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@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    The right is solely because the founders meant for the US to rely on the militia for defense. That changed very fucking quick because the state militias were uncoordinated garbage so the federal government recognized the need for a large standing army. Militias being our main defense has not been a thing since the mid 1790s. You are a couple hundred years behind.

    • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s funny, because it looks to me like the PEOPLE were guaranteed a right.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because they thought the militia was necessary for the defense of the state. They found out that idea was wrong pretty quickly.