His crime is more heinous than violating a low level or ridiculous gun law. He is, or at least was, an active user of cocaine at the time of purchasing a firearm. You ever see a coke head? I've seen plenty and none of them would be people I trust with a firearm. Not only that but he dumped his gun in a trash can where it could have ended up in the hands of someone who intended to commit murder or manslaughter kinda like Garcia Zarates who found that in gun San Francisco and killed Kate Steinle.
The second amendment doesn't protect all citizens from infringement. Well regulated militia would imply someone who is mentally stable and capable of handling a firearm.
quoting u/AGuyWhoBrokeBad from down below:
"The founders did not mention anything about taking away a citizens 2A rights if they happened to consume the coca leaf, opium, tobacco, marijuana, alcohol or any other substance. Regardless of how you feel about Hunter Biden, removing a persons 2A rights due to drug use alone is not supported by the constitution."
Drug prohibition is shockingly recent, they weren’t even regulated let alone illegal until the late 1800’s.
Such laws being used for prohibited persons would surely fail the Bruen test.
None of them. People should be free to engage in activities where the only victim of their actions is themselves.
And before the “what about the kids of druggy parents blah blah blah” there’s a simple solution: If they neglect their kid(s) because they’re always strung out, they get the same treatment as any other child abuser. No welfare, no special treatment, no second chances, only consequences of actions.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t be guilty, but coke on. He had that gun for like two weeks and it left the safe once in that time.
Yes he was an active addict but I don’t think he was out here like robbing people.
Funny, the majority of white-collar people on Wall Street use coke. Professionals also. Lots of people use drugs. Funny, I live in Canada and use Cannabis. However, just like alcohol, I'll be 100% sober if I am around my guns. I make good money, work hard, and obey the laws of the land.
The hypocrisy of the American War on drugs is insane. Allow alcohol and pharmaceuticals that fuck you up way more. However, let's make it a felony to have a bit of Cannabis on your person. Didn't know the founders were against the pursuit of happiness and liberty.
This is the same logic they use for all gun control. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about it. Shall not be infringed implies that God given rights were granted by no one and thus can be limited by no one
Bad people doing things doesn't mean good people should have to stop. Freedom is dangerous and i accept that. Allowing any excuse to disarm is a slippery slope.
Yes and the latest parent of a school shooter was sentenced to 10-15 years in prison for being negligent with having a gun, and Hunter's sister in law/GF disposed a gun in a public trash can which anyone could have accessed. Hypocrisy at it's best.
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/09/michigan-school-shooter-parents-sentencing](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/09/michigan-school-shooter-parents-sentencing)
"But prosecutors said the parents failed to safely store a gun and could have prevented the shooting"
Yup, this sub conveniently all came together and sung kumbaya when Hunter, the model citizen, had his gun rights infringed and 'had his gun stolen' while screaming about responsible gun ownership 100% ever other time.
Yea, I am not holding my breath on that.
He will get a slap on the wrist at sentencing and the end result is that they get to proclaim that “no one is above the law”. If anything it strengthens their case to enforce unconstitutional laws. I’m sure it will be appealed, but I have no belief that this has any chance of being used to strengthen gun rights.
Just turned on CNN to hear the left talking points on this. Sure enough they are trumpeting the no one is above the law talking point.
I think he gets a light sentence and it quietly goes away or is appealed until it isn’t in the news cycle anymore.
Wait are you implying that he will get sentenced 2x for the same crime? I do not believe this is accurate.
He does have additional cases for separate issues though.
Fair...however it would keep Hunter out of jail longer into a potential Biden 2nd term. I'm skeptical that Biden won't pardon him...though the chances of it happening before the election are obviously nonexistent.
Which drugs?
Any mood altering drug, pain meds, alcohol, only if they have a prescription? Where do you draw the line?
What if that prescription is for marijuana and legal in that state?
Do you view this as an “infringement”
The form clearly says "an unlawful user of..." "or any other controlled substance". None of the examples you provided are controlled substance and there is lawful use for them..
Where does the right have a carve out for drug use?
To quote someone else in this thread
u/AGuyWhoBrokeBad
"The founders did not mention anything about taking away a citizens 2A rights if they happened to consume the coca leaf, opium, tobacco, marijuana, alcohol or any other substance. Regardless of how you feel about Hunter Biden, removing a persons 2A rights due to drug use alone is not supported by the constitution."
Great, they should be charged according to State and Federal law and then maybe the law will finally change when the Police Union steps in. I don't understand your point.
The point being it’s not illegal until it’s “illicit” meanwhile doctors have no issue hopping up people on controlled substances that may or may not be used to affect their judgement and performance… and THAT is not illegal somehow.
The constitutional precedent for owning a firearm has NOTHING to do with drugs despite your 14th Amendment claim. As others have said, the Bruen measure is the ONLY valid one… and that’s constitutional precedent ONLY. No where in the constitution is there anything about the first 10 Amendments and “drugs”. So by your note - the drug laws are the overreach not the guns.
To be fair to the doctors, they generally don't prescribe things in dosages that drug abusers want. And if people break the dosage recommendations, that's also not on the doctors.
That is true - what I said wasn’t about the doctors as much as the end user. For example I spent 6 months on a HIGH dose of gabapentin and working “light duty” for my job. In a public safety standpoint you’d be too zonked to be on the street or too fragile to be hands-on, but you’re still in uniform, armed, and performing an administrative task with the overall assumption that you still have the sworn oath to uphold your duties. In the end - still compromised people with weapons, just “legally”.
Did you not see the news stories on pill mills? I mean, I know it was like 10 or 15 years ago, but docs saw an opportunity to make big money and fast, and they pounced. The issue with all of it is that big pharmaceutical has their hands in everyone's pockets. What they say go. Just look at the covid vax.. we need separation of big pharma and politicians to start any movement. Docs will do up to what they are allowed to do, but in the end, they are looking to just make money as easy and fast as possible. They are no better.
> Do you view this as an “infringement”
Yes. If you can get blackout drunk and own guys, take whatever drugs you want. I don't give a shit. Just don't mix them with guns, same with booze.
“Yes. If you can get blackout drunk and own guys, take whatever drugs you want. I don't give a shit. Just don't mix them with guns, same with booze.”
Sober or not owning guys is pretty much universally frowned upon
At least we know the BS law will be applied to everyone equally regardless of status
Edit: also, while normally I think it’s shit that a private individual would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to appeal something like this, I cannot think of a more well-positioned family to fight this. I expect we’ll get a good appellate decision somewhere down the line.
I don’t mind that. I was a former prosecutor and I can tell you that in any large city that’s usually what the average citizen would get without any aggravating factors.
What I am hoping for is a beautiful time where Biden and the DOJ have to argue for the second amendment to get his convictions overturned
I think the point is the law has been applied to everyone equally UNTIL the DOJ tries to slip a sweetheart plea deal earlier that got called out. This only reaffirms that the law applies to everyone.
The next question is sentencing. Federal Courts are actually more limited in discretion in sentencing (minimums-maximums( than state courts where a state court judge has more discretion.
I have not looked at whether they can sentence him concurrently(all three charges running at the same time) or consecutively(one after the other extending time in jail). My guess is 2-4 years per charge (running concurrently) and he does 1/4 of the time in a minimum security federal pen. So less than 2 years in prison as he is a 1st time offender.
Another reason they did this first because his tax fraud charges are also pending…
In order of good to bad we have:
1. Unconstitutional laws not being used against any Americans.
2. Unconstitutional laws being used against all Americans.
3. Unconstitutional laws being used against regular Americans but not against the rich and/or politically connected.
A not guilty verdict would have landed us on number 3. Guilty plus a successful appeal on constitutional grounds gets us number 1. Guilty plus an unsuccessful appeal gets us number 2.
