Zackey Rahimi, who was accused of attacking his girlfriend in North Texas, was not supposed to possess any firearms. Despite this, Rahimi argued for his right to keep his guns. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against him in U.S. v. Rahimi, stating that the Second Amendment does not protect individuals under a domestic violence restraining order from federal prosecution for possessing firearms. This decision has led to a surge of gun-related cases heading towards the Supreme Court.
Rahimi was wrong. The Constitution says what it says. It’s practical to punish violent acts and threats without unconstitutionally prohibiting possession of a firearm. Regulate the violent act, not possession of the device. The Second Amendment is not a 2nd class right. https://t.co/eE0qDrwlHf
That wasn’t what the second amendment was for. Or they would have written it as a state right. https://t.co/iB5fzDvgXj
Tidal wave of gun cases heading toward the Supreme Court after Rahimi ruling https://t.co/HMXMQUhLvV
Believe it or not, the Second Amendment does not protect someone under a domestic violence restraining order from federal prosecution for possessing guns, writes @RAVerBruggen on U.S. v. Rahimi. https://t.co/YlFhzo6yUU
Zackey Rahimi wasn’t supposed to have any guns after he was accused of attacking his girlfriend in North Texas. Rahimi decided that he should have a right to keep his guns. But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with him. | via @keranews https://t.co/mA4ivo26FX