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

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

It was far from an insult, unless you feel like you are that ignorant? It was a question and you answered it perfectly.


Just because you want to take guns away from lawful owners does not mean that they need to add verbiage to make you feel better.

What is a doctor going to "ok" for you on a form they have no business being involved with? Are you saying that everyone that drinks, no matter the volume, needs to get a doctors note okaying them to buy a gun because you feel that it's not okay that people who drink can buy guns but crack user can't?

If I felt I was ignorant then why would I be insulted? You make no sense.

I think anyone taking any kind of substance that alters their behaviour or mental state to a point of violence to themselves or others needs to have their gun rights and guns taken away until they get treatment . And who better to observe and evaluate a person in that respect but their doctor?

a reply to: quintessentone

As stated by myself and at least 1 or 2 others members, there are a million different substances that are used daily that "alter behavior or mental state" and in extreme cases can cause violence. So why single out alcohol?

Still just seems as if you are going the dem root of taking away guns from everyone all together?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

As stated by myself and at least 1 or 2 others members, there are a million different substances that are used daily that "alter behavior or mental state" and in extreme cases can cause violence. So why single out alcohol?

Still just seems as if you are going the dem root of taking away guns from everyone all together?

My point as usual is being glossed over - alcohol should be included because the violence caused from abusing this substance has been studied in relation to gun violence, whereas rare gun violence related to other legal drugs have not...a doctor's okay is what is needed on that form .

a reply to: quintessentone

Don't you think that the "powers to be" would have included it in the form if they thought it was pertinent? Don't you think the gov has our best interest at heart with this form?

Alcohol "abuse" also has a relation with vehicular violence, domestic violence, self harm, and others. Should we start requiring a doctors okay before buying a car, getting married, or buying anything that can be used to harm oneself or others?

Your point is not being "glossed over as usual", you are choosing to ignore the points made by others to further your point that you want to take the right to own a firearm away from more people to make yourself feel better.

a reply to: The2Billies

It will be interesting to see how cooperative Attorney General Garland is when he testifies before the house judiciary committee tomorrow morning.

Actually, according to the US Sentencing Commission, approximately 5,000 to 6,000 people a year are convicted of receiving or possessing a firearm against one of the prohibitions stated on the form 4473.

This is not about drugs. It is about lying to obtain a gun. He could have lied about ANY of the question, but the focus is on this one. Who cares. He lied.

His partner also illegally disposed of the weapon. Where are her charges?

The DOJ is playing with fire with this case.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Don't you think that the "powers to be" would have included it in the form if they thought it was pertinent? Don't you think the gov has our best interest at heart with this form?

Alcohol "abuse" also has a relation with vehicular violence, domestic violence, self harm, and others. Should we start requiring a doctors okay before buying a car, getting married, or buying anything that can be used to harm oneself or others?

Your point is not being "glossed over as usual", you are choosing to ignore the points made by others to further your point that you want to take the right to own a firearm away from more people to make yourself feel better.

You glossed over the studies I posted which show that alcohol does indeed cause harm specifically with gun-related violence.

Research shows that drinking is a driver — and predictor — of gun violence. But state laws regulating if chronic abusers may own or carry guns are wildly inconsistent.

Alcohol is implicated in everyday shootings, too. An estimated one in three gun homicide perpetrators drank heavily before killing their victims, according to a recent report from Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions and the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy. It’s worth noting that the same proportion of gun homicide victims drank heavily before being killed, as did a quarter of gun suicide victims.

But despite a preponderance of evidence, regulation around the intersection of guns and alcohol is a patchwork that depends on inconsistent definitions of alcohol abuse. Also, passing stronger policies meant to address the relationship between alcohol and gun violence has never been a primary focus of gun reform efforts.

www.thetrace.org...#:~:text=Federal%20law%20prohibits%20someone%20from,not%20considered%20a%20control led%20substance.

a reply to: quintessentone

I didn't gloss over anything, never once did I say you were incorrect for saying what you did.

I, and others, are simply stating that if you are going to go after alcohol for altering behavior or mental state, then you would also need to go after everything else that does as well.

We also go back to the point that alcohol is not a controlled substance and is not illegal to use unlike the substances called out in the text of the form.

I think people focusing on the gun charge are looking in the wrong direction. He also lied to an FFL and on a federal form. These are both federal crimes that can get him up to 15 years in jail. I doubt that he will be given that, not because of who he is but rather because Judges rarely hand out the max sentences for those. If Justice is fair, we can expect Hunter to get 5-10 years in jail or house arrest.

Since we know that justice isn't that fair, Hunter will probably be given a "I'm sorry" check for a few million dollars of taxpayer's money and get a Presidential Medal of Freedom for putting up with the Justice System.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

I didn't gloss over anything, never once did I say you were incorrect for saying what you did.