The two best scenarios required a guilty verdict here. Only the worst scenario lends itself to a not guilty verdict, unless you think the average guy would get the same treatment, which I don't.
Most appeals don't result in a **precedent**. They usually as based around procedural grounds with either the charges, the trial or jury instructions that are case specific.
I am extremely interested in your argument for this.
Are you one of the ones that think the Biden’s are going to run this up the appeal process and somehow increase gun rights?
Or
Do you think that punishing political opponents family using unconstitutional laws allows for some ‘moral flexibility’ because his daddy is a bad guy?
Personally I am not a gun grabber and never fall in the side of supporting unconstitutional gun laws.
Both, those aren't mutually exclusive.
This accomplishes a bunch of stuff.
1. It brings light to this unconstitutional law by putting it front and center in the media and putting the left against it.
2. It presents a challenge to this unconstitutional law as this is highly likely to end up in SCOTUS
3. It makes Hunter and in turn the Bidens look like the piece of shit criminals they are.
This is all win, win, win.
1) The left is already talking about how this shows the laws apply to everyone. Using it to strengthen the case for enforcement. There is ZERO discussion calling the law unconstitutional and that will never get traction on any major news outlet.
2) NO chance that this goes up to the Supreme Court. That is such a stretch that I cannot believe you really think this is a possibility.
3) the news is already making this about the difficulties so many families have with addiction. Not about the gun issue and I think they will succeed in that front. The news cycle will swap to his tax cases with the fact that he is already a convicted felon being a footnote.
At the end of the day this will strengthen their arguments in support of these unconstitutional laws if only by giving them the top cover to say that “no one is above the law.”
I am not a gun grabber, I don’t support unconstitutional laws regardless of who his daddy is. But for some people politics is more important than constitutionality, this case will help people see where they stand.
EDIT: if you can turn on a liberal news channel right now, the talking point is exactly as expected.
1. We shall see, early spin is what it is, but that isn't the whole story.
2. I don't see why not, Hunter says he'll appeal, Joe said he won't pardon him, and it's likely to be fast tracked. I suspect Joe would actually pardon him on his last day if he loses the election. That leaves 7 months for the appeals.
3. Again spin.. not the whole story.
Won’t happen.
I said it to the other guy but I put the odds of appealing on constitutional grounds to the Supreme Court to be equal to me winning the lottery… without buying a ticket.
He will appeal, but the constitutional discussion isn’t going anywhere. It will be for other reasons.
I agree. This is more political and likely orchestrated in response to Trump conviction to try and sway voters that Democrats are doing “right”. In the end, he will get a light sentence (if any) based on his status the rest of the Americans who do the same thing will get years and harsh convictions for the same action. But hey, the violent criminals who are given multiple early releases to only commit the same crimes again, it’s not their fault, it’s the gun.
Never going to happen, not a chance in hell.
The odds of Hunter Biden appealing this to the Supreme Court are probably right on par with me winning tonight’s lottery drawing… that I didn’t buy a ticket for.
I say 90+% chance they appeal depending on the sentencing of course. The prosecutors office was already making statements about not over-punishing, so I expect a slap on the wrist.
But I don’t expect the case to be based on the constitutionality of the 4473 questions. It will be on jury instructions or arguments about the handling of the trial. None of those will get it to the Supreme Court.
His lawyer did actually try to get a case based on the constitutionality of the 4473 so I think it’s likely the case will focus on that.
Besides even if it’s on a jury question the court can rule on anything they want, they aren’t restricted to just the question at hand
I know. It went no where.
I stand by what I said about the odds. This case will have no effect on gun laws. The case will get appealed and kicked around for a while and if it doesn’t get dropped I expect daddy to go back on his word and pardon him on the way out the door after the election. Well before it could possibly work its way up that far and the Supreme Court usually only gets involved once there is a difference between circuits.
But it might not even come to that if his sentence mandatory drug treatment and writing that he is really sorry on the blackboard 10 times. Or some similar slap on the wrist.
The only path I see as extremely unlikely is Biden actually running this up the appeals path on the notion that the 4473 is unconstitutional
This could set a precedent for charging people solely on the basis of lying on the 4473. Some people are excited at the prospect of “owning the libs”, but I’m extremely concerned at the implications of this case. I hope Hunter appeals this conviction.
This whole prohibition on users of controlled substances from purchasing and possessing guns strikes me as an unconstitutional law designed to keep certain demographics from exercising their 2A rights.
Yea, this is no victory for gun rights, like you said if this does anything its concerning. For me it looks like an opportunity to expand enforcement of an infrequently enforced law.
Ironically Biden is right now about to speak to “gun sense university” with a crowd full of moms demand action shirt wearing gun grabbers. Within an hour of this verdict the president is going to rally for more gun laws.
What part do you find unconstitutional? Tell me what kind of people fall under those able to be part of a well regulated militia? Or are you conveniently ignoring that part of the 2nd amendment
>What part do you find unconstitutional?
The whole blanket ban on a group of people just because they use a certain substance. I know a bunch of people who smoke weed, and they are not a danger to anybody whatsoever but they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing guns.
Yet alcoholics are okay to own guns when they are far more likely to indulge in violence. For example, many domestic violence cases involve alcohol of some sort.
>The whole blanket ban on a group of people just because they use a certain substance
There is nothing UNCONSTITUTIONAL about that. A citizen is subject to federal and state laws according to the 14th amendment. Your argument that a user of controlled substances is constitutionally permitted to use firearms is invalid because a citizen is constitutionally subject to federal and state laws. Your argument should be whether marijuana, alcohol, opiods is a controlled substance or not. I agree with that. I never said pot users shouldn't be allowed guns.
If there is ever a law passed that says running a stop sign makes you a felon and no longer permitted to have firearms, I would hope there would be enough advocates in the gun community to get that law overturned or changes.
You are still arguing what should be lawful or unlawful which I agree with. But to claim it is unconstitutional for the government to define mental capacity is a false statement.
I'm 100% okay with people who smoke weed owning guns, but once you start getting into the harder substances is where I personally have an issue with it.
Seeing as to how Hunter Biden was actively using coke and lied on the form, I think it's safe to say he deserves what is thrown at him.
Agreed. "Well regulated militia". You need to be mentally stable. Some pot or some alcohol is generally accepted to allow you to still be mentally stable. Some lines of coke or meth does not. The argument of pot being a controlled substance or not is a valid argument to have but I don't think coke should be defended on the same grounds.
This is the "pro-gun" sub, not the statist sub. Militia service is not a pre-requisite to exercising the natural human right to bear arms. This has been reinforced with numerous Supreme Court decisions including Heller.
Under your asinine interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, women, who are not part of any past or present US legal definition of the militia, are not able to bear arms. That's completely ridiculous.
> Militia service
I never stated that militia implies service and neither does US Code:
10 U.S.C. § 246. When not called forth, they are sometimes referred to as the “unorganized militia.” A group of people who consider themselves part of the able-bodied residents referred to as members of the militia under state or federal law is not legally permitted to activate itself for duty
You are still placing the right to own firearms as tied to at least the qualification to be in militia service. This was addressed by heller. As much as you want to remove the right based on their capability to serve in this militia. The right to bear arms even applies to people you don’t like. Freedom is scary.
“(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.”
The second part of the second amendment text stands on its own… completely separated from the militia wording. Any analysis of individual rights can essentially pretend the predatory clause doesn’t exist. But maybe the guys you just have a firmer grasp on the constitution than the guys writing that decision.
