- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: DO NOT ever threaten someone for risk of losing gun rights.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 5:36 pm to Timeoday
Posted on 6/21/24 at 5:36 pm to Timeoday
quote:
Was he convicted in a court of law?
His criminal charges are still pending.
He admitted to family violence in the civil court proceeding where the protective order was issued.
Rahimi signed an AGREED protective order in court. He was present for a hearing in which he was free to contest the allegations of family violence against him and present evidence to the judge. He chose not to do that and instead signed the order which stated "The Court finds that Zackey Rahimi, Respondent, has committed family violence."
He signed that order, thereby accepting that finding against him and the terms of the order, which stated the prohibition against possessing firearms.
A month after he signed that protective order, Rahimi was arrested on 3 charges: terroristic threat of family/household, assault causing bodily injury and recklessly discharging a firearm. He was released on bond and the bond conditions also prohibited him from possessing firearms.
The issue of firearm prohibition while on pretrial release is likely going to make its way to the Supreme Court sooner rather than later. LINK
So Rahimi willingly signed two documents within a 6 week period acknowledging he was not legally allowed to possess firearms - the protective order and the bond conditions. Then he repeatedly violated both and went on multiple shooting sprees. LINK
Tarrant County is not without major fault here. They repeatedly arrested and released this guy on bond when he was violating the previous bond conditions he was already on. Perhaps we should stop handing out cheap bonds for repeat offenders showing up in court with multiple charges already pending?
1
Posted on 6/21/24 at 5:38 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Aw man you don’t have to worry about me. I fully understand what’s happening - you’re confused. Rather significantly might I add.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 5:54 pm to davyjones
quote:
I fully understand what’s happening
OK.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 5:55 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
The real question is how can I help you do better. And no a brain transplant is out of the question.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 7:05 pm to davyjones
quote:
how can I help you
You have nothing interesting to offer.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 7:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
You’re again out of your depth because you wouldn’t know anything properly “interesting”if it grabbed you by the vagina.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 7:12 pm to davyjones
quote:
out of your depth
You aren't qualified to make that assertion.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 8:26 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I’m overqualified in this particular situation.
Posted on 6/21/24 at 9:50 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
Now it’s enforced anytime there is an order of protection, firearms are taken.
You have a right to a hearing in an order of protection and they also aren’t permanent. In TN, for instance, absent there being an aggravated assault assault conviction (or sexual assault), they, by law, are not in effect longer than 1 year. You can only have them extended longer than 1 year by the OP being violated while in place. That also requires a hearing. Temp OPs are only valid for 15 days following their issuance. Absent someone waiving their right to a hearing within 15 days, temp OPs expire as a matter of law
This post was edited on 6/21/24 at 9:53 pm
Posted on 6/22/24 at 7:31 am to Lightning
So you believe this was the perfect case to take away your right to bear arms? I mean it appears to be a can't miss.
If the person his violent, why not remove that person from society rather than remove an inalienable right from millions of others?
If the person his violent, why not remove that person from society rather than remove an inalienable right from millions of others?
Posted on 6/22/24 at 7:40 am to RFK
quote:
Are you familiar with the facts of this case? He brazenly pointed and then fired a weapon at strangers multiple times.
This guy should never touch another firearm in his life.
Extremely familiar. I am also familiar with the phrase "shall not be infringed." What does that phrase mean to you?
I believe a violent person should simply be removed. I think we know why they refuse to do it.
Posted on 6/22/24 at 11:26 am to davyjones
quote:
overqualified
BamaAtl claims to be an MD...
Posted on 7/3/24 at 12:07 pm to andwesway
Agreed.
It really is not a simple issue to solve. On one hand, LEO's want to protect DV victims, but they also have a duty to protect the due process rights of the accused. I think the current processes have believed the accuser more than they do the accused out of an abundance of caution.
It really is not a simple issue to solve. On one hand, LEO's want to protect DV victims, but they also have a duty to protect the due process rights of the accused. I think the current processes have believed the accuser more than they do the accused out of an abundance of caution.
Page 7 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News