Hunter Biden plea deal nixed by judge, going to federal trial

Agree with your first point, but the President's son being indicted is objectively a pretty big deal.

 

Has anyone yet asked DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Haley, Scott, and others if they will pledge to pardon Hunter if they're elected?

 

This is Joe Biden’s push outta office. Pardon him and go to sleep

 

You mean with Hunter Biden, a person who never held and never will hold public office.

 

Although I know that it will trigger your standard response, you mean the ones that are representing the indicted and defeated former president and I will add that he is much more relevant than the sleazy formerly drug-addicted son of the current president.

 

Lol. There it is. Pete and repeat went into a store …

 

Maybe I am obsessed but my obsession concerns an individual who is running for the most powerful elective office in the world and may possibly be elected to that position again. Seems that's more much rational than the obsession with a former coke addict who has tried to monetize his father's position and never has and never will hold a responsible political office.

 

These gun charges will go away. SCOTUS already decided these kind of charges are unconstitutional in another case.

 

Right wingers fondling themselves on the internet over Hunter Biden’s gun form after half a decade of claiming there is mountains of evidence to wrong doing is hilarious. Donald Trump has serious indictments pending, pardoned convicted felons and has stated the desire to pardon traitors convicted of trying to install him illegally. But, yea, private citizen Hunter Biden said he wasn’t a drug addict on a check box. Unreal.

 

[Citation needed]

 

Bruen case

 

Not SCOTUS (yet) but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal
Appeals court rules against longstanding drug user gun ban cited in Hunter Biden case
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf

 

Suggest you read Bruen. It struck down New York City’s concealed carry licensing scheme, not the federal prohibited person statute.

 

Suggest that you read the 5th Circuit decision in US v. Davis which directly addresses the statute prohibiting the possession of firearms by a person who used or possessed prohibited substances. From the decision:

Even as a marihuana user, Daniels is a member of our political com-
munity. Therefore, he has a presumptive right to bear arms. By infringing
on that right, § 922(g)(3) contradicts the plain text of the Second
Amendment.​

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf

In its decision the 5th Circuit cited Bruen and just a guess the chances are that when the case reaches the SCOTUS, the Supreme Court will affirm the decision of the 5th Circuit.

 

I have, and I don’t necessarily know that they will (the Fifth seems to have something of a hard on for striking down portions of the prohibited persons statute right now that I don’t know that any other court shares, and there’s a decent hole in the Fifth’s analysis).

But, more importantly, the Fifth Circuit isn’t the Supreme Court, so stop trying to move the goalposts to save the libs who didn’t read the talking points here quite as well as you did.

 

Well, the flip side of that - is if the law is upheld by the courts, the government should proactively go after anyone caught online posing with their weapons stash and also referencing drug usage. How many millions of potheads should be charged with federal gun crimes under this type of standard (basing the charges on social media activity)? I’m guessing we have more than a few such prospective criminals posting here.

I’m not against the idea of “prohibited persons” - but it should at least be connected to real crimes, violent crimes, or drug convictions (and arguably it should be felony conviction or mental health due process to establish one as a “prohibited person”, not mere possession or usage). Otherwise as it presently exists this law is only going to be applied in rare, or perhaps even politically charged cases.

 

Marijuana is absolutely an issue with the prohibited persons statute right now, and it is one of the issues (like many related to marijuana) that Congress needs to fix by changing federal marijuana law.

It’s frankly a bit absurd that federal law enforcement completely turns its head on enforcing substantive marijuana laws but, because DOJ just ignores the federal illegality instead of Congress changing the law, Form 4473 (the gun purchase form) now has to include a big warning on that question that marijuana use remains federally illegal irrespective of state law.

That question currently says (with the bolding in the original):

“Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”

 

While the 5th Circuit decision is obviously not controlling, no matter how you try to spin it beginning with Heller and most recently Bruen the SCOTUS has taken a very expansive view of the Second Amendment. If I were to bet I would put my money on SCOTUS affirming the 5th Circuit's decision in Daniels and perhaps even more significantly based on the facts rather than the law the indictment against Hunter Biden is nothing more than a political stunt. Misrepresentation on a federal firearms form is very seldom prosecuted as a standalone offense, Hunter possessed the gun in question for eight days, and charging him with three separate felonies stemming out of the same transaction is the ultimate example of prosecutorial overkill.

 

This meme comes immediately to mind.

 

I’m not sure how that meme would ever just come to someone’s mind. Shame on u for asking me to go thru all those steps. Shame on me for actually doing it.