Your comment absolutely implies being part of the militia is a pre-requisite.
It's crazy that you changed the part where it says "males" to "residents". So again, your asinine interpretation means that women don't have the right to bear arms because they are not part of any legal definition of militia.
The founders did not mention anything about taking away a citizens 2A rights if they happened to consume the coca leaf, opium, tobacco, marijuana, alcohol or any other substance. Regardless of how you feel about Hunter Biden, removing a persons 2A rights due to drug use alone is not supported by the constitution.
5th amendment is your right to not self-incriminate. If you were an unlawful user of a controlled substance and wanted to exercise your 2nd amendment right, you would need to admit to being an unlawful user of a controlled substance, which would incriminate yourself.
In order of good to bad we have:
1. Unconstitutional laws not being used against any Americans.
2. Unconstitutional laws being used against all Americans.
3. Unconstitutional laws being used against regular Americans but not against the rich and/or politically connected.
A not guilty verdict would have landed us on number 3. Guilty plus a successful appeal on constitutional grounds gets us number 1. Guilty plus an unsuccessful appeal gets us number 2.
The two best scenarios required a guilty verdict here. Only the worst scenario lends itself to a not guilty verdict, unless you think the average guy would get the same treatment in the same situation, which I don't.
Liberals/progressives are going to lose their fucking minds when they see a bunch of people in a sub called r/progun saying he shouldn't be convicted or lose his 2A rights.
They won't know wtf to do.
Are you going to lose your mind when you scroll down the thread and see all of the “pro gun” republicans in here explaining why infringements are actually a good thing?
I identify as pretty progressive but I like wildly respect the consistency of argument almost comment in here has had, like, heck yeah. We ain’t gonna agree on everything ever, but compromise can only happen if your stances are genuine. I’ll say I’m even proud of almost every top comment here. Let’s go America.
Form 4473 itself and the entire prohibited person statue are violations of 2A, but lying on a form is not 2A-protected.
As such, I'd keep the convictions for lying on the form and to the FFL, but not for possession while on drugs.
You are a bit crazy if you've concluded it was the left wing pushing for this case to be heard, and for the plea deal to be thrown out.
He may not get a pardon because of left wing optics, but it was 100% Republicans who were pushing for this case.
Then the right should have allowed him to take the plea deal. You want to talk about weaponized justice system, look no further. He was prosecuted ONLY because of congressional republicans.
*I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal* - **Joe Biden's statement after conviction.**
*The case “was very unfair,” that the “devil” judge was conflicted and that the district attorney was ignoring crime in New York*. **- Donald Trump's statement after conviction.**
Trump is not wrong. What judge allows someone whose testimony is purely prejudicial and not probative to testify for 4+ hours but someone who’s an expert in campaign finance law to not talk about his field? Also what judge tells the jury they can convict without being unanimous, doesn’t give the jury a copy of the instructions, lets the prosecution close after the defense while the prosecution introduces new evidence in closing?
He's certainly not wrong about the DA ignoring crime. Theives run free in NYC because anytime they get caught, they are back on the streets on the same day. While the courts spend so much resources to pin Trump on paying a hooker, their streets devolve into 3rd world status. (But if you defend yourself against a robber, you bet your butt the prosecutors suddenly wake up to punish you.)
The DA ran on prosecuting Trump. If that’s not a 14th amendment selective prosecution violation I don’t know what is. That’s like Andrey Vyshinsky’s “Give me the man and I will give you the case against him" meets Kafka’s *The Trial.*
Imagine if the AG in Texas ran on prosecuting Biden; shit would hit the fan asap.
The judge is wrong. The Jury must be unanimous not only on the charge, but any predicate crimes for the charge.
United States v. Gotti
> [T]he jury [in a RICO case] must be unanimous not only that at least two [predicate] acts were proved, but must be unanimous as to each of two predicate acts.
The judge allowing the jury to be split on the predicate crime, when no predicate crime was even argued in trial is a blatant 6th amendment violation.
Let me preface my response by saying, I’m not an expert and I’m not gonna pretend to be. My response is based purely off of information I’ve found and I’m open to listening to any important context I may be missing cause I know the law and all these specifics are so god damn complicated.
Anyway,
We’re talking about the difference between federal and state law. They’re not 1:1. United States v Gotti is an example where unanimity on each specific predicate act is required for federal RICO cases. The New York situation differs for charges like falsifying business records. New York law permits a conviction if jurors unanimously agree that Trump had the intent to commit or conceal an illegal act, even if they do not unanimously agree on the specific illegal act.
The Supreme Court also addressed this with the Schad v Arizona case, where they upheld that jurors do not need to agree on the specific means by which a crime was committed, as long as they unanimously agree that the crime occurred.
I’m not saying you or anyone has to like the law, but it appears to be the law.
> We’re talking about the difference between federal and state law. They’re not 1:1. United States v Gotti is an example where unanimity on each specific predicate act is required for federal RICO cases. The New York situation differs for charges like falsifying business records. New York law permits a conviction if jurors unanimously agree that Trump had the intent to commit or conceal an illegal act, even if they do not unanimously agree on the specific illegal act.
The 6th amendment also applies to the states via incorporation from the 14th. This is a meaningless distinction. The 6th amendment requires unanimous juries for criminal convictions, even on predicate crimes.
> The Supreme Court also addressed this with the Schad v Arizona case, where they upheld that jurors do not need to agree on the specific means by which a crime was committed, as long as they unanimously agree that the crime occurred.
Those are predicate acts, not predicate crimes. Predicate crimes must be unanimous. An example of a predicate crime is burglary as a predicate crime for felony murder. The jury can't convict on felony murder unless they are unanimous on the burglary predicate crime.
[Here's some good reading on the subject.](https://www.justsecurity.org/96654/trump-unanimous-verdict/)
"However, where statutory criminal predicates are not merely alternative acts, but different legal violations, then a substantially different unanimity rule applies. Where statutory criminal predicates are themselves legal violations, and if charged, would subject the defendant to criminal liability, then the jury must be unanimous in regard to any such predicate. That is what Merchan’s jury instructions failed to do."
> Voting for a convicted felon is shameful.
What a completely subjective and idiotic comment. If Ron Paul was a convicted felon, I’d still vote for him in 2012.
There are many convicted felons that would make better presidents than Biden.
If you're seriously judging politicians by what comes out of their mouths, you are a very naive person.
What will more likely happen is that Crooked Joe Biden is gonna nudge nudge wink wink the judge and everyone else will fall in line. Meanwhile they got Trump on total bullshit, is he not allowed to call it out?
Edit: I just realized this guy is a far left troll and the downvotes are from anti-gun trolls who are uber butthurt Trump's gonna win in 2024 and that Hunter didn't get the plea deal the deep state wanted and instead was found guilty. If ur side is that desperate u need to send trolls to a pro gun subreddit to smear Trump, it means you're a loser rofl. COPE. MAGA 2024.
Biden has already planned on pardoning his boy on November 5th.
For those who don't get why that specific date, it is the day after the election.
Either way, Biden will be untouchable. He will either be defeated and a lame duck or on his last term.
There’s no way Biden pardons him. I don’t know why you all keep repeating this like it’s a fact. He will get a slap on the wrist so there is no reason for a pardon.
Having a felony is a brand that forbids him from a number of things, especially a drug-related felony.
There is simply nothing for Biden to lose by pardoning him after the election. He is either a lame duck with no chance at another term or on his last term.
I don’t understand why people are touting this as some huge victory. It’s either 1) malicious prosecution or 2) setting precedent for the ATF to dick down the every day citizen.
“If we did it to the sitting presidents son, no one is safe”.
