As you can probably tell, the man in this picture is not hunting. Why does that matter? Because if he was, he might not be facing a federal firearm charge today.
Federal law prohibits certain categories of people from possessing firearms. Convicted felons are the most well-known category, but it also includes two types of “aliens” (and the extraterrestrial kind is not one of them).
You can find the two categories at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A) and (B).
First, and most obviously: those “illegally or unlawfully in the United States.”
“Illegally” and “unlawfully” may seem redundant, but was intended to encompass both those who illegally entered the U.S., as well as those who overstayed their lawful visit.
The last SCOTUS oral argument I attended before COVID involved the latter kind; a Mr. Rehaif was here on a student visa but when he flunked out of school, his lawful status changed.
The second type of alien prohibited (or third, if you think of illegal and unlawful as distinct categories), are those lawfully here on a non-immigrant visa. They can be in America, but they can’t have guns while they’re here.
The law makes a few exceptions, however, and one of them is for hunting. (The others relate to official business of foreign governments.)
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(y)(2)(A), an “alien who has been lawfully admitted…under a nonimmigrant visa” may receive, purchase, or possess a firearm if they have a valid hunting license issued here.
This isn’t a “loophole”; America offers incredible hunting opportunities for our foreign guests, and that contributes to our economy. But it has been exploited in at least one terrible case. A Saudi military pilot visiting the Pensacola Naval Air Station for flight training obtained a hunting license that he used to buy a 9mm pistol (which isn’t suitable for hunting, but the law doesn’t impose that limitation), then he went on a terroristic rampage and killed several people on the base.
So back to “the guy with two guns.” He was here from China on a non-immigrant student visa when he he came under suspicion for having guns and selling steroids. A search of his house revealed both, and a search of his social media provided this picture (and others) of him with guns.
In the criminal complaint, the ATF agent who arrested him first inquired with a state game official to see whether the man had a hunting license or not. He did not. If he had, his possession of those guns would have been lawful (even if he wasn’t hunting with them).
(That wouldn’t cure the issue of the steroid use, though—the law also prohibits unlawful users of controlled substances—but that’s a different post.)
I blurred his face because these details come from a complaint, not convictions docs, but it is unblurred in the affidavit, which you can read here: https://lnkd.in/gkPXaTbS.
Tip o’ the hat to Seamus Hughes for flagging this interesting case in the Court Watch newsletter.