Posted on 06/11/2024 3:58:14 PM PDT by impimp
Hunter Biden’s conviction on federal gun charges Tuesday ignited a feverish debate, including among conservatives, over the constitutionality of the law he was found guilty of violating.
Thanks to a 2022 Supreme Court ruling, courts are taking a new look at the federal government’s main gun control law that bars felons, illegal immigrants, dishonorably discharged veterans, fugitives and unlawful drug users, among others, from possessing a firearm.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Aren’t some of those often privately owned?
For Trump 2.0 it would be good if he’d pick justices and judges who are gun owners and who recognize and understand an inalienable right. Maybe after Biden’s choices, folks that also know what a man and a woman are and respect those differences.
The exception I see is private property. If the school, church, hospital, bar, bank, restaurant, or whatever is privately owned they should have the the right to ask you not bring weapons there and that right should be respected.
I feel the same way about smoking. The smoking bans are the same thing as gun bans. (No, I don’t smoke) It is an intrusive breach of privacy for the government to forbid smoking in a private establishment.
“Do you want crazy drug addicts owning guns?”
No - but the 2A says they have the right.
Every private (not public) establishment should be able to strip the gun rights from those who enter.
You made that up.
“... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”
The irony is certainly delicious here. However, even if he manages to win on this issue, there is still the fact that he lied on a federal form, and that is not gonna be overturned on second amendment grounds, or any other. He’s going to jail, so long as this judge is reasonably honest.
From what I read last week, this judge has sentenced others guilty of the same charges to an average of one year in prison. Let’s see if he does the same with Hunter.
And, despite what Grandpa Hairsniffer says, I am 100% certain that if Hunter is in prison (which he won’t be due to the fact that his conviction will be in the midst of the appeals process), he will be pardoned the day after the election is decided, whether Joe wins or not. He is not going to let his son in jail, and I honestly cannot blame him for that feeling. But it will be just another instance of Joe lying to the American people for political gain.
Of course they have rights and lefts.
LE has discretion to arrest for a peace disturbance whenever they want to.
It's a conundrum.
On the one hand, the second amendment is clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That question can be seen as a screen to keep drug users from keeping and bearing arms -- clearly an infringement.
However, there is also Article I Section 8 Clause 16:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;The 2A term "well regulated" most likely refers to the tasks laid out in Article I Section 8 Clause 16 "organizing, arming, and disciplining... and training" the militia to be ready to be "employed in the Service of the United States" because Article I Section 8 predates the ratification of the second amendment and Congress was already familiar with their Section 8 powers when they crafted the second amendment.
Combining this with 2A, a federal court could interpret both together to suggest that the question of drug use on the federal form is not intended to keep guns away from drug users, but to inform the federal government of members of the militia who meet the level of "well regulated" if needed to be called into national service.
Someone like Hunter Biden would have been clearly rejected as not being a "well regulated" member of the militia and would not have been called into service due to being an unreliable member of the militia because of his drug use, despite possessing his own arms.
By this reading, failing to check the box on the federal form can be lying to the federal government while also withstanding the 2A infringement argument.
-PJ
I don’t really care about the ‘debate’ among conservatives re: all this. What I’d like to see is the drug-addicted, felon son of a sitting (illegally, IMO) President file suit on the legality of the ATF Form 4473 process and see just how far FJB is willing to go to get his son ‘off’. Frankly, it’s a moot point because before FJB would support a suit like that he’d just as well pardon the drug-addicted felon.
So in the end all this ‘discussion and debate’ is pretty much pointless, IMO.
In grandpa Biden’s
speach today, all he
brought up was trying
to ban assault weapons.
(capable of donning 200
round clips). No
mention of pistol bans....
May as well ban matches
for the threat of forest
fires.
That’s a lot of teflon you’re putting on your argument’s slope there…
Who decides what is “crazy,” or “a drug” or what “addicted” means?
What OTHER classes, categories, colors, faiths would you or a progressive law decide shouldn’t own firearms?
“Shall not be infringed” is an absolute, not relative, or fungible term of art.
While I agree with most of the article, it’s ironic that nobody’s comparing it to the debacle of what they did to President Trump...
You want the lovers of crazy drug users to throw away loaded guns into public trash cans were bums and kids prowl?
See #78
Can you imagine if a kid had retrieved the gun from the trash bin and killed another kid? The anti gun lobby would be going hermatile!!!
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.