Jurors in Hunter Biden’s federal gun trial in Delaware have reached a verdict after around 3 hours of deliberations

Yahoo news ^ | June 11, 2024 | AP

[Reno89519]

Jurors in Hunter Biden’s federal gun trial in Delaware have reached a verdict after around 3 hours of deliberations.

[Reno89519]

Do you approve of that encumbrance of gun rights?

I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment. I've been around firearms most of my life, I'm a firearms instructor, I often shoot competitively, and I actively carry. I have more than one firearm. I say all that because it is not an abstract to me.

My problem is the extremes. Embracing the Second Amendment, like the First, requires responsible and accountable citizenry. Yell fire so long as you are accountable for your actions.

The challenge with the Second Amendment is that people die. If we were all responsible and accountable, then it is perfect. But we have bad actors, intentionally or because of mental challenges. To ensure responsible citizenry have their Second Amendment rights, we need to address this. This irks purests who says it is not our problem or it is acceptable collateral damage. It is not acceptable and it is our problem as good citizens.

[Reno89519]

Just as contrived as the Trump verdict. They’re just throwing us a fish. “See? We’re fair.”

I don't accept the connection. Persecution of Trump cannot be equated to Hunter's behavior or the corruption of the Biden crime family.

[wardaddy]

I agree
The mental issues

Prior to 68 and later Brady aside from full auto we had no encumbrances except a few local restrictions here and there

[MayflowerMadam]

I see what you mean, but that’s not what I meant. I could’ve stated it better.

[SJackson]

I think some encumbrances are legitimate. I don't think felons convicted of violent crimes should possess firearms. Mental defectives, possibly. Committed to an institution, in most cases probably not an issue. Laws already exist regarding carrying a firearm when intoxicated, alcohol or drugs, and in the commission of a crime, which I'd be comfortable with if the charges were pursued. I'd be hard pressed to think of any legitimate restrictions operated firearms themselves.

My original comment was on the penalties Hunter faced on his 3 violations which are excessive. While I may think it shouldn't be a felony, it is, but the punishments are too severe. The worst of the incident was throwing the revolver in a garbage can, which potentially could have serious charges against Hunter and his sister in law/lover depending on the use later made of it.

[SJackson]

Left out of my reply, there should be due process should be available in the event of any restriction. And in the case of mental illness you have the problem of determining the threat posed. When we look at mass shootings we find most perps have had contacts with law enforcement and/or mental health professionals. Can’t count on them. In Illinois until a few years ago an alcoholic voluntarily entering rehab, and anyone else voluntarily entering a mental hospital for treatment, was barred from firearm ownership for 5 years. Still exists in other states. If a LEO the union would pay for legal representation, if not your appeal was on your dime and likely to fail.

[Reno89519]

That's the problem, rigid rules, which pushes the problem underground or allows it to be ignored. It is beyond frustrating to read about mass killers, even domestic killers, where in hindsight, the writing was on the wall that they were dangerous, that intervention was needed. Politics aside, we need to look at these cases and figure out a workable solution that both respects the Second Amendment, yet addresses the real risks. And we need to ensure unrestricted due process and avoid rigidity.

I am reminded of the stats we've seen over the past several years... licensed CCW carriers have less criminal behavior than do law enforcement. Funny, but it is important. Probably 90-95%, maybe more, of the population are or could be responsible and accountable exercisers of the Second Amendement. What do we do with or how do we handle the remaining few? Infringing upon that 90-95% to address those few is wrong.