Hunter Biden Lawyer Withdraws

a reply to: network dude

Trump was ordered by the courts to turn over every document with classified markings. He failed to do so but still submitted a document to the government stating that he had turned over all the documents.

a reply to: Threadbare

That ruling was in regards to marijuana, not coc aine.

Try to keep up

a reply to: PorkChop96

That ruling declared the entire law unconstitutional, not just the part about marijuana use.

Try to keep up.

a reply to: Threadbare

Where is their ruling, got some links? And no, your word is not good enough.

Even if it was the whole law, has that law been overturned?

No?

Then still illegal and he committed a felony

How many more legs do you think you have to stand on here?

a reply to: PorkChop96

Throughout American history, laws have regulated the combination
of guns and intoxicating substances. But at no point in the 18th or 19th cen-
tury did the government disarm individuals who used drugs or alcohol at one
time from possessing guns at another. A few states banned carrying a weapon
while actively under the influence, but those statutes did not emerge until
well after the Civil War. Section 922(g)(3)—the first federal law of its kind—
was not enacted until 1968, nearly two centuries after the Second Amend-
ment was adopted.

In short, our history and tradition may support some limits on an
intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming
a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage. Nor do more gen-
eralized traditions of disarming dangerous personssupport thisrestriction on
nonviolent drug users. As applied to Daniels, then, § 922(g)(3) violates the
Second Amendment. We reverse the judgment of conviction and render a
dismissal of the indictment.

United States v. Daniels

The ruling cites the SCOTUS case N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen as the basis for their decision. In that case SCOTUS ruled that any gun law that wasn't in keeping with our country's “historical tradition of firearm regulation," was unconstitutional.

I can provide you with that ruling as well if you'd like.

a reply to: Threadbare

If it was "ruled" as unconstitutional, why is it still a law?

Why was it not overturned?

How convenient that the SCOTUS declares this after the presidents own son was charged with a federal gun crime.

This countries "historical tradition of firearms regulations", 99.9999999% of which comes from the left, is that they want nobody to own a firearm.

a reply to: PorkChop96

The decision was made by the 5th Circuit Appellate Court, that means the decision only has binding precedent in the 5th Circuit (Louisiana, Mississippi, & Texas.) It can be cited as precedent in cases outside that area but it isn't binding.

The Bruen decision (like most gun related decisions by the current court) was 6-3 with the Conservative members of the Court representing the six. Are you claiming the Conservative members of the Court made this ruling to protect Hunter while the Liberal members wanted to see him convicted?

a reply to: Threadbare

Since you keep glossing over this, I will ask again.

If it was "ruled" as unconstitutional, why is it still a law?

Why was it not overturned?

As long as it is law, he can still be convicted under that law.

a reply to: PorkChop96

I just told you. It was ruled unconstitutional by the 5th Circuit. As such the law is unconstitutional only in the 5th Circuit. It would require a SCOTUS ruling to knock the law down nationally.

However, the 5th Circuit decision provides Hunter's lawyers precedent. They will make the same argument that was made in Daniels. Per the binding precedent set by Bruen, this law should be found unconstitutional as, historically, gun ownership was not limited due to a history of substance use.

It's possible the district court, and maybe even the 3rd Circuit, won't go for the argument, but if it gets to SCOTUS it will be very hard for them to rule the law is constitutional based on their previous decision in Bruen.

How anyone could defend or work to show how a crack head should not be charged is beyond me. He lied on the form. It is not about whether he was high when he did it or when he had the weapon.

Amazing...