Posted on 06/04/2023 12:46:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway
President Joe Biden has long been an advocate for strict restrictions on guns, so his son makes something of an unlikely advocate for expanded gun rights. But Hunter Biden may soon find himself on the opposite side of his father's gun control crusade in at least one aspect. The younger Biden is reportedly considering a challenge to a federal law that bans illegal drug users from owning guns.
The issue hits close to home for Hunter: The Department of Justice is investigating a gun purchase he made in 2018. This is a time period during which he has admitted to regularly using crack cocaine. That could put him afoul of the law against drug users having guns.
Hunter Biden's "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," reported Politico. "That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms."
Here's hoping?
The provision in question—part of the Gun Control Act of 1968—is, frankly, insane, preventing any person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" from buying a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has interpreted this provision to mean that anyone who has used any illegal drug in the past 12 months cannot legally purchase a gun.
And the time may be just right for challenging it. This Supreme Court has proved willing to strike down overreaching gun laws.
The investigation into Hunter Biden's 2018 gun purchase comes as part of a broader investigation, noted Politico:
David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, is leading the probe. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in May that Weiss is "capable of making any decisions that he feels are appropriate," and that he won't face political pressure. Weiss is widely reported to be examining potential tax crimes related to undeclared income, as well as Hunter Biden's purchase of a handgun in October 2018.
When he bought the gun, Biden filled out a federal form on which he allegedly avowed that he was not "an unlawful user of, or addicted to" any "controlled substance," POLITICO reported in 2021. But according to Biden's 2021 memoir, he frequently used crack cocaine at the time.
"I was smoking crack every 15 minutes," he wrote.
Are they arguing that he didn't perjure himself by not checking the box on the form, or that the box shouldn't have been there in the first place because it's unconstitutional to ban drug users from having a gun?
If it's the former, then he's saying he wasn't a drug user and he didn't perjure himself.
If it's the latter, then he's admitting to being a drug user but shouldn't have been denied a gun. In this case, he still perjured himself on the form.
In a perverse sense, it's the same thing happening with President Trump. It's possible that the FBI won't charge Trump with possessing classified documents, but they will charge him with obstructing justice over their documents investigation. It's a case where there shouldn't have been an investigation, but the investigation was started solely to entrap the target with an obstruction charge.
Hunter Biden is saying there shouldn't have been a drug user box on the form, but his failing to check that box is a crime.
-PJ
Is this the same gun that his girlfriend took from him and dumped into a trash bin in a public place?
He may have 5th Amendment protection in the latter case.
Crackhead Warrior with a Gun
Ummm, no.
“Crackhead Warrior with a Gun”
Great title for a B Movie.
“Crackhead Lawyer Warrior With a Gun” !
That’s a TV series!
““Crackhead Lawyer Warrior With a Gun” !
I like it...
Could be like “ Breaking Bad. “
5.56mm
If he's saying that checking the box is self-incrimination, he's not actually being charged with a crime by checking the box -- he's being charge with the crime of NOT checking the box -- so I don't think he can claim a 5th amendment protection.
By NOT checking the box, he was in effect "taking the 5th" and remaining silent. It would then be up to the government to prove his guilt without his testimony, that is, being a drug user and perjuring on the form by not checking the box. There is plenty of incriminating evidence out there to prove that Biden was using drugs when he filed the form, so his 5th amendment protections are not being violated because he did remain silent by not checking the box.
-PJ
Who’s father is the President. Every weekly episode he goes to the White House to get a snort & new mission assignment.
When filling out the form, there are two checkboxes: yes and no. All the checkboxes have to be filled before the dealer can legally sell you the firearm. If he checks ‘no’ to the drug question and he’s currently using, then he has committed perjury. If he checks ‘yes’, the dealer won’t sell to him.
Should the question be there in the first place? Should the form itself be there in the first place. All interesting questions, since no form was needed at all before 1968.
It would be ironic if FJB’s drug addled son helped to strike down the GCA of 1968.
The right of the people to pose naked with arms and throw them out near schools shall not be infringed?
“Every weekly episode he goes to the White House to get a snort & new mission assignment.”
Hey dad! For this episode I want to go to Beijing and talk with Xi. I think I’ll take a long Fang Fang for my escort.”
5.56mm
That would be a great episode! I’d be glued to the TV!
If the Tenth Circuit upholds the District Court, will the government (Biden administration) appeal to the Supreme Court?
This is a much better case than using Hunter Biden as a test case.
It’s a joke. Hunter Biden will never be prosecuted for anything.
I’m seeing a bit of a conundrum. Are you familiar with the Haynes vs. US, (1968) decision that convicted felons cannot be compelled to register a firearm, due to 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination?
That great founding document , Federal Form 4473 has certainly taken a beating, of late. Various judges have ruled against the provisions of the Lautenburg Amendment, the State/Federal marijuana confusion, and the age restrictions on purchasing.
Then, of course, there’s the proviso that “Nobody f**** with a Biden.” We’ve seen the Executive branch toe the line. Will the Judicial branch bend a knee?
The GCA of 1968 was apparently patterned after the laws in Nazi Germany.
The form shouldn’t exist at all in a truly free country. GCA ‘68 and NFA ‘34 should be revoked, as well as sections of FOPA ‘86 (and a whole host of state and local regs - I’m looking at you, California).
Firearms are tools and should be treated as such in the marketplace.
-PJ
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.