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

originally posted by: PorkChop96
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.

Read this:

www.acpjournals.org...

Again, a doctor's okay on the form would probably cut down on the gun violence substantially.

a reply to: quintessentone

Your and the articles whole premise is going on the assumption that we have to tell our doctors anything about our personal lives.

I, or anyone else, are under the legal obligation to tell anyone about anything in our personal lives to our doctors.

But even if people did talk about it with their doctors, what is to keep them from being truthful about the info they provide? Again there is no legal precedence or oath being sworn/taken to force the truth.

We can also take this a step further link this to a form of "red flag" laws. As to where if your doctor doesn't like what they hear, no matter how safe you are or anything else, can easily strip your rights away from you without cause. No one human should be put in charge of giving or stripping rights from another individual in such a manor.

I have stated this in other threads but it bears repeating here. Was Hunters dishonorable discharge for drug abuse placed into the system? Or did the navy drop the ball on that? Beyond his signing off on the form was his military record put into the background check system? He never should have passed the background check in the first place!

a reply to: hangedman13

And this leads the question of did his dad as VP pull strings to hide this detail?

a reply to: network dude

Case precedent isn't being done here.

Party Members are excluded from laws. This entire issue is being conducted to appease the masses.


My 2 rubles.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Your and the articles whole premise is going on the assumption that we have to tell our doctors anything about our personal lives.

I, or anyone else, are under the legal obligation to tell anyone about anything in our personal lives to our doctors.

But even if people did talk about it with their doctors, what is to keep them from being truthful about the info they provide? Again there is no legal precedence or oath being sworn/taken to force the truth.

We can also take this a step further link this to a form of "red flag" laws. As to where if your doctor doesn't like what they hear, no matter how safe you are or anything else, can easily strip your rights away from you without cause. No one human should be put in charge of giving or stripping rights from another individual in such a manor.

You may not be under any obligation but doctors are by the federal law, under certain conditions.

a reply to: quintessentone

How are they supposed to relay information they don't have? And in most cases there has to be some pretty extenuating circumstances occurring for them to have to tell anyone else anything about my personal/medical life. It's called HIPAA

a reply to: PorkChop96

they love to say root cause, but neve actually want to discuss the root cause of so many issues in the country.

They prefer to blame things...

a reply to: Irishhaf

Usually that have no correlation to the issue

It's unconstitutional according to the US courts. We should all expect Hunter Biden's lawyers to promote this law and use it to get their client released.

Link

A federal appeals court has declared the application of a long-standing law banning firearm ownership for illegal drug users unconstitutional as it violates the Second Amendment.

This ruling, announced on Wednesday, August 9, involved the case of Patrick Daniels, a marijuana user. He had been found guilty under that law when police discovered a handgun, a semi-automatic rifle, and marijuana cigarette butts in his car during a traffic stop in Hancock County, Mississippi, in April 2022. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration didn't conduct a drug test, but Daniels admitted to using marijuana, which goes against federal law.

He was given a nearly four-year prison sentence for breaking 18 U.S. Code 922, also called "Unlawful acts," a part of U.S. law that lists prohibited firearm-related actions.

However, a trio of judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana, determined that the federal law violated a Mississippi man's right to possess and carry firearms, as established by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

This was in August of this year, last month. It has an immediate effect.

a reply to: Mahogany

That decision was from the 5th Circuit. Delaware is in the 3rd Circuit. As a result, that decision does not have binding precedent in Hunter's case.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Mahogany

That decision was from the 5th Circuit. Delaware is in the 3rd Circuit. As a result, that decision does not have binding precedent in Hunter's case.

Correct. But the Supreme Court is only a step above.

His lawyers will bring it up and move it up higher. (If they have to. They shouldn't have to. The 3rd circuit should uphold the 5th circuit) The Constitution applies to all states equally. If it's unconstitutional in one state, it's the same in others.

What the 5th circuit did is they set a precedent for the entire nation.

originally posted by: quintessentone

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?

so by the same token, a person doing drugs or drinking to excess should also be silenced from any public speech unless a doctor clears them. What makes the 2nd different than the first? (other than the "shal not be infringed) aspect and all. Tell us all please.

I never thought two leftie paralegals would be such help in restoring gun rights to the people, but Kudos to both of you for your efforts here. The NRA should have a slam dunk case to revise the form and have those unconstitutional restrictions removed, and they can name the effort the Biden Rule. Just so all future endeavors to restrict gun rights will know who was and wasn't a friend of the 2nd amendment.

I'll see if they still do trophies and put you both in for one.

originally posted by: network dude
I never thought two leftie paralegals would be such help in restoring gun rights to the people, but Kudos to both of you for your efforts here. The NRA should have a slam dunk case to revise the form and have those unconstitutional restrictions removed, and they can name the effort the Biden Rule. Just so all future endeavors to restrict gun rights will know who was and wasn't a friend of the 2nd amendment.

I'll see if they still do trophies and put you both in for one.

Not a paralegal, and I'm an independent... but you know that.

And no problem, happy to help with facts and truth whenever. I took an oath to the Constitution, I'll always defend it. Enemies foreign and domestic and all that.

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

Actually, all laws making any drug illegal are unConstitutional on their face.

The proof is the fact that it took a Constitutional Amendment to do the same for alcohol.

a reply to: Mahogany

do you want the desk version or the trophy case one?

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: PorkChop96
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?

So, how is it determined - and who does the determining - that someone behavior is altered to a point of violence to themselves or others?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

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?

so by the same token, a person doing drugs or drinking to excess should also be silenced from any public speech unless a doctor clears them. What makes the 2nd different than the first? (other than the "shal not be infringed) aspect and all. Tell us all please.

That is a whole other can of worms when uttering death threats, drunk/stoned/sober...what have you.

www.theatlantic.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

Again, you're bringing up a mental health issue claiming that it is a gun issue.

If someone is in fear for their life for saying the wrong thing, due to the fact that someone else owns a gun and doesn't agree with what they have to say is not the 2nd being a threat to the first. That is someone who would hurt you no matter what, having a inanimate object, and a mental problem going after someone of a different opinion.

Guns are not, and never have been, the problem.