you going to war with the US military and police force.

Right, civilians with fighter jets and stealth bombers.

Yes.

I wasn't talking about laws in other countries. I was talking about armed rebellions that beat the US. You know the country with planes, bombers, tanks, and whatnot.

3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...

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?

I'd say it is more down to the size of the US. There are 330 million people in a country nearly the size of Europe. A country could definitely get a chunk of the US. That would definitely require fully defeating our military which is pretty unlikely. Insurgency can definitely gum things up a bit for foreign invaders but it really takes outside support to actually accomplish much.

3 more...
3 more...
9 more...
9 more...