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

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.”

Captain_Patchy,

And he is NOT dropping the suit for what, “exactly”?

JustZ,

Whoever paid for his lawyers won’t let him.

dan1101,

Of course he will say all that while incarcerated and trying to get out on good behavior.

athos77,

Gonna be real hard to accomplish all that with a federal felony firearms conviction on your record. Not to mention being involved in five separate shootings in a three-month period.

dynamojoe,

It doesn’t matter. If the SC upholds the law (which is unlikely) the gun lobby will simply find someone more acceptable, and under slightly different circumstances, and bring up another challenge. They’ll keep going after gun laws the way the anti-choice side relentlessly attacked Roe.

Tb0n3,

Because the 2nd Amendment is clear and any gun law is an infringement of the right.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

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.

Tb0n3,

That’s the justification, not the right. The right is to bear arms. The militia is everyone able-bodied in the US.

blazera,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

By justification, you mean the spirit of the law right?

Tb0n3,

By justification I mean the reason for the right. The right being the right to bear arms.

blazera,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

That sounds like well regulated militia is the spirit of the law. The reason for it, the intention, however you want to word it.

Tb0n3,

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Important parts in bold.

blazera,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

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.

Tb0n3,

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

blazera,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

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

Tb0n3,

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

blazera,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

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.

Tb0n3,

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.

blazera,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

Damn, vietnam overthrew the US?

Tb0n3,

You’ve got to be trying to be that obtuse.

blazera,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

no, see you've gone onto overthrowing the US government as a justification for the second amendment, and used the Vietnam War as an example of guns defeating the US. But they didn't overthrow the US government, they never tried to or got anywhere in the vicinity of it. The US suffered embarrassingly high casualties, but Vietnamese got slaughtered, and US military left after massive pushback from US voters, not from an inability to continue

It was not the scenario of a US dictatorship being risen against. If that scenario were ever to happen, it's entirely gonna hinge on the loyalty of the military, whether or not they'd go to war against US citizens. It doesn't matter if they're armed or not.

Tb0n3,

The point is that an armed populace isn’t just rolled over by the largest military in the world. Everybody thinks the “what do you think guns will do against jets” is such a gotcha, but there’s lots of evidence even fighting foreign powers it’s not that simple. Then you must consider that lots of the US military is pretty big on guns and you have a high likelihood of defection or sabotage of the military. And then even after that any use of the military in our own soil will be extremely unpopular creating even more insurgents.

PoliticalAgitator,

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.

PoliticalAgitator,

Something the second amendment has accomplished exactly zero times.

JustZ,

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.

SeaJ,

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.

wildcardology,

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?

SeaJ,

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.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

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.

Tb0n3,

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.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

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.

Tb0n3,

It’s only unclear if you have an ulterior motive.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

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.

PoliticalAgitator,

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”.

ArcaneSlime,

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.” www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246#:~:text=(a….

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.

www.oed.com/search/advanced/Quotations?textTermTe…

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.

JustZ,

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 did not already then exist at common law.

ArcaneSlime,

Those things are from the year or the years shortly following, they are by far more historically relevant than the 2023 usage.

SeaJ,

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.

ArcaneSlime,

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.

PoliticalAgitator,

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.

ArcaneSlime,

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.”

PoliticalAgitator,

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.

ArcaneSlime,

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.

PoliticalAgitator,

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?

ArcaneSlime,

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…

PoliticalAgitator,

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.

ArcaneSlime,

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.

JustZ,

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.

SkepticalButOpenMinded,

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”.

JustZ,

The justification is actually to “protect state security.” It’s right there in the text.

Tb0n3,

Security of a free state.

PoliticalAgitator,

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”.

Nudding,

Most non violent prisoners of any country to ever exist, as a whole population, and per capita. free lol.

JustZ,

Shhhh, the know-nothings don’t know this.

dynamojoe,

The second amendment is not clear and has been given the broadest possible interpretation. Are you a member of a well-regulated militia?

Tb0n3,

Not well regulated but yes I am part of the militia. Well regulated means well supplied. The militia is everyone able-bodied in the US.

blazera,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

Well regulated means well supplied. The militia is everyone able-bodied in the US.

No it doesnt

Tb0n3,

Yes. It. Does. Just because the common definition for militia changed doesn’t mean that the meaning of the writing with the definition of the time is different because you want it to be.

blazera,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

It wasnt the definition of the time either. It has always meant what it means today.

Tb0n3,

Even if that were true, it doesn’t matter because the militia is not the right. The right is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Hobo, (edited )

I think there’s subtleties that you’re ignoring to push an agenda. I do think it’s important to understand the question on the table though. The question isn’t what rights you have, but when is the government allowed to take away those rights.