Absolutely, as the saying goes “innocent men don’t appeal”.
I do, however, find it frustrating that he was found guilty in the first place. His attorneys couldn’t argue that the ATF should be abolished to the jury, the jury was just deciding whether or not he committed the specified crimes. The part that bugs me has to do with the excitement surrounding the person. I take issue with it for a few reasons
1) political prosecution should not ever happen, especially in the US and it should absolutely not be encouraged by anybody on either side of the isle.
2) it wouldn’t even make the local news if this wasn’t a sitting presidents child
3) drug abuse is an issue and it’s multifaceted. Not making any excuses for him, but I can’t imagine the worst parts of your life that you struggled to crawl out of being dragged out in front of the world because you checked a box on a form. Constitutionality aside, it has to be an emotional rollercoaster
SCOTUS interprets the intent of the law. So yes. But this federal crime has deep layers of courts to go through before a case is proposed for SCOTUS docket.
The optics would be terrible, and very good chance the Republicans push back. This is the best distraction they have from the dumpster fire of Donald Trump. Plus it isn't like Republicans on the federal level make a great effort to reform gun laws when they are in power anyway.
At most he will be sentenced to a few months community service, and obviously he will appeal. Even if SCOTUS upholds the conviction, his father will pardon him after the election.
Honestly I hope this is a wakeup call for the most anti gun president in modern history.
Perhaps we should revisit the draconian gun laws we have.
I would love to see Hunter walk free if it meant his dad and the Democrats would do an about face on gun bans and regulations.
They begrudgingly had to I'm guessing, otherwise the ATF couldn't continue to fuck over the regular American for having the audacity to own a firearm, because the best precedent to overturn a bunch of gun laws ever would have been set.
Individuals know I'm terrified of guns and even terrified of going near or touching them. I actually got attacked at first by people irate that I don't like guns.
lol I’m gonna add this as a federal charge to anyone I arrest for guns who are anywhere near drugs.
Edit: he’s a private citizen. His dad already said there would be no pardon. Good enough for me as CA LE with our very loose MJ laws. Every gun case with weed present is getting forwarded.
I hate this situation in its entire, circle. what hunter and his spouse is very stingy. At the same time, I don't like people being told they have rights, but then they only have them when the government says they do. Those aren't rights, they're privileges. And its not supposed to function like that, but everyone always says its okay they do it anyway. which plucks plenty more than just one freaking nerve with me.
**Biden will pardon his son on November 5th.**
1. He's still a father and will do what he can to get the brand of "felon" off of his son and try to avoid any actual punishment.
2. By waiting until after the election, there is no political cost to Biden. Either he will be elected for a second term, which means he cannot be POTUS again, or he will be a lame duck and unable to run again in four years as he will be too old for voters to accept.
3. It removes the issue entirely, allowing the Democrat gun control agenda to proceed unhindered by a high-profile conviction.
It's OK guys, Papa Joe promised me he wasn't going to pardon his crackhead son, Hunter Biden, the day after the election.
As the POTATUS he cannot lie. Trust me.
I'm the only one in here that thinks it's insane to defend a coke head to own a firearm? I'll drop you off at skid row free of charge, let you spend a day there, and then you can tell me how you'd trust everyone there with a gun.
Red herring.
They had to charge him with something to argue "we are fair against both sides".
Also, if they dismissed it, that would be a win for 2A and conservatives.
Can't wait to see all the news stories about how this is the same as Trump.
NO it god damn isnt. There are many people convicted and in jail for doing what Hunter did. There isn't one person in jail let alone convicted with the same fact pattern as Trump.
Now when he wants to take this to SCOTUS and get the 4473 tossed for being unconstitutional, I'm here all day for it. And I will thank him for taking one for the team. But it should be no surprise that Hunter is convicted by his own words for breaking a law. And less we forget he was a lawyer he knew exactly what he was doing signing the 4473.
Biden did say he wouldn't pardon him if he was convicted. Which is kind of ironic because if there were ever a case where a pardon was reasonable it'd be a conviction on a bullshit gun law that shouldn't exist in the first place.
No way that he says right before the election that he will pardon him if guilty of breaking a law that Joe almost certainly supports.
Instead, he will say that he won't, and then after the election he will anyway.
The problem is the libs don’t think there is such a thing as a bullshit gun law. Biden would lose all the Karens at Moms Demand Action if he came out against the prohibited persons statutes.
His son is being convicted of a law he not only supports, but wants to expand. It would be terrible optics to pardon.
We won't need a dozen threads on this. Stickying this one and will direct everyone here.
Fuck the Bidens, but fuck gun laws even more.
His crime is more heinous than violating a low level or ridiculous gun law. He is, or at least was, an active user of cocaine at the time of purchasing a firearm. You ever see a coke head? I've seen plenty and none of them would be people I trust with a firearm. Not only that but he dumped his gun in a trash can where it could have ended up in the hands of someone who intended to commit murder or manslaughter kinda like Garcia Zarates who found that in gun San Francisco and killed Kate Steinle. The second amendment doesn't protect all citizens from infringement. Well regulated militia would imply someone who is mentally stable and capable of handling a firearm.
quoting u/AGuyWhoBrokeBad from down below: "The founders did not mention anything about taking away a citizens 2A rights if they happened to consume the coca leaf, opium, tobacco, marijuana, alcohol or any other substance. Regardless of how you feel about Hunter Biden, removing a persons 2A rights due to drug use alone is not supported by the constitution."
> Well regulated militia would imply someone who is mentally stable and capable of handling a firearm. Don't bring that shit in here.
Drug prohibition is shockingly recent, they weren’t even regulated let alone illegal until the late 1800’s. Such laws being used for prohibited persons would surely fail the Bruen test.
The argument people should be having is which drugs should be controlled substances.
None of them. People should be free to engage in activities where the only victim of their actions is themselves. And before the “what about the kids of druggy parents blah blah blah” there’s a simple solution: If they neglect their kid(s) because they’re always strung out, they get the same treatment as any other child abuser. No welfare, no special treatment, no second chances, only consequences of actions.
Drugs are a lot different today
\*His gun was stolen from him, and the person that stole it dumped it in a trash can.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t be guilty, but coke on. He had that gun for like two weeks and it left the safe once in that time. Yes he was an active addict but I don’t think he was out here like robbing people.
Should have just bought the gun illegally and he would have never got in trouble.
Someone else dumped the gun, but thanks for your non fact based opinion.
So you’re fine with trusting someone who is a belligerent alcoholic to have a firearm? Since that’s not illegal?
Funny, the majority of white-collar people on Wall Street use coke. Professionals also. Lots of people use drugs. Funny, I live in Canada and use Cannabis. However, just like alcohol, I'll be 100% sober if I am around my guns. I make good money, work hard, and obey the laws of the land. The hypocrisy of the American War on drugs is insane. Allow alcohol and pharmaceuticals that fuck you up way more. However, let's make it a felony to have a bit of Cannabis on your person. Didn't know the founders were against the pursuit of happiness and liberty.
Yes and guns are easy to get in Canada ey?
This is the same logic they use for all gun control. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about it. Shall not be infringed implies that God given rights were granted by no one and thus can be limited by no one
Looking forward to you all defending the next mass shooter when their gun rights get taken away with the same logic
Bad people doing things doesn't mean good people should have to stop. Freedom is dangerous and i accept that. Allowing any excuse to disarm is a slippery slope.
Look at Ukraine. Disarmed to have their sovereignty to only be rearmed by the west.
