It’s a real example.
Many illegals have had their weapons returned to them by U.S. judges after being cut loose by ICE. No crime, no rationale to keep them.
The legal justification is that they may be in the country illegally but that does not strip them of the right to self defense.
It has historical precedent in the Southwest. Mexican vaqueros routinely crossed the border in the 19th century with arms; no one thought anything of it. Mexicans were Mexicans and Anglos were Americans. There was no confusion about who controlled the land, and equally no opposition to ordinary travelers carrying weapons. Everyone did that.
So it’s something to think about: let’s say the entire People’s Liberation Army shows up in San Pedro harbor, in civilian clothing, with their SKS’s. They politely request to come ashore, passports in hand, along with their rifles. Do we admit them? Say sure, you have the right to enter and we have the 2A so just be peaceable, and come on down?
The implications are interesting.
The Founder’s intended to have ZERO gun laws, the way it should be. Gun laws do not stop crimes; they only make it more difficult for the law abiding to get and carry guns for their defense.
Commit a crime with a gun and either be put away for a long time or executed. Illegals with guns (presuming they are obtained legally and not stolen) should IMO be judged on the basis of INTENT. Intent is used in virtually every area of the law except for guns. I live in eastern PA; if I miss an exit on the highway and cross over into NJ I am a criminal. How is that in any way fair and why judge people without taking account of their intent?