Maybe we should take a step back. Do you think the government can revoke a person’s 2nd amendment rights? For example do prisoners have the right have a shiv in their cell? The question posed in this instance is whether or not a restraining order for domestic assault rises to the level of due process for taking away that right. It’s already firmly written into law that the government can leverage due process to take away rights. Unless you’re arguing that it is an absolute right, and we should all be allowed to have nuclear bombs and prisoners should be allowed to have shivs, then I think you’re missing the point.

You also seem to have a very tenuous definition of the 2nd amendment that you’re willing to change when it doesn’t fit your needs. It seems like you might want to think it through a bit more, and perhaps try to get at the root of the question at hand, instead of spouting that everyone should be allowed to have arms no matter what. The implication of that statement is a bit terrifying, and is well outside of our current legal adjudication of the 2nd amendment.

Tb0n3,

If someone is in custody they can have their rights Curtailed. As soon as they are free they should be able to exercise all of their rights once more. The only definition that matters is the right defined which is the right to bear arms and that hasn’t changed.

reason.com/…/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-any…

Hobo, (edited )

Federal courts in the decade since have found many restrictions on the right to own and use weapons perfectly congruent with that decision. Heller merely says the government can’t enforce laws that prevent (most) Americans from possessing commonly used weapons in their homes for self-defense.

From the introductory paragraph in your own link. Again this isn’t whether most Americans can posses weapons but does a domestic abuse restraining order rise to the level of due process. Which oddly falls in line with the second paragraph of the source you linked:

Courts have found that Heller does not preclude laws that prohibit anyone younger than 21 from buying guns in retail stores; laws that bar people who committed a single nonviolent felony from ever owning a gun; laws that severely restrict the ability to carry a gun outside the home; laws that ban commonly owned magazines of a certain capacity; or laws that require handguns to incorporate untested, expensive, and unreliable “microstamping” technology.

There’s nothing I found in the article you linked which claims that the 2nd amendment is an absolute right that cannot be revoked. You’re arguing something that simply isn’t a thing and avoiding the actual question at hand.

Tb0n3,

Shall not be infringed. Pretty god damn simple.

Hobo,

It’s literally not that simple, and at this point you’re not even reading what I’m saying. What you are claiming is not black and white even by your own sources. It speaks volumes about how much thought you’ve actually put into the subject. You’re far worse than the far left anti-2nd amendment folks in a lot of ways, and have roughly the same understanding of the subject as they do about it.

I hope one day you’ll learn nuance. Good day to you.

Nudding,

Almost like… It’s too simple… Like there should be updates…

Hobo,

Where are you getting that well regulated means well armed? It meant, and still means, trained, able to take orders, and battlefield ready. Where do you think the term “regulars” comes from in the context of historical warfare and what do you think that term means?

Did you throughly misunderstand collective rights theory or something? Could you possibly point me to the interpretation where it claims “well regulated” means “well armed” in the context of the 2nd amendment? I certainly couldn’t find any sources to back that claim and it seems like you might have pulled it out of your backside.

Tb0n3,

It doesn’t really matter what it means because the right is the right of the people to keep and bare arms. The militia is merely the justification for that right. I’m not putting in the effort here because I don’t have to. It is extremely clear and simple.

HikingVet,

reg·u·late verb past tense: regulated; past participle: regulated control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly. “a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function” Similar: control adjust manage balance set synchronize modulate tune control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations. “the organization that regulates fishing in the region” Similar: supervise oversee police superintend monitor check (up on) keep an eye on inspect administer be responsible for control manage direct guide govern rule order keep tabs on keep a tab on keep a beady eye on set (a clock or other apparatus) according to an external standard. “the standard time by which other clocks were regulated”

sup·ply verb past tense: supplied; past participle: supplied make (something needed or wanted) available to someone; provide. “the farm supplies apples to cider makers” Similar: give contribute provide furnish donate bestow grant endow afford impart lay on come up with make available proffer dispense allocate allot assign disburse lavish shower regale fork out shell out minister serve confer equip rig out outfit clothe fit arm kit out endue provide (someone) with something needed or wanted. “they struggled to supply the besieged island with aircraft” be adequate to satisfy (a requirement or demand). “the two reservoirs supply about 1% of the city’s needs”

Seems Oxford’s disagrees.

Tb0n3,

Yes, as we all know words never change. Have a gay day.

HikingVet,

Not that much. You are way the fuck off.

ArcaneSlime,

Actually if you’d like to look at the definition in a historical context, it used to be used as both “governed” and “in proper working order.”

www.oed.com/search/advanced/Quotations?textTermTe…

This is from that same oxford dictionary, the years are next to the quotes.