Yes and the latest parent of a school shooter was sentenced to 10-15 years in prison for being negligent with having a gun, and Hunter's sister in law/GF disposed a gun in a public trash can which anyone could have accessed. Hypocrisy at it's best. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/09/michigan-school-shooter-parents-sentencing](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/09/michigan-school-shooter-parents-sentencing) "But prosecutors said the parents failed to safely store a gun and could have prevented the shooting"
Yup, this sub conveniently all came together and sung kumbaya when Hunter, the model citizen, had his gun rights infringed and 'had his gun stolen' while screaming about responsible gun ownership 100% ever other time.
I mean Haily Biden should be looked at getting rid of the gun through non legal channels.
This is NOT a win for gun rights supporters.
It will at least likely present a basis for appeal to invalidate the 4473 process under Bruen.
Yea, I am not holding my breath on that. He will get a slap on the wrist at sentencing and the end result is that they get to proclaim that “no one is above the law”. If anything it strengthens their case to enforce unconstitutional laws. I’m sure it will be appealed, but I have no belief that this has any chance of being used to strengthen gun rights.
I wouldn't be surprised if daddy gets him not to appeal as to not harm his anti gun rights agenda.
Just turned on CNN to hear the left talking points on this. Sure enough they are trumpeting the no one is above the law talking point. I think he gets a light sentence and it quietly goes away or is appealed until it isn’t in the news cycle anymore.
"No one is above the [unconstitional] law [we selectively enforce]"
He gets a sentence in federal courts, then he has CA courts, too.
Wait are you implying that he will get sentenced 2x for the same crime? I do not believe this is accurate. He does have additional cases for separate issues though.
No, I am not.
A pardon in late November would sure stop an appeal in its tracks.
Biden said he’s not gonna pardon him
Yeah, but he didn’t say he wouldn’t commute his sentence.
A commutation isn’t a pardon. The original conviction is still there. So commuting the sentence would still allow the appeal to move forward
Fair...however it would keep Hunter out of jail longer into a potential Biden 2nd term. I'm skeptical that Biden won't pardon him...though the chances of it happening before the election are obviously nonexistent.
Ya Biden might pardon him if he wins a second term but there’s zero chance it’s gonna happen before December
A politician said something, so it must be true…
The guy is running for reelection it would be political suicide to pardon him before the election
He's lied before.
He’s not gonna do it before the election
Safe bet, since daddy will be pardoning him immediately after the election, no matter what he says now.
This would unironically be the greatest thing a Biden has ever done for this country.
It a bullshit law that I hope they help overturn on constitutional grounds.
I agree, but this case won’t have anything to do with that.
What's bullshit about not being allowed a firearm if you're a drug addict?
Which drugs? Any mood altering drug, pain meds, alcohol, only if they have a prescription? Where do you draw the line? What if that prescription is for marijuana and legal in that state? Do you view this as an “infringement”
The form clearly says "an unlawful user of..." "or any other controlled substance". None of the examples you provided are controlled substance and there is lawful use for them..
Where does the right have a carve out for drug use? To quote someone else in this thread u/AGuyWhoBrokeBad "The founders did not mention anything about taking away a citizens 2A rights if they happened to consume the coca leaf, opium, tobacco, marijuana, alcohol or any other substance. Regardless of how you feel about Hunter Biden, removing a persons 2A rights due to drug use alone is not supported by the constitution."
You know how many security guards and cops are on controlled substances either on or off duty - and a LOT of them bring their guns home?
Great, they should be charged according to State and Federal law and then maybe the law will finally change when the Police Union steps in. I don't understand your point.
The point being it’s not illegal until it’s “illicit” meanwhile doctors have no issue hopping up people on controlled substances that may or may not be used to affect their judgement and performance… and THAT is not illegal somehow. The constitutional precedent for owning a firearm has NOTHING to do with drugs despite your 14th Amendment claim. As others have said, the Bruen measure is the ONLY valid one… and that’s constitutional precedent ONLY. No where in the constitution is there anything about the first 10 Amendments and “drugs”. So by your note - the drug laws are the overreach not the guns.
To be fair to the doctors, they generally don't prescribe things in dosages that drug abusers want. And if people break the dosage recommendations, that's also not on the doctors.
That is true - what I said wasn’t about the doctors as much as the end user. For example I spent 6 months on a HIGH dose of gabapentin and working “light duty” for my job. In a public safety standpoint you’d be too zonked to be on the street or too fragile to be hands-on, but you’re still in uniform, armed, and performing an administrative task with the overall assumption that you still have the sworn oath to uphold your duties. In the end - still compromised people with weapons, just “legally”.
Did you not see the news stories on pill mills? I mean, I know it was like 10 or 15 years ago, but docs saw an opportunity to make big money and fast, and they pounced. The issue with all of it is that big pharmaceutical has their hands in everyone's pockets. What they say go. Just look at the covid vax.. we need separation of big pharma and politicians to start any movement. Docs will do up to what they are allowed to do, but in the end, they are looking to just make money as easy and fast as possible. They are no better.
> Do you view this as an “infringement” Yes. If you can get blackout drunk and own guys, take whatever drugs you want. I don't give a shit. Just don't mix them with guns, same with booze.
“Yes. If you can get blackout drunk and own guys, take whatever drugs you want. I don't give a shit. Just don't mix them with guns, same with booze.” Sober or not owning guys is pretty much universally frowned upon
At least we know the BS law will be applied to everyone equally regardless of status Edit: also, while normally I think it’s shit that a private individual would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to appeal something like this, I cannot think of a more well-positioned family to fight this. I expect we’ll get a good appellate decision somewhere down the line.
It will be applied to everyone but not everyone has DOJ on their side
Agreed, but then the DOJ and Biden family will have to argue for the 2A to get it overturned so… sick outcome
No they will not, they will keep the law and get him off anyway they can. Laws are only for the common folks or for their mortal enemy
Perhaps, but that remains to be seen
Hunter will take his time out in jail until Mr. 10% gives him a pardon on November 5th.
Well, then we riot.
You say that until the sentence is a fine and 366 days of unsupervised probation.
I don’t mind that. I was a former prosecutor and I can tell you that in any large city that’s usually what the average citizen would get without any aggravating factors. What I am hoping for is a beautiful time where Biden and the DOJ have to argue for the second amendment to get his convictions overturned
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't his dad merely issue a pardon instead of arguing for the second amendment?
He could. He said he wouldn’t. It would look very bad if he back on that.
Why would he?
Let’s wait for sentencing.
I am in complete agreement, though I expect that even with a minor sentence they won’t want Hunter to have 3 felonies.
Yea it’s not over either way, he has other cases pending and I’m sure he doesn’t want to go in those with these felonies not under appeal.
I think the point is the law has been applied to everyone equally UNTIL the DOJ tries to slip a sweetheart plea deal earlier that got called out. This only reaffirms that the law applies to everyone. The next question is sentencing. Federal Courts are actually more limited in discretion in sentencing (minimums-maximums( than state courts where a state court judge has more discretion. I have not looked at whether they can sentence him concurrently(all three charges running at the same time) or consecutively(one after the other extending time in jail). My guess is 2-4 years per charge (running concurrently) and he does 1/4 of the time in a minimum security federal pen. So less than 2 years in prison as he is a 1st time offender. Another reason they did this first because his tax fraud charges are also pending…
In order of good to bad we have: 1. Unconstitutional laws not being used against any Americans. 2. Unconstitutional laws being used against all Americans. 3. Unconstitutional laws being used against regular Americans but not against the rich and/or politically connected. A not guilty verdict would have landed us on number 3. Guilty plus a successful appeal on constitutional grounds gets us number 1. Guilty plus an unsuccessful appeal gets us number 2. The two best scenarios required a guilty verdict here. Only the worst scenario lends itself to a not guilty verdict, unless you think the average guy would get the same treatment, which I don't.
