Whether the state court unreasonably found that refusing defense-of-home instructions was not federal constitutional error, but only state law error

No question identified. : | GF QursnioNsGeesenrep \N Few rights were more fundamental at the time of the Founding of our Constitution and Republic than the right to defend a home against violent intruders, as well as the presumption that a person defending a home against a violent intruder was acting in defense of self or other occupants. That right is codified in California statutory law which provides a presumption that a person who shoots a violent intruder in a home was acting in defense of the occupants. Here, Petitioner Enrique Nuiies Lopez and codefendant Juan Salazar were in a the home where Salazar stayed with his girlfriend with other friends. Two armed rival gang members forced their way into the house and began stabbing, assaulting and threatening everyone in the home with a firearm. Petitioner Lopez was stabbed and fled the house. But Salazar acted quickly to retrieve a : . firearm and stop the intruders by shooting them. The trial court undeniably erred by not instructing on the presumption ‘ . that a defendant who shoots an intruder in the home was acting in defense of self or others. The court did instruct on defense of self and others. But these instructions were negated by other instructions, concededly erroneously given, and the argument of the prosecutor who concededly wrongfully told the jury that Lopez and Salazar had forfeited their rights to defense of self and others. Although these errors denied Petitioner his federal constitutional rights, the state court improperly analyzed these federal constitutional claims as state law error only. This was contrary to settled Supreme Court law. Yet, the District i Oa | Court denied the habeas petition, and the District Court and Ninth Circuit denied a Certificate of Appealability. Petitioner thus asks only for the modest relief of a Certificate of Appealability. This Petition presents the following questions: L Given the Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, and where the evidence tended to favor a verdict of justifiable homicide in defense of occupants of the home against armed intruders, has Petitioner presented a “debatable” issue meriting a Certificate of Appealability as to whether the State court unreasonably found that refusing defense of home instructions was not federal constitutional error, but only state law error? IL. Given the Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights to possess a . , gun in the home for self-defense, and where the evidence tended to favor a verdict of justifiable homicide in defense of self or others, has Petitioner : presented a “debatable” issue meriting a Certificate of Appealability as to . whether the state court was unreasonable in holding that the concedely . erroneous instructions which improperly removed the state’s burden to prove ; the element of lack of justification was not federal constitutional error, but was , only state law error? ii