SeaJ,

No. Well regulated meant in working order which is why people who owned weapons had to register them and have them inspected. Do you have yours registered with the government? When was the last time you had them inspected by the government to make sure you can defend the US as art of the militia?

JustZ,

Wow you just make up words now and say they mean whatever you want?

Regulated and Regimented are more synonymous that whatever you are talking about.

toasteecup,

for the purposes of a well regulated militia

Yeah we don’t have those anymore chief. We have this thing called a military instead and I already saw your “everyone is a part of the militia” opinion, that’s some straight up bullshit.

  1. I never agreed to be in one so I’m definitely not.
  2. how the fuck can you possibly well regulate a militia with ~10 million people?
Tb0n3,

It doesn’t fucking matter. The right is not for a militia. The right is for all the people to bear arms.

And well regulated meant well supplied. The militia has plenty of guns when the militia is the people and the people have plenty of guns.

toasteecup,

well regulated meant well supplied.

Please tell me more about what people you’ve never met defined something to be. Or preferably tell us that’s your interpretation

Tb0n3,

Read the first sentence again.

mark3748,

There are other, primary sources, that back up this interpretation. The Federalist Papers is a good starting point.

I don’t know the real answer, but it seems that defining a collective right as the second in a list of nine other individual rights doesn’t seem logical. I, personally, believe the individual right is what was intended. I also believe that over 200 years have passed and it needs to be updated. Arguing the semantics isn’t going to help anyone and simply attempting to re-interpret what’s supposed to be a living document is absurd. That being said, it would take a lot more people being a lot more rational to ever have a hope of making those changes.

toasteecup,

Yeah, quoting the federalist papers to me is about as good as me quoting some other source that as equally invalidates that opinion.

Sure it’s a source and sure you can based an opinion on it but it’s not definitive by any means no matter how much conservatives would like to suggest otherwise.

mark3748,

Let me get this straight, you don’t believe that the words mean something and claim we can’t know their intent, then when offered additional context provided by some of the people who wrote the words you disagree with you dismiss it out of hand?

What would be a proper source to you then? Or do you prefer to revel in willful ignorance? Because that sounds like a pretty conservative view to me.

toasteecup,

And I’ll point out my exact issue “written by some people who wrote them”

What if I quoted Thomas Jefferson, who did the actual writing of the constitution, about separation of church and state? Would you then agree that it’s needed as he so strongly agreed for?

What I’m telling you is I disagree with the writers of the federalist papers as did quite a few of the other founders.

mark3748,

I was not arguing one way or the other, I was providing historical context. You’re arguing against points I never made. I’m glad you disagree with the writers of the federalist papers, but that is irrelevant.

I do agree with Thomas Jefferson on the need for a separation of church and state. You seem to have read me entirely incorrectly and made some weird assumptions.

toasteecup,

You are correct that I made incorrect assumptions and for what it’s worth I apologize. Thank you for the historical context and have a lovely evening.

SeaJ,

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,

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

SeaJ,

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

uphillbothways, (edited )
@uphillbothways@kbin.social avatar

Their constitution says the US isn't even supposed to keep a standing army. There's lots of discussion about that by the people who wrote it and decided on the specific language.

Also, you're right about the 2nd amendment. The part about the well regulated militia is part of the right, a qualifier, not subsequent.

But, people in the US, both government and citizens, clearly don't follow their constitution very well. It's used to justify whatever they want to do when they can and freely ignored when inconvenient.

o0joshua0o,

Sounds like the Bible.

toasteecup,

Tell me about it, I get to suffer living here listening to all of the creative interpretations of the constitution. My favorites are when someone clearly hasn’t read it says a quote is in it and says it to me who used to read and carry a copy of the constitution.

ArcaneSlime,

“(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” www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246#:~:text=(a…

toasteecup,

Sooo really sounds like only men between 17 and 45 or women in the national guard get the right to a firearm per the writing of the constitution.

ArcaneSlime,

Yeah, which is sexist as fuck so tbh I don’t prefer that interpretation, and do 17yos really need to be able to pass NICs checks? Like, rn they can have one if a parent buys it for them, but to expand that seems…iffy at best…

toasteecup,

I think I mentioned my favorite part but to reiterate, once you hit 45 you just lose the right to own a gun. Really doesn’t sound like freedom to arms to me.

ArcaneSlime,

Yeah also there’s no gay marriage in there so we should ban that, abortion, medical transitioning…

Yeah I’m not the biggest fan of the literalist interpretation. Seems like playing with fire. Furthermore as you’ve pointed out quite succinctly, the literalist interpretation is silly as fuck.