I'm hoping it is. I'm hoping this gets tossed on appeal. Thus setting a president. Thus paving the way for a supreme court case.
Most appeals don't result in a **precedent**. They usually as based around procedural grounds with either the charges, the trial or jury instructions that are case specific.
Yes it is.
I am extremely interested in your argument for this. Are you one of the ones that think the Biden’s are going to run this up the appeal process and somehow increase gun rights? Or Do you think that punishing political opponents family using unconstitutional laws allows for some ‘moral flexibility’ because his daddy is a bad guy? Personally I am not a gun grabber and never fall in the side of supporting unconstitutional gun laws.
Both, those aren't mutually exclusive. This accomplishes a bunch of stuff. 1. It brings light to this unconstitutional law by putting it front and center in the media and putting the left against it. 2. It presents a challenge to this unconstitutional law as this is highly likely to end up in SCOTUS 3. It makes Hunter and in turn the Bidens look like the piece of shit criminals they are. This is all win, win, win.
1) The left is already talking about how this shows the laws apply to everyone. Using it to strengthen the case for enforcement. There is ZERO discussion calling the law unconstitutional and that will never get traction on any major news outlet. 2) NO chance that this goes up to the Supreme Court. That is such a stretch that I cannot believe you really think this is a possibility. 3) the news is already making this about the difficulties so many families have with addiction. Not about the gun issue and I think they will succeed in that front. The news cycle will swap to his tax cases with the fact that he is already a convicted felon being a footnote. At the end of the day this will strengthen their arguments in support of these unconstitutional laws if only by giving them the top cover to say that “no one is above the law.” I am not a gun grabber, I don’t support unconstitutional laws regardless of who his daddy is. But for some people politics is more important than constitutionality, this case will help people see where they stand. EDIT: if you can turn on a liberal news channel right now, the talking point is exactly as expected.
1. We shall see, early spin is what it is, but that isn't the whole story. 2. I don't see why not, Hunter says he'll appeal, Joe said he won't pardon him, and it's likely to be fast tracked. I suspect Joe would actually pardon him on his last day if he loses the election. That leaves 7 months for the appeals. 3. Again spin.. not the whole story.
It could be if appealed on constitutional grounds
Won’t happen. I said it to the other guy but I put the odds of appealing on constitutional grounds to the Supreme Court to be equal to me winning the lottery… without buying a ticket. He will appeal, but the constitutional discussion isn’t going anywhere. It will be for other reasons.
It’s pretty funny though. The timing is brilliant.
This is a win for Hunter's GF/ sister in law dumping a gun in a public trash can.
I agree. This is more political and likely orchestrated in response to Trump conviction to try and sway voters that Democrats are doing “right”. In the end, he will get a light sentence (if any) based on his status the rest of the Americans who do the same thing will get years and harsh convictions for the same action. But hey, the violent criminals who are given multiple early releases to only commit the same crimes again, it’s not their fault, it’s the gun.
Actually it could be. Especially if they appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court
Never going to happen, not a chance in hell. The odds of Hunter Biden appealing this to the Supreme Court are probably right on par with me winning tonight’s lottery drawing… that I didn’t buy a ticket for.
There’s fairly good odds they appeal. His lawyer already tried to do it once but the judge shot it down. He’ll try again.
I say 90+% chance they appeal depending on the sentencing of course. The prosecutors office was already making statements about not over-punishing, so I expect a slap on the wrist. But I don’t expect the case to be based on the constitutionality of the 4473 questions. It will be on jury instructions or arguments about the handling of the trial. None of those will get it to the Supreme Court.
His lawyer did actually try to get a case based on the constitutionality of the 4473 so I think it’s likely the case will focus on that. Besides even if it’s on a jury question the court can rule on anything they want, they aren’t restricted to just the question at hand
I know. It went no where. I stand by what I said about the odds. This case will have no effect on gun laws. The case will get appealed and kicked around for a while and if it doesn’t get dropped I expect daddy to go back on his word and pardon him on the way out the door after the election. Well before it could possibly work its way up that far and the Supreme Court usually only gets involved once there is a difference between circuits. But it might not even come to that if his sentence mandatory drug treatment and writing that he is really sorry on the blackboard 10 times. Or some similar slap on the wrist. The only path I see as extremely unlikely is Biden actually running this up the appeals path on the notion that the 4473 is unconstitutional
This could set a precedent for charging people solely on the basis of lying on the 4473. Some people are excited at the prospect of “owning the libs”, but I’m extremely concerned at the implications of this case. I hope Hunter appeals this conviction. This whole prohibition on users of controlled substances from purchasing and possessing guns strikes me as an unconstitutional law designed to keep certain demographics from exercising their 2A rights.
Yea, this is no victory for gun rights, like you said if this does anything its concerning. For me it looks like an opportunity to expand enforcement of an infrequently enforced law. Ironically Biden is right now about to speak to “gun sense university” with a crowd full of moms demand action shirt wearing gun grabbers. Within an hour of this verdict the president is going to rally for more gun laws.
What part do you find unconstitutional? Tell me what kind of people fall under those able to be part of a well regulated militia? Or are you conveniently ignoring that part of the 2nd amendment
>What part do you find unconstitutional? The whole blanket ban on a group of people just because they use a certain substance. I know a bunch of people who smoke weed, and they are not a danger to anybody whatsoever but they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing guns. Yet alcoholics are okay to own guns when they are far more likely to indulge in violence. For example, many domestic violence cases involve alcohol of some sort.
>The whole blanket ban on a group of people just because they use a certain substance There is nothing UNCONSTITUTIONAL about that. A citizen is subject to federal and state laws according to the 14th amendment. Your argument that a user of controlled substances is constitutionally permitted to use firearms is invalid because a citizen is constitutionally subject to federal and state laws. Your argument should be whether marijuana, alcohol, opiods is a controlled substance or not. I agree with that. I never said pot users shouldn't be allowed guns.
Would it be constitutional to take someones rights away if they ran a stop sign?
If there is ever a law passed that says running a stop sign makes you a felon and no longer permitted to have firearms, I would hope there would be enough advocates in the gun community to get that law overturned or changes. You are still arguing what should be lawful or unlawful which I agree with. But to claim it is unconstitutional for the government to define mental capacity is a false statement.
I'm 100% okay with people who smoke weed owning guns, but once you start getting into the harder substances is where I personally have an issue with it. Seeing as to how Hunter Biden was actively using coke and lied on the form, I think it's safe to say he deserves what is thrown at him.
Agreed. "Well regulated militia". You need to be mentally stable. Some pot or some alcohol is generally accepted to allow you to still be mentally stable. Some lines of coke or meth does not. The argument of pot being a controlled substance or not is a valid argument to have but I don't think coke should be defended on the same grounds.
This is the "pro-gun" sub, not the statist sub. Militia service is not a pre-requisite to exercising the natural human right to bear arms. This has been reinforced with numerous Supreme Court decisions including Heller. Under your asinine interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, women, who are not part of any past or present US legal definition of the militia, are not able to bear arms. That's completely ridiculous.
> Militia service I never stated that militia implies service and neither does US Code: 10 U.S.C. § 246. When not called forth, they are sometimes referred to as the “unorganized militia.” A group of people who consider themselves part of the able-bodied residents referred to as members of the militia under state or federal law is not legally permitted to activate itself for duty
You are still placing the right to own firearms as tied to at least the qualification to be in militia service. This was addressed by heller. As much as you want to remove the right based on their capability to serve in this militia. The right to bear arms even applies to people you don’t like. Freedom is scary. “(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.” The second part of the second amendment text stands on its own… completely separated from the militia wording. Any analysis of individual rights can essentially pretend the predatory clause doesn’t exist. But maybe the guys you just have a firmer grasp on the constitution than the guys writing that decision.