I, and others, are simply stating that if you are going to go after alcohol for altering behavior or mental state, then you would also need to go after everything else that does as well.

We also go back to the point that alcohol is not a controlled substance and is not illegal to use unlike the substances called out in the text of the form.

The problem is proving it as a psychotropic depressant, which for the life of me, I can't understand why some states do and some don't. Can you?

do I think this form is unconstitutional yes I do, but it doesnt matter it is the law and people are prosecuted and he did lie.

I mean we all know we have a 2 tier system of justice, but this is just seriously in our face when he gets away with a wrist slap at worst.

a reply to: quintessentone

That is not a call for me to make as I am not a doctor, are you?

I ask, if you go after alcohol, are you going to go after caffeine, nicotine, insulin, and other such substances next?

They all have affects on people as alcohol does, so why single it out?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

That is not a call for me to make as I am not a doctor, are you?

I ask, if you go after alcohol, are you going to go after caffeine, nicotine, insulin, and other such substances next?

They all have affects on people as alcohol does, so why single it out?

Shouldn't they go after any substance that causes serious negative mental and emotional effects, enough to cause someone to pick up their gun to solve their issues?

a reply to: Guyfriday

There's a strong argument to be made that if charge 3 is found to be unconstitutional then charges 1 & 2 become immaterial as the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

a reply to: quintessentone

How are they going to establish what "serious negative" is constituted as?

All of the substances I listed can have "negative" affects on mental and emotional health.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

That is not a call for me to make as I am not a doctor, are you?

I ask, if you go after alcohol, are you going to go after caffeine, nicotine, insulin, and other such substances next?

They all have affects on people as alcohol does, so why single it out?

Shouldn't they go after any substance that causes serious negative mental and emotional effects, enough to cause someone to pick up their gun to solve their issues?

the alcohol isnt the problem in that case, there are much deeper issues in a person if a few drinks makes them think a gun is a good way to solve a problem. Mom or dad issues, poor education, abuse etc are all some common themes with people that use a gun after a few drinks.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

How are they going to establish what "serious negative" is constituted as?

All of the substances I listed can have "negative" affects on mental and emotional health.

By researching gun violence and causes and everybody coming to a meeting of the minds/science as to how to define what is and what isn't considered a psychotropic depressant.

These two terms; 'depressant' and 'stimulant' were included in the form's question . They need to add to the form's question using any substance capable of causing such severe psychotropic depressive or stimulant or mental/emotional health changes that spurs one to pick up that gun to solve their problems.

Doctors can play a role in preventing gun violence, just saying.

Physicians have unique opportunities to help prevent firearm violence. Concern has developed that federal and state laws or regulations prohibit physicians from asking or counseling patients about firearms and disclosing patient information about firearms to others, even when threats to health and safety may be involved. This is not the case. In this article, the authors explain the statutes in question, emphasizing that physicians may ask about firearms (with rare exceptions), may counsel about firearms as they do about other health matters, and may disclose information to third parties when necessary.

The authors then review circumstances under which questions about firearms might be most appropriate if they are not asked routinely. Such circumstances include instances when the patient provides information or exhibits behavior suggesting an acutely increased risk for violence, whether to himself or others, or when the patient possesses other individual-level risk factors for violence, such as alcohol abuse. The article summarizes the literature on current physician practices in asking and counseling about firearms, which are done far less commonly than recommended. Barriers to engaging in those practices, the effectiveness of clinical efforts to prevent firearm-related injuries, and what patients think about such efforts and physicians who engage in them are discussed. Proceeding from the limited available evidence, the authors make specific recommendations on how physicians might counsel their patients to reduce their risk for firearm-related death or serious injury. Finally, the authors review the circumstances under which disclosure of patient information about firearms to third parties is supported by regulations implementing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

www.acpjournals.org...

a reply to: Threadbare

I think you have that the other way around. The first two charges, the ones that Hunter lied about, really has nothing to do with the drug charge. I think that was why these charges were listed out as three charges and not as a single criminal charge.

Even if Hunter was allowed to buy a gun while on drug, he still lied to the FFL and on the form.

a reply to: quintessentone

As Irishhaf stated, alcohol isn't the cause of someone "picking up a gun to solve their problems".

That's like saying alcohol is the reason I cheated on my wife. If one cheated while intoxicated, they would do it sober as well.

A blanket statement such as your does not do what you intend for it to do. It will only cause more lawful gun owners to be stripped of their rights because a few nutbags with a drinking problem shot someone.

a reply to: Guyfriday

But if the drug law didn't exist, the question he lied about wouldn't exist.