Come again?

It is becoming increasing regular that I read appellate decisions from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that make no sense.  In fact, it is becoming so regular that few things surprise me.  Take, for instance, the case that just came down regarding a "permanent" visitor from south of the border.  In U.S. v. Aguilera-Rios, the court overturned an illegal reentry conviction because his prior conviction for possession of a firearm was not a deportable offense.

What bothers me is that this revered court chose to ignore the elephant in the room when it came to this decision.  Let me break it down for you.  So, this Rios guy illegally enters the United States, gets a gun, is prosecuted for having a gun and is deported.  Why was he deported?  Because he entered the United States illegally?  No - because he had a gun.  Then, he re-entered the United States (after being deported for having a gun - but not for entering illegally) and he is charged for re-entering the United States, illegally (for which he is officially charged with entering the country illegally which is how he came to be in possession of a gun in the United States in the first place but no one bothered to notice that he was not an American citizen with a gun in the United States and so was not deported for that fact, alone).

I guess what this all boils down to is that American domestic or foreign policy is worthless unless someone (i.e. the federal administration) is willing to allow local law enforcement to enforce the laws that are on the books and not wait until someone screws up on something unrelated to the offense they're being prosecuted for so they can cook up some cockamamie reason to arrest someone - even though the best reason for deporting a person is staring them right in the face (i.e. they're here illegally).

Oh well - I guess that's why I'm not a politician - I get the obvious.