Posted on 11/06/2023 8:44:18 AM PST by Dr. Marten
ASHINGTON—Zackey Rahimi pulled a gun on his ex-girlfriend in a parking lot and shot at a witness who saw them arguing, prompting a Texas family court to issue a protective order in 2020 temporarily forbidding him from possessing firearms.
Rahimi ignored the order, authorities say, going on to threaten another woman with a gun, fire an AR-15 into the house of one of his narcotics customers, and shoot into the air at a Whataburger drive-through after his friend’s credit card was declined. That led to his conviction under a 1994 federal law prohibiting people under domestic-violence orders from possessing guns—and set up the latest chapter in the modern history of the Second Amendment.
Earlier this year, a federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down the 1994 federal law for violating the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider the Biden administration’s appeal in U.S. v. Rahimi, which argues that the law—and similar measures in nearly every state—not only is constitutional, but has helped protect vulnerable women, children and bystanders from deadly violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
This is a Texas man? Sounds more like a castrator of camels.
If everyone was armed, as they should be, this would have stopped at the first instance.
And this guy has friends and a girlfriend? I don’t even have that. What the hell, man.
“This is a Texas man?”
No.
Immigrated from Afghanistan
It looks like Zackey Rahimi is the problem, not the object he selected to misuse.
beginning to think that no one in the biden administration knows how to read with any level of comprehension. perhaps one day Mr. and Mrs. American will read the Constitution for themselves and finally understand that most of what the Founders wrote was for the purpose of telling government what they CAN’T do. 1A and 2A being the two most prominent in telling government NO! you can’t do that. and yet here we are.
No, his misbehavior doesn’t cancel the Constitution.
Which we will fix by writing more laws that will be followed by folks who do follow the law.
KIck his raggedy ass out!
Doesn’t this statement “...fire an AR-15 into the house of one of his narcotics customers mean he’s a drug dealer a.k.a. criminal?! A criminal ignoring court orders-shocked, just shocked!
Exactly. The Constitution protect even people we thoroughly dislike.
The problem isn't that this < deleted > had a rifle. The problem is that he's a < deleted >, that he misused his rifle, and that he was not imprisoned for said misuse.
This clown shot at a witness. He should have been charged with reckless discharge of a firearm and attempted murder. That would make him a felon. He should spend at least ten years in jail and have forever lost the right to possess a firearm, as well as lost his right to vote.
from reading another article it sounds like the guy should be in jail, then immediately deported upon release in 5 or 10 years
Church, hobby groups, social clubs are excellent ways to meet people.
Build a friend network. Friends want to see friends happy and will help you find a girlfriend (presuming that is what you want).
The problem is:
It’s not OUR guns,
It’s YOUR sons.
The man at the center of a monumental Supreme Court case on gun rights allegedly shot guns in public at least six times over a three-month period: three times directly at people, once into a house and twice into the air. All of those alleged shootings occurred while he was under a protective order for domestic violence that prohibited him from possessing firearms.
In the letter, Zackey Rahimi pleaded with the judge to take mercy on him. Since his family immigrated to the United States from Afghanistan, he had grown up in poverty, he wrote. Shy and overweight, kids at school bullied him. A devoted gearhead, he found a way to help his family pay the bills in high school by flipping cars bought at auction after repairing and detailing them.
>>He should have been charged with reckless discharge of a firearm and attempted murder. That would make him a felon.
He eventually was. The argument is that at the time of the restraint order, he had not been convicted of a felony and the lower threshold of evidence of a restraint order can not be used to strip Constitutional rights.
ping
You have higher standards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.