THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The One that Protects the Others
The Second Amendment
Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer in Texas with a history of armed violence, is “hardly a model citizen,” a federal appeals court judge wrote in March, with considerable understatement. But the court vacated Mr. Rahimi’s conviction under a federal law that makes it a crime for people subject to domestic-violence orders to possess guns, ruling that the law violated the Second Amendment.
During a public argument in 2019, Rahimi pushed his girlfriend to the ground, dragged her to his car, and slammed her against the dashboard before firing a shot in the air to scare off a bystander. A Texas state court entered a restraining order against Rahimi and revoked his handgun license. In the months that followed, Rahimi was arrested for violating the restraining order, and he was charged with threatening another woman with a gun. In 2021, police searched Rahimi’s home after he was identified as a suspect in a series of shootings. They found a .45-caliber pistol, a .308-caliber rifle, pistol and rifle magazines, and ammunition. (Scotusblog - By Kalvis Golde on Apr 23, 2023 at 2:43 pm)
The Fifth Circuit voided Rahimi’s conviction while it awaits a review of the domestic violence act under Bruen.
We hope the Supreme Court finds that restricting gun ownership as defined in the domestic violence laws is constitutional. We believe guns should not be owned by persons with a history of violence. Unfortunately we also don’t know of historical laws from the founding forward that take gun rights away from violent people. We see no national gun control laws prior to 1934, which would not qualify under Bruen. In our opinion, Rahimi was entitled to a firearm under the domestic violence laws, but we’re not lawyers.
Rahimi is certainly not a case that we believe should benefit from Bruen, but the law is the law and it works for the good and the bad.
Speaking about the bad, if you believe that Rahimi, a person convicted of domestic violence, should be able to own a weapon then Hunter Biden should be able to own a weapon. He didn't hurt anyone, he's just a drug-addled turd with a rich and powerful corrupt father who lied on a Federal form. If he gets away with this it stands to reason that the ATF’s form 4473 could be a thing of the past. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
Those of us who support the Second Amendment spend a lot of time talking about the benefits of an Originalist Supreme Court majority; here are two examples of dirt bags that will benefit from a court’s stance on Bruen.
So be it.
There will always be bad people who benefit right along with the good. Rights are not determined by your behavior, but by God. The total benefit is positive and our God given rights are preserved. If the ATF’s power is reduced, all the better.
Given the pattern established by bad guys everywhere, Hunter Biden and Zackey Rahimi will screw up again and will pay then. The world still turns, God’s in his heaven, and we may see a better understanding of the Second Amendment.
Rabbit Hole Warning with Rant – The Second Amendment, the one that protects all the others, was written to insure that the citizens of the United States would never have to deal with a tyrannical government without the means to fight it. The Second Amendment never limited what arms a person could own and shouldn’t today. It doesn’t protect hunting or skeet shooting. It protects your God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Did you know it’s legal to own a canon? Well it is, although after 1934 you had to comply with the National Firearms Act (NFA). If it’s legal but you have to comply with a law that is unconstitutional, there’s a problem. We believe the NFA is unconstitutional and should be repealed along with all the unconstitutional laws that are built on it.
The NFA was proposed to get rid of handguns in addition to the other types of firearms covered. There was so much push-back by Congress as a result of feedback by constituents that handguns were exempted. In fact, if congress was as interested in the law being correct and constitutional they never would have passed the original NFA in 1934.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 banned machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors (silencers), destructive devices, and certain other weapons. Note that suppressors are not weapons at all and are presently encouraged in (gun hating) Europe for hunting and other shooting sports to protect hearing. Yet suppressors are banned here if you don’t tell the government you have one and pay a fee. Owning one the government doesn’t know about is a crime. The real crime is having to register them in the first place.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In the context of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the term "militia" refers to a well-regulated militia, which, according to the prevailing interpretation, consists of the armed citizenry.
So the Second Amendment means “Armed citizens are needed to protect a free country, and the right of people to own and carry weapons will not be interfered with.” So why do we have gun control laws? Why is there an “F” in BATFE? If the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, why do we need government regulating them?
The answer is we don’t. Government has no permission in law to regulate our God given rights, but as long as they can get away with it they will.
Politicians have written unconstitutional laws since the founding to satisfy constituent requests. It will never change until there is a requirement that all laws pass constitutional muster before going into effect, and that will never happen.
The next best thing is for a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court to be conservative with a sprinkling of Originalists.
We have that next best thing now. Thank you Mr. Trump.