Anaya-Zamora

concurring.

I concur in the memorandum disposition but hasten to add that it seems to me that there is something terribly wrong with the structure of a sentencing system that, with exceptions, imposes harsher punishment on a defendant who exercises his constitutional right to go to trial and requires the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

MEMORANDUM *

Jaime Anaya-Zamora (“Anaya”) appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed by the district court for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g), being a felon in possession of a firearm, and 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861 , 5845, and 5871, possession of an unregistered firearm. Anaya contends that his conviction should be reversed because the district court erred in denying the jury instructions he requested. He further contends that his sentence should be vacated because the district court erred in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and in denying him a downward departure. 1 We have jurisdic *777 tion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the conviction but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

The justification instruction the district court gave adequately covered Ana-ya’s defense theory. 2 We consistently have applied the justification defense to similar situations. See, e.g., United States v. Beasley, 346 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.2003) (applying the justification defense to a charge of felon in possession where the defendant argued that his firearm possession “involved the ‘defense of himself and others’ ”), cert. denied,…