”How a Second Amendment case at the Supreme Court is putting gun rights groups in a jam.”
“WASHINGTON – Zackey Rahimi's legal troubles began in 2019 when he pulled out a gun and fired at a passerby who witnessed him dragging his girlfriend through a parking lot.”
“Months later, after getting into an accident, Rahimi repeatedly shot at the other driver, court records show. A year later, he threatened another woman with a gun and was charged with aggravated assault. In 2021, he fired several times into the air after a friend's credit card was declined at a burger joint near Fort Worth, Texas.”
“Rahimi's case is now before the Supreme Court in a blockbuster Second Amendment challenge that may prove especially thorny for the gun lobby and the court's conservative wing. That's because Rahimi is challenging his conviction under a federal law that bars Americans who are subject to restraining orders from owning guns.”
“Rahimi, in essence, argues that because there was no regulation that banned guns from people subject to restraining orders at the time of the nation's founding, the federal law that prohibits that ownership today must fall. A federal appeals court in New Orleans sided with Rahimi in March, acknowledging he was "hardly a model citizen" but ruling that the law prohibiting him from owning a gun is an "outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...me-court-second-amendment-rahimi/70383454007/
First off, one has to ask, be it Thomas, or any of these other dimwits, how in the hell do they know what our ancestors would have accepted? Hard to believe that the Founders, who weren’t even too sure about giving all Americans the vote, would support giving a guy who on four occasions pulled out a weapons and either shot at innocent people or threatened others with the gun
So I guess the solution is someone, regardless of their personal history, has to actual shoot somebody to be denied a gun
“WASHINGTON – Zackey Rahimi's legal troubles began in 2019 when he pulled out a gun and fired at a passerby who witnessed him dragging his girlfriend through a parking lot.”
“Months later, after getting into an accident, Rahimi repeatedly shot at the other driver, court records show. A year later, he threatened another woman with a gun and was charged with aggravated assault. In 2021, he fired several times into the air after a friend's credit card was declined at a burger joint near Fort Worth, Texas.”
“Rahimi's case is now before the Supreme Court in a blockbuster Second Amendment challenge that may prove especially thorny for the gun lobby and the court's conservative wing. That's because Rahimi is challenging his conviction under a federal law that bars Americans who are subject to restraining orders from owning guns.”
“Rahimi, in essence, argues that because there was no regulation that banned guns from people subject to restraining orders at the time of the nation's founding, the federal law that prohibits that ownership today must fall. A federal appeals court in New Orleans sided with Rahimi in March, acknowledging he was "hardly a model citizen" but ruling that the law prohibiting him from owning a gun is an "outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...me-court-second-amendment-rahimi/70383454007/
First off, one has to ask, be it Thomas, or any of these other dimwits, how in the hell do they know what our ancestors would have accepted? Hard to believe that the Founders, who weren’t even too sure about giving all Americans the vote, would support giving a guy who on four occasions pulled out a weapons and either shot at innocent people or threatened others with the gun
So I guess the solution is someone, regardless of their personal history, has to actual shoot somebody to be denied a gun