Which is why he's on trial- did that part escape you? He's not offering an affirmative defense, were you able to sort out that detail? The guy who got convicted of that DUI (yes, that's a whole lot of possible scenarios - pick any one of the hundreds of thousands) but also had a valid driver license, he was clearly law abiding until he used his vehicle to break the law. You should use just a tad more forethought when making a banal statement, it will save you some ridicule down the road when common sense, harnessed by the vast majority of others, seeps in to counter an already weak argument. You would have been better placed to offer your affirmative defense in a scenario such as the Rocky Ford Cop who murdered an innocent resident, yet attempted to claim 'self-defense.' In that case, the firearm was tangential to the defense itself, not just a purported element of the crime as it is here? Make sense yet? My pleasure to assist in furthering your education as it relates to comprehension