JustZ,

Militia is to conscripted military member as jury pool is to petit jury.

quindraco,

No one who has actually read the 2A has ever thought it was “clear”.

Tb0n3,

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everything to the left of it is just a justification for why that right exists. Can you tell me with a straight face that that right is not clear?

burntbutterbiscuits,

Yes.

Tb0n3,

You are either disingenuous or an idiot.

HikingVet,

Well you seem to be both.

burntbutterbiscuits,

Or neither

Efwis,

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding “the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill” or restrictions on “the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons”.

Please tell me where the Supreme Court, who is responsible for constitutional law understanding, was wrong?

The constitution is supposed to be a fluid system, designed to be ratified and easy to apply to modern standards, if the country would actually do it, to create a better life for everyone I the United States.

Even the Supreme Court says you are wrong.

Tb0n3, (edited )

The revolutionary war was won with the help of private warships. That would have been well known to the founding fathers who wrote the bill of rights. Do you think that they would suddenly not want the citizens to be able to defend the homeland because guns are scary?

The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the “operative clause.” The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.

Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to “the right of the people.” When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.

reason.com/…/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-any…

quindraco,

Yes, because you are violating the rules of English grammar in your claim. As was my original point, it is impossible to claim any interpretation of the 2A without violating grammar. As a result, it can have any meaning you want, since you will make up the rules you like in order to interpret it the way you want.

Kbobabob,

any gun law is an infringement of the right.

Ok, boomer

Tb0n3,

Shall not be infringed.

Kbobabob,

So you can buy any weapon in any manner of firing, including full auto or are there laws in place to prevent this?

Tb0n3,

You should be able to but there are infringements in place like the originally excessively expensive $200 tax stamp for fully automatic weapons.

captainlezbian,

Even for people with a history of gun violence? Does this also prohibit separate penalties of disarmament when someone is found guilty?

You understand how this interpretation of the law can’t have a positive effect on society right?

Tb0n3,

If they’re too dangerous to be trusted in polite society then why are they released? If they just so happen to try it in a polite society that’s well armed we won’t have to worry any longer.

JustZ,

Ughh have you heard of the eighth amendment you absolute fucking donkey?

Of course you haven’t, you never even learned to read.

Tb0n3,

Then if they’ve served their time don’t steal their rights for the rest of their lives.

Nudding,

So they can be infringed?

SeaJ, (edited )

You know that half the states had restrictions (no open carry, concealed carry, registration, etc) when the 2nd Amendment was passed and continued to have those restrictions after, right? For something being so clear, a good portion of the states sure misunderstood it…or maybe it’s you that does.

PoliticalAgitator,

It’s much easier to just argue that a “well regulated militia” means “morbidly obese with neither training nor discipline”.

It’s why they never have any other skills that would be useful in a war, like establishing ad hoc communication networks, piloting a drone, field medicine, even working as a team.

Their entire contribution would just be “have gun” and if their staunch opposition to wearing masks in a pandemic is anything to go by, they wouldn’t even offer their country that.

quindraco,

I mean, this particular gun law violates the 14A, so it’s good for all of us if 2A supporters go after it.

stolid_agnostic,

How is putting guns in the hands of known abusers a good thing to do? Why is that person’s right to a gun more important to the lives of those around him?

mctoasterson,

The basis of this appeal is the question of whether a civil protective order can be tantamount to conviction for purposes of depriving enumerated Constitutional rights.

It is rote accepted practice in many divorce filings to file a restraining order as a preemptive measure even if the person being filed against poses no credible or historical threat of violence.

I think it makes sense to make someone a prohibited person for certain violent convictions but I’m more skeptical of civil filings that are often spurious or without evidentiary basis.

quindraco,

known abusers

Incorrect. For that to be correct, there would have to be a standard of proof. The correct term here is accused abusers.

PoliticalAgitator,

Semantics are easy when you’re sacrificing other people’s lives.

It’s bizarre you think yourself a hero as you openly advocate putting the property of abusers over the safety of those they abuse, like temporarily losing access to firearms is a bigger tragedy than being executed by a former partner.

Are we supposed to politely ignore how that makes you look? People who hit their wives also post on social media and it shouldn’t come as a shock to people that they also tend see themselves the victim and right about everything.

You’re a big brave boy, you can handle a few months away from your beloved guns.

Coasting0942,

Burden of proof that a gun owner respects human life is on them. I’d like another amendment please.

stolid_agnostic,

It’s pretty clear that you don’t actually have any ideas here and are just like a barking dog.

stolid_agnostic,

So you engage in sophistry to avoid an actual argument. That didn’t fly in Ancient Greece and won’t fly here.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • [email protected]
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • oklahoma
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines
    •