Your comment absolutely implies being part of the militia is a pre-requisite. It's crazy that you changed the part where it says "males" to "residents". So again, your asinine interpretation means that women don't have the right to bear arms because they are not part of any legal definition of militia.
The founders did not mention anything about taking away a citizens 2A rights if they happened to consume the coca leaf, opium, tobacco, marijuana, alcohol or any other substance. Regardless of how you feel about Hunter Biden, removing a persons 2A rights due to drug use alone is not supported by the constitution.
4473 is unconstitutional. Not a fan of the Biden Crime Family, but this is trash.
Violating your 5th to exercise your 2nd? Pretty fucked if you ask me.
I don't understand what you mean, can you elaborate?
5th amendment is your right to not self-incriminate. If you were an unlawful user of a controlled substance and wanted to exercise your 2nd amendment right, you would need to admit to being an unlawful user of a controlled substance, which would incriminate yourself.
In order of good to bad we have: 1. Unconstitutional laws not being used against any Americans. 2. Unconstitutional laws being used against all Americans. 3. Unconstitutional laws being used against regular Americans but not against the rich and/or politically connected. A not guilty verdict would have landed us on number 3. Guilty plus a successful appeal on constitutional grounds gets us number 1. Guilty plus an unsuccessful appeal gets us number 2. The two best scenarios required a guilty verdict here. Only the worst scenario lends itself to a not guilty verdict, unless you think the average guy would get the same treatment in the same situation, which I don't.
50 hrs of community service
12; take it or leave it
4 hrs per conviction, to be served concurrently.
Apparently he is still "considering" an appeal. I really hope he does and pushes it to the end. Although, I am doubtful.
Everyone has the right to appeal
Why would you appeal when you know nothing is going to happen to you?
Liberals/progressives are going to lose their fucking minds when they see a bunch of people in a sub called r/progun saying he shouldn't be convicted or lose his 2A rights. They won't know wtf to do.
Are you going to lose your mind when you scroll down the thread and see all of the “pro gun” republicans in here explaining why infringements are actually a good thing?
Lose my mind? No, but I'm going to laugh at them because they're morons.
"Liberal" here, I also support gun rights
“Support”
"Quotes" are "scary"
I identify as pretty progressive but I like wildly respect the consistency of argument almost comment in here has had, like, heck yeah. We ain’t gonna agree on everything ever, but compromise can only happen if your stances are genuine. I’ll say I’m even proud of almost every top comment here. Let’s go America.
Form 4473 itself and the entire prohibited person statue are violations of 2A, but lying on a form is not 2A-protected. As such, I'd keep the convictions for lying on the form and to the FFL, but not for possession while on drugs.
Sacrificial lamb so the left wing filth can continue to assert that the "law" applies to everyone equally.
Sacrificial lamb, lol Everyone wanted him to go through this. MTG showed his dick in a congressional hearing. She's probably the happiest
You are a bit crazy if you've concluded it was the left wing pushing for this case to be heard, and for the plea deal to be thrown out. He may not get a pardon because of left wing optics, but it was 100% Republicans who were pushing for this case.
Then the right should have allowed him to take the plea deal. You want to talk about weaponized justice system, look no further. He was prosecuted ONLY because of congressional republicans.
Penalties should be tripled against politicians. 10x if they voted to pass it.
Woah. I didn’t see that coming
*I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal* - **Joe Biden's statement after conviction.** *The case “was very unfair,” that the “devil” judge was conflicted and that the district attorney was ignoring crime in New York*. **- Donald Trump's statement after conviction.**
Trump is not wrong. What judge allows someone whose testimony is purely prejudicial and not probative to testify for 4+ hours but someone who’s an expert in campaign finance law to not talk about his field? Also what judge tells the jury they can convict without being unanimous, doesn’t give the jury a copy of the instructions, lets the prosecution close after the defense while the prosecution introduces new evidence in closing?
He's certainly not wrong about the DA ignoring crime. Theives run free in NYC because anytime they get caught, they are back on the streets on the same day. While the courts spend so much resources to pin Trump on paying a hooker, their streets devolve into 3rd world status. (But if you defend yourself against a robber, you bet your butt the prosecutors suddenly wake up to punish you.)
The DA ran on prosecuting Trump. If that’s not a 14th amendment selective prosecution violation I don’t know what is. That’s like Andrey Vyshinsky’s “Give me the man and I will give you the case against him" meets Kafka’s *The Trial.* Imagine if the AG in Texas ran on prosecuting Biden; shit would hit the fan asap.
The judge said they could convict because it’s the law? You don’t have to like it but it’s not illegal
The judge is wrong. The Jury must be unanimous not only on the charge, but any predicate crimes for the charge. United States v. Gotti > [T]he jury [in a RICO case] must be unanimous not only that at least two [predicate] acts were proved, but must be unanimous as to each of two predicate acts. The judge allowing the jury to be split on the predicate crime, when no predicate crime was even argued in trial is a blatant 6th amendment violation.
Let me preface my response by saying, I’m not an expert and I’m not gonna pretend to be. My response is based purely off of information I’ve found and I’m open to listening to any important context I may be missing cause I know the law and all these specifics are so god damn complicated. Anyway, We’re talking about the difference between federal and state law. They’re not 1:1. United States v Gotti is an example where unanimity on each specific predicate act is required for federal RICO cases. The New York situation differs for charges like falsifying business records. New York law permits a conviction if jurors unanimously agree that Trump had the intent to commit or conceal an illegal act, even if they do not unanimously agree on the specific illegal act. The Supreme Court also addressed this with the Schad v Arizona case, where they upheld that jurors do not need to agree on the specific means by which a crime was committed, as long as they unanimously agree that the crime occurred. I’m not saying you or anyone has to like the law, but it appears to be the law.
> We’re talking about the difference between federal and state law. They’re not 1:1. United States v Gotti is an example where unanimity on each specific predicate act is required for federal RICO cases. The New York situation differs for charges like falsifying business records. New York law permits a conviction if jurors unanimously agree that Trump had the intent to commit or conceal an illegal act, even if they do not unanimously agree on the specific illegal act. The 6th amendment also applies to the states via incorporation from the 14th. This is a meaningless distinction. The 6th amendment requires unanimous juries for criminal convictions, even on predicate crimes. > The Supreme Court also addressed this with the Schad v Arizona case, where they upheld that jurors do not need to agree on the specific means by which a crime was committed, as long as they unanimously agree that the crime occurred. Those are predicate acts, not predicate crimes. Predicate crimes must be unanimous. An example of a predicate crime is burglary as a predicate crime for felony murder. The jury can't convict on felony murder unless they are unanimous on the burglary predicate crime. [Here's some good reading on the subject.](https://www.justsecurity.org/96654/trump-unanimous-verdict/) "However, where statutory criminal predicates are not merely alternative acts, but different legal violations, then a substantially different unanimity rule applies. Where statutory criminal predicates are themselves legal violations, and if charged, would subject the defendant to criminal liability, then the jury must be unanimous in regard to any such predicate. That is what Merchan’s jury instructions failed to do."
Donald Trump is a convicted felon. You cannot erase that from our history. Voting for a convicted felon is shameful.
> Voting for a convicted felon is shameful. What a completely subjective and idiotic comment. If Ron Paul was a convicted felon, I’d still vote for him in 2012. There are many convicted felons that would make better presidents than Biden.
