Supreme Court offers gun-possession loophole for illegal immigrants

[Doug_Nightmare]

Rehaif v. United States (17-9560)

In a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2), the government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons b…

www.scotusblog.com

Supreme Court rules gun-possession felons must know they’re breaking law

The Supreme Court has ruled that an immigrant living in the U.S. illegally who had a gun — a crime — can’t be prosecuted if he didn’t know he was in the country illegally.

m.washingtontimes.com

 

[bc.cruiser]

Similar to a person in NC carrying concealed without a permit to do so. No requirement to inform LEO since he is unlawful, and therefore has no requirement to testify against himself.

NC GS 14-269, 14=415.11

 

[KBCraig]

Similar to a person in NC carrying concealed without a permit to do so. No requirement to inform LEO since he is unlawful, and therefore has no requirement to testify against himself.

NC GS 14-269, 14=415.11

That's a case where someone knows they're breaking the law.

In immigration cases, that's not always the case. I've encountered people who were in prison for being "illegal immigrants" who honestly thought they were U.S. citizens, because that's what they had always been told.

I don't recall my birth, so I don't expect anyone else to, either.

 

[carracer]

So, all those people that unknowingly carried concealed into states not allowed should be exonerated?

 

[KBCraig]

So, all those people that unknowingly carried concealed into states not allowed should be exonerated?

Every criminal conviction should require mens rea as an element.

 

[OC for ME]

So, all those people that unknowingly carried concealed into states not allowed should be exonerated?

Strictly speaking, the 2A demands exoneration for the peaceable exercise of our 2A guarantee.

 

[Ghost1958]

So, all those people that unknowingly carried concealed into states not allowed should be exonerated?

A law,repugnant to the constitution is null and void, and no court ruling can legitimise it. Those are,SCOTUS words, not mine.
All gun regulation is banned by the 2a.
Null and void.

So to answer your question, according to the supreme law,of the land, yes.

 

[color of law]

In a 7-2 decision the justices said in a crime where the status of a person is the “crucial element” to the offense, the government must prove the person was aware of that. Otherwise, it might just be an innocent mistake. The ruling could affect thousands of previous convictions.

You do not have any personal knowledge as to where and when on earth you were born. Your brain was not developed enough to have mens. Your "when and where" is hearsay. Hence, birth certificate. And that can be held in question, Obama. But many documents (family bible) and affidavits can be used to establish "when and where."

Remember, Elizabeth Warren thinks she's Pocahontas.

 

[FreedomVA]

Man's law are not the same as Natural law.....that's what Murphy told me