Posted on 06/02/2023 12:01:40 PM PDT by george76
Sometimes a story comes across the wire that’s so unbelievable, that I have to double-check the link to make sure it’s not a parody site. That happened on Thursday morning when a new report dropped detailing how Hunter Biden will defend himself against a possible gun charge brought by the DOJ.
Hunter Biden is facing multiple charges related to alleged tax fraud and lying on a gun purchase form. A charging decision is expected to occur soon, though, the DOJ has continued to slow-walk the final decision for reasons that some suspect are political.
The president’s troubled son swore under penalty of prosecution on the aforementioned form that he was not using drugs at the time of the gun purchase. That has been proven false, both by information from Hunter Biden’s laptop showing him using drugs during that period and via an admission by his own father.
With all that said, you may want to sit down for what Hunter Biden’s defense will be because it will have you laughing out loud. According to Politico, if faced with a gun charge, Hunter Biden’s defense team is going to argue that banning drug users from buying guns is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
...
Hunter Biden's lawyers have told DOJ that if he's charged with owning a gun as a drug user (which is illegal), they will argue the ban is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment
...
Hunter Biden could soon find himself in a surprising position: at the cutting edge of the fight to strengthen the Second Amendment.
The president’s son is the target of a Justice Department investigation scrutinizing his purchase of a gun in 2018 — a time when he has said he was regularly using crack cocaine. Federal law bans drug users from owning guns.
But the constitutionality of that law — like many other provisions restricting gun ownership — is newly in question after a precedent-rocking decision the Supreme Court handed down almost a year ago.
His lawyers have already told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment, according to a person familiar with the private discussions granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms.
You have to love that Politico, a far-left news outlet, is suddenly like “Yeah, these conservatives might have a point about the Second Amendment” the moment it could benefit a member of the corrupt Biden family. Still, one can’t help but notice the irony here.
Joe Biden is currently in a push to ban “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines,” both moves that are clearly unconstitutional, but now his own son is going to argue that keeping drug-addled degenerates from buying guns violates the Second Amendment. How does that circle get squared? Of course, that assumes Joe Biden is ever asked about the contradiction, and he probably won’t be.
As to whether it’s a viable legal argument, I doubt it. When the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment in the Heller decision, the general summary was that the government could not put restrictions on individual firearm ownership that could undermine the possession and use of guns in traditional lawful ways. I highly doubt even the current makeup of the court would argue that letting drug addicts buy guns qualifies under that standard. Things like age limits, felons not owning guns, etc. have long been upheld.
Politico went on to make this hilarious suggestion about conservatives allying with Hunter Biden.
The dispute would come as the White House fights to tighten gun laws. And it could put conservative gun-rights enthusiasts, who typically criticize the Biden family, in unusual alignment with the president’s son.
Rest assured, reporters at Politico, that none of us will be lining up to align with Hunter Biden in a fight over letting crack users buy guns. So no worries on that front.
But I digress, it is instructive that this stuff is leaking as it seems to confirm that charges are likely on the way. If Hunter Biden’s team didn’t think the DOJ was going to prosecute, they wouldn’t be leaking this stuff. Why? Because the reason you leak something like this is to try to scare the Biden administration into stepping in to protect Hunter Biden again. Does Joe Biden really want the visual of his own son arguing for broad Second Amendment rights, up to and including drug users buying guns? I seriously doubt it.
Oh man!, I was to stoned to remember.
If that dodge fails the Feds can come into the room and assert their right to take Hunter to an undisclosed location as their key witness to a larger, higher level syndicate of worse criminals. Then the case will fail and Hunter cannot be tried for the first one.
In states where pot is legal, lots of folks probably think that if they smoke it they can still sign the gun form because they aren’t doing anything illegal. Except pot is STILL illegal at the Federal level so they are not supposed to buy a gun.
It’s an idle threat, I suspect. The DOJ absolutely loves that drug users can be prohibited from possessing firearms. Potentially the reason they allow illegal drug use by not enforcing federal drug laws and enabling drug trafficking.
In an instant they could confiscate a hundred million plus peoples’ weapons from known druggies. I wouldn’t put it past them having the database ready to go today.
AMAZING that he has avoided Fentanyl so far.
100% ignorance is bliss...
“......The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register any firearms in his possession was requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was essentially a violation of his right not to incriminate himself. ......”
I assume the DOJ will just run out the statute of limitations like they do for everyone on the “correct” side of the isle.
“Oops, we thought we had another year.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.