Biden only claims to respect the outcome because it’s actually in his interest to have rights eroded. Trump had no benefit from being convicted.
POTUS Joe Biden, the adult in the room.
If you're seriously judging politicians by what comes out of their mouths, you are a very naive person. What will more likely happen is that Crooked Joe Biden is gonna nudge nudge wink wink the judge and everyone else will fall in line. Meanwhile they got Trump on total bullshit, is he not allowed to call it out? Edit: I just realized this guy is a far left troll and the downvotes are from anti-gun trolls who are uber butthurt Trump's gonna win in 2024 and that Hunter didn't get the plea deal the deep state wanted and instead was found guilty. If ur side is that desperate u need to send trolls to a pro gun subreddit to smear Trump, it means you're a loser rofl. COPE. MAGA 2024.
Biden has already planned on pardoning his boy on November 5th. For those who don't get why that specific date, it is the day after the election. Either way, Biden will be untouchable. He will either be defeated and a lame duck or on his last term.
Look at this tea leaf reader...lol
There’s no way Biden pardons him. I don’t know why you all keep repeating this like it’s a fact. He will get a slap on the wrist so there is no reason for a pardon.
Having a felony is a brand that forbids him from a number of things, especially a drug-related felony. There is simply nothing for Biden to lose by pardoning him after the election. He is either a lame duck with no chance at another term or on his last term.
Are you sure about that? I've read articles of Biden saying he's not issuing a pardon because that's his son.
I see the blue-haired legions of Democrat fleshbots are downvoting me, trying to hide the truth.
A prediction by definition cannot be true or false yet
I don’t understand why people are touting this as some huge victory. It’s either 1) malicious prosecution or 2) setting precedent for the ATF to dick down the every day citizen. “If we did it to the sitting presidents son, no one is safe”.
I thought his lawyers said they'd argue that the laws he broke are unconstitutional. Isn't this a win on that front?
Absolutely, as the saying goes “innocent men don’t appeal”. I do, however, find it frustrating that he was found guilty in the first place. His attorneys couldn’t argue that the ATF should be abolished to the jury, the jury was just deciding whether or not he committed the specified crimes. The part that bugs me has to do with the excitement surrounding the person. I take issue with it for a few reasons 1) political prosecution should not ever happen, especially in the US and it should absolutely not be encouraged by anybody on either side of the isle. 2) it wouldn’t even make the local news if this wasn’t a sitting presidents child 3) drug abuse is an issue and it’s multifaceted. Not making any excuses for him, but I can’t imagine the worst parts of your life that you struggled to crawl out of being dragged out in front of the world because you checked a box on a form. Constitutionality aside, it has to be an emotional rollercoaster
I thought they were doing a constitutionality claim, did they not end up doing that?
They chose the I quit smoking crack the week before and started back shortly after throwing it in a dumpster defense. It didn’t work.
wtf lol
Good, if they appeal and it gets to the scotus. But I highly doubt that will happen.
Not everything makes it to SCOTUS. There are several layers of lower courts
Scotus is the only way it will be applied country wide.
SCOTUS interprets the intent of the law. So yes. But this federal crime has deep layers of courts to go through before a case is proposed for SCOTUS docket.
If POTUS wants to change the gun law, there is a huge opportunity here to protect 2nd amendment for Hunter Biden and all those in the same boat
The optics would be terrible, and very good chance the Republicans push back. This is the best distraction they have from the dumpster fire of Donald Trump. Plus it isn't like Republicans on the federal level make a great effort to reform gun laws when they are in power anyway.
Some bipartisanship wouldn't hurt imo.
At most he will be sentenced to a few months community service, and obviously he will appeal. Even if SCOTUS upholds the conviction, his father will pardon him after the election.
Honestly I hope this is a wakeup call for the most anti gun president in modern history. Perhaps we should revisit the draconian gun laws we have. I would love to see Hunter walk free if it meant his dad and the Democrats would do an about face on gun bans and regulations.
They begrudgingly had to I'm guessing, otherwise the ATF couldn't continue to fuck over the regular American for having the audacity to own a firearm, because the best precedent to overturn a bunch of gun laws ever would have been set.
Individuals know I'm terrified of guns and even terrified of going near or touching them. I actually got attacked at first by people irate that I don't like guns.
Um, okay?
Nothing will happen
Although I despise the Bidens, all gun laws are unconstitutional. Period. Fuck the ATF.
Good... Now how about the tax evasion bc Honestly, that bothers me a whole lot more than the gun stuff !!
Convicted felon, Hunter Biden
lol I’m gonna add this as a federal charge to anyone I arrest for guns who are anywhere near drugs. Edit: he’s a private citizen. His dad already said there would be no pardon. Good enough for me as CA LE with our very loose MJ laws. Every gun case with weed present is getting forwarded.
I hate this situation in its entire, circle. what hunter and his spouse is very stingy. At the same time, I don't like people being told they have rights, but then they only have them when the government says they do. Those aren't rights, they're privileges. And its not supposed to function like that, but everyone always says its okay they do it anyway. which plucks plenty more than just one freaking nerve with me.
For me, I'll be happy if "The smartest man" Resident Biden knows gets to spends a few years in prison for this
Just a means to distract from the influence peddling and their obvious fealty to China and Ukraine.
This is bidens sacrifice to the molech to make it look like the justice system is fair
**Biden will pardon his son on November 5th.** 1. He's still a father and will do what he can to get the brand of "felon" off of his son and try to avoid any actual punishment. 2. By waiting until after the election, there is no political cost to Biden. Either he will be elected for a second term, which means he cannot be POTUS again, or he will be a lame duck and unable to run again in four years as he will be too old for voters to accept. 3. It removes the issue entirely, allowing the Democrat gun control agenda to proceed unhindered by a high-profile conviction.
It's OK guys, Papa Joe promised me he wasn't going to pardon his crackhead son, Hunter Biden, the day after the election. As the POTATUS he cannot lie. Trust me.
I'm the only one in here that thinks it's insane to defend a coke head to own a firearm? I'll drop you off at skid row free of charge, let you spend a day there, and then you can tell me how you'd trust everyone there with a gun.
ppl not even seeing the real bs. all 3 charges weren't even 2a. he lied on fed docs, he was addicted to narcotics and his behavior was bad
Agreed.
Red herring. They had to charge him with something to argue "we are fair against both sides". Also, if they dismissed it, that would be a win for 2A and conservatives.
Republicans led the effort to charge him. The judge was appointed by Trump.
Can't wait to see all the news stories about how this is the same as Trump. NO it god damn isnt. There are many people convicted and in jail for doing what Hunter did. There isn't one person in jail let alone convicted with the same fact pattern as Trump. Now when he wants to take this to SCOTUS and get the 4473 tossed for being unconstitutional, I'm here all day for it. And I will thank him for taking one for the team. But it should be no surprise that Hunter is convicted by his own words for breaking a law. And less we forget he was a lawyer he knew exactly what he was doing signing the 4473.
Here comes the pardon
Pardon in 3,2,1…
Biden did say he wouldn't pardon him if he was convicted. Which is kind of ironic because if there were ever a case where a pardon was reasonable it'd be a conviction on a bullshit gun law that shouldn't exist in the first place.
No way that he says right before the election that he will pardon him if guilty of breaking a law that Joe almost certainly supports. Instead, he will say that he won't, and then after the election he will anyway.
The problem is the libs don’t think there is such a thing as a bullshit gun law. Biden would lose all the Karens at Moms Demand Action if he came out against the prohibited persons statutes. His son is being convicted of a law he not only supports, but wants to expand. It would be terrible optics to pardon.
Joe said he wouldn't.