LRDGCO said:
Understand well that I have no patience with unqualified people who try to play lawyer and post lousy, unsupported information. Bad information, such as you've posted could get someone in a lot of trouble if he were foolish enough to pay attention to it.
LRDGCO said:
....I take it you fancy yourself The Legal Authority and resent having your opinions challenged?....
I have no problem with my opinion being challenged, as long the challenge is properly supported with legal authority. On the other hand, I do resent people posting hogwash on legal matters.
LRDGCO said:
...I have offered the text of the law to show that it appears to differ with your considered and weighty opinion on the matter...
What you don't understand is that the text you quoted has been considered and construed by federal courts of appeal. Those courts have decided what the text means and how it applies. That is called case law and will control what the law means and how it will be applied by courts. Based on the case law, your understanding of the law and how it works is incorrect. And the applicable court decisions support my view of the law.
One can never rely on the language of a statute alone. One must always do the research necessary to find and relevant court decision to see how the language of a statute was interpreted and applied. If there are no cases applying a statute one'd understanding of the meaning and application of the statute will at best be incomplete.
LRDGCO said:
...And with regards to the UAE student who was found not guilty of illegal firearms possession by virtue of his ignorance of the implications of losing his visa status, drew the appropriate conclusion.
And thank you for confirming that you (1) did not read the Supreme Court's opinion in
Rahaif v. United States' and (2) you really understand nothing about the law.
Rahaif was not found "not guilty." He was convicted at his trial. He appealed. An appeal is based on a claim of a legal error at the lower court level, in this case a faulty jury instruction. Ultimately the Supreme Court agreed that the jury instruction was faulty. But that's not the same as Rahaif being found not guilty.
The Supreme Court tells us the disposition, slip op, at 12:
...We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Court of Appeals would now ordinarily reverse the conviction and order a new trial. The prosecutor might decide then to retry Rahaif and now take better care to put on evidence that Rahaif did in fact know that with the expiration of his visa he was no longer legally present in the United States. Alternatively, the U. S. Attorney might decide to simply not to bother and drop the charges.
You no doubt read some media stories about the case. But the only way to understand a court decision is to read the decision itself.