Daily Caller:
The Supreme Court will decide whether an illegal alien from the United Arab Emirates was wrongfully convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm.
The case was occasioned in December 2015, when Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif was arrested in Florida after renting a gun at a shooting range and purchasing ammunition. Federal law prohibits certain classes of people from possessing guns, including illegal aliens.
Rehaif is a citizen of the United Arab Emirates. He came to the United States in 2013 to attend the Florida Institute of Technology (FIT), but was dismissed for academic reasons on Jan. 21, 2015. His lawful immigration status terminated shortly thereafter on Feb. 23, 2015. Therefore, he was in the U.S. illegally when he rented the gun and procured ammunition. MORE
He was deported. He isn’t here anymore.
@LCD – There is something else going on here – even if SCOTUS reverses his conviction he is not coming back. Is this so now wetbacks can carry and not be charged? I was always taught “ignorance of the law is not a defense”
…Illegal aliens should have one right, and one right ONLY.
…The right to be kicked the hell out immediately.
Should have been deported right away instead of housing and feeding him for 18 months unless it was believed was organizing something
“Is this so now wetbacks can carry and not be charged?”
…of course it is, @ venturaguy . The Democrats want THEIR people armed. it’s US they want to disarm. I wonder why?
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?
Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
– Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, “Gulag Archepeligo”
@venturaguy January 14, 2019 at 9:16 am
> I was always taught “ignorance of the law is not a defense”
Man… you’re old. That was changed (Science!™) decades ago, to “obeyance of the law is not a defense”.
Mr. First amendment, he no apply to illegal non-citizen! (How it should be enforced.)
how can any person, illegally in this country, do anything legally?
Didn’t they themselves establish their unlawful status? For anything. Including the right to raise arguments such as this. Why does this argument have validity?
First things first- he is/was illegal. Unless he is charged with a violent crime, toss him out of the country. Next step is to go do something else- this particular problem is solved.
Giving illegals the opportunity to demand free speech and then the right to carry arms destroys the very nature of what it means to be an American. Any illegal who questions our rights and laws forfeits any right to petition any form of our government to grant it.
Hans- I basically agree with you, but i also maintain that an illegal intruder can not forfeit rights that they are not in possession of to begin with. They have the right to petition, lawfully, for those rights, but those rights are not to be assumed to be given without completion of due process to obtain them. His ‘ignorance’ got him just what he deserved.