Texas defendant challenging federal gun law at the Supreme Court says he doesn’t want firearms anymore | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
Texas defendant challenging federal gun law at the Supreme Court says he doesn’t want firearms any more

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.”

  • Melody Fwygon@lemmy.oneEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    The Constitution is definitely clear. Due Process of Law is required to deprive a citizen of their Constitutional rights.

    Do Civil proceedings pass the bar of “Due Process”? This is what the SCOTUS must decide.

    Personally I don’t think they are sufficient enough Due Process alone. I do however suspect that if criminal charges are filed and one is convicted of violence, a Civil court judge may still be within their rights to suspend the rights of the accused to own a firearm temporarily to protect someone.

    Rahimi was issued a restraining order in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend in Arlington, Texas. A court found that he had “committed family violence” and that it was likely to occur again.

    So this man was already convicted of gun violence once by a criminal court.

    When the police ultimately obtained a search warrant for his home, they found a rifle and a pistol, and Rahimi admitted that he was subject to the protective order that had been entered in the civil proceeding.

    The evidence shows he’s been sanctioned by a protective order.

    A federal grand jury indicted him, and Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. He lost his court effort, but then the Supreme Court issued the landmark Second Amendment decision.

    He’s been indicted on criminal charges. Yep. I think this guy in particular probably did not have his Constitutional rights to own a gun intact.

    Rahimi, who is challenging his conviction under a federal law that bars individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing a firearm, is being held at the jail under separate charges stemming from a series of gun-related incidents.

    Ah yeah. This. He definitely should not be allowed to own a gun if convicted under these separate charges.

    Relatedly, I also see there’s a federal law on the books. Hmm. This sounds like the people already believe this civil proceeding is Due Process!