Anonymous wrote:Can some Republican here explain to me how it is somehow "common sense" to allow a person like this to own a gun?

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

Police searched Rahimi’s home in January 2021. They say they found two firearms, a .45 Glock pistol and a .308 semi-automatic rifle, both of which were illegal due to the restraining order. A grand jury indicted Rahimi on charges of violating the federal law banning him from possessing firearms while under the restraining order. His public defender argued that the 1994 law was unconstitutional and that Rahimi kept the guns for self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment.

The case is US v. Rahimi, being argued in the Supreme Court. And there are numerous conservative groups lined up behind Rahimi to try and make sure this violent lunatic can continue to own a gun.

NRA, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Center for Human Liberty, Gun Owners Foundation, Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rights Watch International, Virginia Citizens Defense League, America’s Future, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and many other groups are lined up on the side of this lunatic and are dumping a huge amount of money into his case.

These groups CAN NO LONGER go around saying they support gun rights and gun ownership for responsible, law abiding citizens, because Zackey Rahimi is anything but a responsible law abiding citizen. Make it make sense.

Anonymous wrote:Stiff penalties are a good idea.

Anonymous wrote:Under 21 gun ban ruled unconstitutional. Nice!


Case is Brown v ATF

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64934350/41/brown-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/

Judgement

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wvnd.54471/gov.uscourts.wvnd.54471.40.0.pdf

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

Police searched Rahimi’s home in January 2021. They say they found two firearms, a .45 Glock pistol and a .308 semi-automatic rifle, both of which were illegal due to the restraining order. A grand jury indicted Rahimi on charges of violating the federal law banning him from possessing firearms while under the restraining order. His public defender argued that the 1994 law was unconstitutional and that Rahimi kept the guns for self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The terms “common sense gun laws” and “common sense gun reform” have been flying around.But they seem to mean different things to different people.

What do you consider to be “common sense gun reform?”

If enacted, what would “common sense gun laws” look like?

The most stiffest penalties on the planet implemented and enforced when one commits a crime with a firearm. It's not the weapon, it's the user, we all know this. No one blames the vehicle when it's the drunk driver. And we lose over 9k people a year to this.

Anonymous wrote:I’m really not at all interested in any more gun laws. The ones we have are ignored by criminals AND prosecutors, so what’s the point of having them? At this point, I think we should all just have whatever gun we want if a person wants a gun. I think we’re going to get a few ourselves in the weeks ahead, just need to look into some classes first.

Anonymous wrote:I’m really not at all interested in any more gun laws. The ones we have are ignored by criminals AND prosecutors, so what’s the point of having them? At this point, I think we should all just have whatever gun we want if a person wants a gun. I think we’re going to get a few ourselves in the weeks ahead, just need to look into some classes first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The terms “common sense gun laws” and “common sense gun reform” have been flying around.But they seem to mean different things to different people.

What do you consider to be “common sense gun reform?”

If enacted, what would “common sense gun laws” look like?

The most stiffest penalties on the planet implemented and enforced when one commits a crime with a firearm. It's not the weapon, it's the user, we all know this. No one blames the vehicle when it's the drunk driver. And we lose over 9k people a year to this.

Anonymous wrote:The terms “common sense gun laws” and “common sense gun reform” have been flying around.But they seem to mean different things to different people.

What do you consider to be “common sense gun reform?”

If enacted, what would “common sense gun laws” look like?