Is Hunter guilty of a gun charge or is that unconstitutional?

slate.com...

Start with the gun charge. Federal law prohibits the possession of a firearm by anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” Standalone prosecutions for this crime are rare: According to an Urban Institute study, 3,695 people were investigated for violating the statute between 2000 and 2016, a rate of roughly 231 people a year. A smaller number of these suspects were charged, and even fewer convicted, though the exact data is unavailable. Notably, a majority of defendants charged with unlawfully possessing a gun for any reason were also charged with a substantive crime, like bank robbery. Charges against a drug user for gun possession are usually brought “in conjunction with, or in lieu of, other drug-related charges,” as professor Dru Stevenson has found. A charge unconnected to a more serious offense, like the one Weiss brought against Biden, is quite unusual.

Many of us have theorized that the gun charged were placed so Hunter could pull some slick maneuver and get out of any hot water, while simultaneously appearing that there is NOT a two tired justice system. So this could have been the plan all along. But it brings up an important constitutional aspect of all this that goes much farther.

Currently, you must fill out a form 4473 to purchase a firearm. In doing so, you must answer the question about drug use. If Hunter gets out of his charges, then this question becomes obsolete. It would be pointless to make anyone else answer this, if it can be ignored if charged. So this question would need to be removed from the form, making it largely about citizenship and nothing else.

Time will tell, but this isn't as clean and neat as some think.

a reply to: network dude

I'm not interested in the gun charge.

I want the charges for fraud, money laundering, corruption, sex trafficking...

I'm not sure the law applies equally to politicians and their families as it does to plain old citizens, or that it ever has.

Hunter will most likely be found guilty but given a suspended or deferred sentence because he's done 'so much good' for the US career.


Media shows pics of a semi-auto that was supposedly found in the dumpster, yet the record shows Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018. A selfie from Hunter's laptop show him brandishing a semi-auto.

Kangaroo court; mock trial.

a reply to: network dude

They're playing up the excuse that most are not punished over this to mis direct from the bigger problem. I'm not worried about the gun charge, but it's funny all the anti gun folks are claiming "nothing to see here", when if it was one of Trump's kids they'd be howling for blood.

I have no faith whatsoever in the "justice" system and the Biden family will never face the consequences of their decades of corruption. It will be a huge dog and pony show during the election cycle and then fade away.

a reply to: network dude

The gun charge is a slap on the face to all the American people that the DOJ and the biden administration thinks they are dumb and stupid.

This just a way to get off of the treason charges that the entire family should be charge with.

a reply to: network dude

Absolutely unconstitutional.

An encroachment so accepted most people don’t even think about it.

The law has already been found to be unconstitutional in the 5th Circuit.

originally posted by: Threadbare
The law has already been found to be unconstitutional in the 5th Circuit.

I'd be happy to see hunters gun charge dropped if it meant dropping all of the unconstitutional anti gun laws the rest of us have to deal with.

Then we could go after him for all the fraud, money laundering, drugs, and pedophilia... but those would connect him to his party so we'll likely never see that

originally posted by: Threadbare
The law has already been found to be unconstitutional in the 5th Circuit.

this is fantastic news for the NRA! Less restrictions is what they want, and this brings it in spades. Well played dems, you made it easier to get a gun than ever before!


eta:
It's amazing. One guy is worth throwing away all the progress made on taking "weapons of war" out of the hands of Americans.

a reply to: network dude

How many alcoholics tick off 'nope' not addicted to a drug?

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: network dude

How many alcoholics tick off 'nope' not addicted to a drug?

I don't know, but if this goes through, it won't matter one bit. More gunz for everyone!

a reply to: network dude

See what I mean ? The Leftists are falling all over themselves to negate this. They've been screaming for years to restrict gun rights, but use the "unconstitutional" excuse when one of their own is in it.

a reply to: quintessentone

The law, as written, does not cover alcoholics.

a reply to: quintessentone

Complete non sequitur, alcohol is not an ILLEGAL drug

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Complete non sequitur, alcohol is not an ILLEGAL drug

Sequitur, alcohol is an addictive drug.

a reply to: quintessentone

Maybe for someone like you, but for us living in the real world, it is not constituted under drug when purchasing a firearm.

Is alcohol tested for in a DRUG test? Don't think so

BTW: This is how the question reads on the form "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Alcohol does not fall in this question, so yes, your statement is a complete non sequitur.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Complete non sequitur, alcohol is not an ILLEGAL drug

Sequitur, alcohol is an addictive drug.

some bonehead was blabbering about schedule for drugs the other day. What a dope he was. None of that matters, it's all about addiction. Like a sex addiction, or a skittles addiction. But as I said, none of that will matter soon. that entire line of inquiry will be removed and soon those hopelessly addicted will be able to GLock up. Pew, Pew!

a reply to: network dude
Personally, I feel the law regarding drugs, or alcohol addiction nullifying an inalienable right, is unconstitutional.

I would prefer he was indicted on his mishandling and disposal of said firearm perhaps, but this pales in comparison to what is truly of importance. IE facilitating bribery of an elected official etc etc

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Maybe for someone like you, but for us living in the real world, it is not constituted under drug when purchasing a firearm.

Is alcohol tested for in a DRUG test? Don't think so

BTW: This is how the question reads on the form "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Alcohol does not fall in this question, so yes, your statement is a complete non sequitur.

Alcohol is a depressant and affects behaviour...there is something seriously wrong when 'using' or 'addicted to' alcohol is not included in that question when it affects thinking and behaviour.

​Alcohol is a depressant drug that can slow down the parts of the brain that affect thinking, behaviour, breathing and heart rate.