No, you're not. It's just a hypothetical, and no offense taken. "Jus' two guys talkin'," as it were. As to the rest of this, I'm not trying to bust your chops here, FTBAB. I just don't see things the way you do, and I can't resist a good discussion. Constitutionally, firearms enjoy protections that alcohol and tobacco do not. In part, regulation of 2A rights has not been overturned because there hasn't been a decent plaintiff to challenge it. For example, the only people with standing to challenge the restriction on "felon in possession" laws would be felons. There may be some decent plaintiffs who fall into that group. However non-felons lack standing to challenge the restriction, and I would wager that the vast majority of convicted felons make rotten plaintiffs in such challenges. Mind you, that's just one aspect. There are other challenges that (I suspect) have simply not been made that involve the right court and the right plaintiff. For example, there's a young man in Texas right now that is challenging (IIRC) the age requirement (21) to purchase a handgun. If I remember correctly, he's a long-time shooter, Junior ROTC member, and generally desirable plaintiff, and he's in Texas. . . Can you explain what you mean by this? Well, I don't think that counterfeiting falls under the ATF's jurisdiction, but that's neither here nor there. Let's go with your hypothetical, but I'd like to amend it a little: 1) Possession of heroin is never mentioned in the Constitution. Its possession is not protected. 2) Warrantless searches of the home are presumptively unconstitutional. ("Although the text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must be obtained, this Court has inferred that a warrant must generally be secured. “It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law,’ ” we have often said, “ ‘that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.’ ” Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1856, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011)) In other words, no, I don't have to prove that the search was illegal. The government has to prove that it was legal. (Ordinarily, this is done by the prosecutor simply saying, "Look, Judge. My guys had a warrant.") 3) Assuming that the search was in fact illegal (as you stated above), the remedy is that the heroin (and any other "fruit of the poisonous tree") will be excluded from my trial. Let's say you happen to stumble across a fully automatic machine gun while you're there. That, too, will be excluded. This is precisely the opposite from what goes on with 2A rights, at least in the area where purchases of new firearms from FFLs are concerned. If I want to buy a new gun, I have to prove to the FFL that I'm entitled to do so. Bear in mind, though, that the only reason I have to prove it to the FFL is because federal law says so. IOW, the government has decided that I have to prove that I'm entitled to exercise that right before I'm allowed to do so. The 2A is one of the few rights (albeit not the only one) as to which I have to prove entitlement prior to exercise. I'll also disagree about the entitlement to purchase. If I'm entitled to possess, I'm entitled to purchase. Otherwise, my right to possess isn't much of a right. Chicago is currently under attack for a similar line of thinking. Its city council dictated range training in order to get a firearms permit, but banned ranges. That was recently struck by the 7th Circuit. Wanna kill these ads? We can help!