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.”

  • SkepticalButOpenMinded
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • SkepticalButOpenMinded
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.