I apologize. I imputed a minimal level of legal knowledge to you and thought I explained it well enough. Apparently, I failed.
He used a firearm to commit his felony.
Its absolutely relevant how many guns this individual owns.
To be relevant, it has to make the existence of a relevant fact more or less likely. In the present instance the fact that is in question is whether or not the business owner was justified in shooting the robber to death. The number of firearms owned by the business owner has
ZERO RELEVANCE in answering that question.
Again, for the third time, if he owned no firearms or he owned 1,000 firearms it does not make this homicide more or less likely to be justified. It does not serve to either mitigate or exacerbate this crime. Hence, it is entirely irrelevant to the underlying case.
There is no issue presented that asks if he is familiar with firearms. There is not a dispute that he used a firearm. Nor is there a question that he shot the robber. There isn't even a dispute as to which weapon he used when to shoot the robber. Hence, the question of ownership of other weapons is unequvically not relevant.
A guy gets arrested for arson, turns out he's got 45 empty glass bottles and a box full of oily rags and 3 gallons of gasoline in his house.
He has a constitutional right to own all these items, does he not?
No, there is no constitutional right to own empty glass bottles, oily rags, or gasoline. Under the laws of all 50 States and Federal Statutes he currently has the right to own all of those items. But it is not a constitutional right. So no, he does not. Moreover, when owned with the conspiratorial intent or creating Molotov cocktails it is not legal to own those items. Just as it is not legal to have possession of a firearm if you are selling drugs.
So, say he used Molotovs to burn down a building.
The amount of bottles, rags and gas would absolutely would be used against him in court, God willing!
An important problem with your hypothetical is that it presumes we are seeking the identity of the arsonist. If we are attempting to identify an arsonist who uses Molotov cocktails, information that Mr. X had an unusual combination of items frequently used to make the arsonist tool would be relevant. However, in the facts we are actually presented with such is not the case. And even if it were - the presents of any firearms but-for the ones used to shoot the robber fail to make it any more likely than not that he was the shooter (ballistics matching).
If, after burning down the building the man stood and waited for the police. Handed them the items he used in the arson, and admitted that he burned down the building and subsequently had perfectly legal reasons to have the other materials (bottles his own beer, auto mechanic, has a lawn mower), we are closer to the point. And then no, it is not relevant at all. The presence of the additional materials wouldn't make the accusation of arson any more or less likely.
But on the merits, I reject your hypothetical as it fails to be analogous.
I just don't see how you can plead the fifth for "legal" behavior. You cannot be incriminated for obeying the law.
And again, it is not allowed to use the 5th to be construed as a negative assumption against the person using their right. I have explained legal aspects to you in the very recent past and you have failed to read them, understand them, or care. Thus, I won't bother explaining concepts of the 5th Amendment to you either.
Please, for the love of the gods, tell me how the number of firearm this man owns would make it more or less likely that the shooting of the robber was justified. AND AGAIN,
provide the basic facts and line them up with the OUJI that is appropriate to see what outcome would be achieved. Then see if "owns additional firearms" has anything to do with those instructions or fits into that conclusion.
I am been rational and patient. I fear I am wasting my time attempting to explain these things to you.
