Hunter Biden just might end up as a 2nd Amendment hero,...bizaro

[Suck My Glock]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/0 ... t-00099544

Could Hunter Biden be the next poster child for Second Amendment rights?

The president’s son is under investigation for potentially breaking the law banning drug users from owning guns – but the law’s constitutionality faces growing challenges.


Hunter Biden could soon find himself in a surprising position: at the cutting edge of the fight to strengthen the Second Amendment.

The president’s son is the target of a Justice Department investigation scrutinizing his purchase of a gun in 2018 — a time when he has said he was regularly using crack cocaine. Federal law bans drug users from owning guns.

But the constitutionality of that law — like many other provisions restricting gun ownership — is newly in question after a precedent-rocking decision the Supreme Court handed down almost a year ago.

His lawyers have already told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment, according to a person familiar with the private discussions granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms.

The dispute would come as the White House fights to tighten gun laws. And it could put conservative gun-rights enthusiasts, who typically criticize the Biden family, in unusual alignment with the president’s son.

Federal prosecutors are expected to soon finalize the Hunter Biden investigation. David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, is leading the probe. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in May that Weiss is “capable of making any decisions that he feels are appropriate,” and that he won’t face political pressure. Weiss is widely reported to be examining potential tax crimes related to undeclared income, as well as Hunter Biden’s purchase of a handgun in October 2018.

When he bought the gun, Biden filled out a federal form on which he allegedly avowed that he was not “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” any “controlled substance,” POLITICO reported in 2021. But according to Biden’s 2021 memoir, he frequently used crack cocaine at the time.

“I was smoking crack every 15 minutes,” he wrote.

A lawyer for Hunter Biden declined to comment for this article. A White House spokesperson declined to comment as well, citing the fact that the president’s son is a private citizen and that the Justice Department probe is ongoing.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms says this ban applies to people who have admitted to using illegal drugs in the 12 months before buying a gun. Violators can receive up to 15 years in prison.

But the provision, long considered an unassailable gun restriction, now faces challenges. Last June, the Supreme Court undid decades of lower-court jurisprudence about the Second Amendment. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court’s six-justice conservative majority ruled that contemporary gun restrictions must be consistent with those of the founding era.

This new constitutional test presents a massive opening for people working to loosen gun restrictions, since firearm laws in America’s founding era were, in some ways, extremely permissive. The president, meanwhile, called the ruling deeply troubling and said it “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution.”

Since Bruen, most courts have still upheld the law banning drug users from owning guns, according to Jeff Welty, a professor at the School of Government at the University of North Carolina who closely tracks gun cases. But several have ruled against it.

“A majority isn’t everybody,” Welty said. “And given how unsettled the law is in this area, I think anyone charged with a violation of that statute would give serious consideration to raising the Second Amendment as a defense.”

Just a week after Bruen was released, a federal district judge in Utah ruled that the prohibition on drug users owning guns was unconstitutional because of its vagueness. Judge Jill Parrish noted that the statute itself doesn’t define the word “user” and also doesn’t say how the timing of people’s drug use affects their right to own guns. Parrish’s ruling — which the government has appealed — was based on the Fifth Amendment, not the Second, so it did not cite the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. But Bruen only strengthens challenges to the drug-user prohibition.

Just ask Judge Patrick Wyrick, a district judge in Oklahoma who ruled in February that the government could not use the statute to prosecute a defendant who was caught with a gun and had marijuana in his car. In an opinion that relied heavily on Bruen, Wyrick wrote that barring marijuana users from possessing guns “is inconsistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” He rejected the government’s attempts to defend the statute’s constitutionality, including the government’s citations to 19th century laws that restricted people from using firearms while drunk.

And in Texas in April, a district judge also ruled against the constitutionality of the law. That case involved charges against a woman who had both marijuana and psilocybin — a psychedelic — in her home. Judge Kathleen Cardone concluded that the ban was inconsistent with the Second Amendment and with America’s early history of gun regulation. The Justice Department has appealed the Oklahoma and Texas cases.

Other judges disagree. In another case from Texas, Judge Alan Albright threw out a Second Amendment challenge to the statute. Albright noted that Bruen said the Second Amendment only protects the gun rights of law-abiding citizens.

And in Mississippi, Judge Louis Guirola Jr. rejected a defendant’s effort to get his conviction under the statute tossed out. “[A]nalogous statutes which purport to disarm persons considered a risk to society — whether felons or alcoholics — were known to the American legal tradition,” Guirola wrote. The defendant has appealed.

Meanwhile, another challenge to the drug-users prohibition is pending close to home for Hunter Biden. In Pennsylvania, defendant Erik Harris was charged under the statute, and was also charged with lying on the federal form when he purchased his gun (a separate crime that carries a maximum of five years in prison). Harris pleaded guilty, but reserved his right to appeal the constitutionality of the charges. His appeal is before the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals — a key court for Hunter Biden because it oversees Delaware, too.

The appellate panel in Harris’ case appears to be waiting to rule until the 3rd Circuit resolves another major Second Amendment case: Range v. Attorney General, a lawsuit challenging the law banning felons from possessing guns.

Second Amendment advocates haven’t reached a consensus on whether to support gun rights for people who use hard drugs, according to Joseph Greenlee, the director of constitutional studies at the pro-Second Amendment Firearms Policy Coalition. Greenlee, whose group argued on the plaintiff’s side in Range v. Attorney General, said his group believes that people who use marijuana shouldn’t be banned from buying guns.
President George Washington delivers his inaugural address in the Senate Chamber of Old Federal Hall in New York on April 30, 1789.

“We oppose marijuana-based firearm prohibitions because we’ve seen enough evidence provided by the government to determine that it’s insufficient to justify such a ban,” he told POLITICO. “As far as other substance-based prohibitions go, we think the government should be required to demonstrate that users of that substance are especially dangerous.”

Greenlee added that his organization hasn’t yet taken a position on whether or not the Constitution allows the government to bar people who use hard drugs from possessing guns.

“If the government provided insufficient evidence to justify a substance-based ban, I wouldn’t say anything was out of the question,” he added.

Aidan Johnston, the director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, said that his group opposes the ban on drug users owning guns.

“Whatever merit one might imagine on a ban on users of controlled substances buying guns, if we don’t trust people to buy weapons why are we trusting them in society?” he said.

Others are keeping the issue at arms’ distance. That includes Larry Keane, who heads the gun industry trade association National Shooting Sports Foundation. His group has filed amicus briefs weighing in on a variety of Second Amendment cases. But not when it comes to hard drugs.

“We’re not working to get the law changed, at all,” he said. “It’s not on our radar at all.”
Hunter and Joe Biden

Given the conflicting rulings in the lower courts, the Supreme Court may one day have to resolve the statute’s constitutionality — and it’s not obvious how the court’s conservative majority would view the issue. Jacob Charles, a professor at Pepperdine’s Caruso School of Law who studies gun laws, said that Justice Samuel Alito could be particularly ambivalent.

“I could see him going either way,” Charles said, “obviously in favor of gun rights, but also in favor of strong law enforcement.”

Andrew Willinger, the head of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, said he would be surprised to see the statute thrown out as a whole.

“I personally doubt that that prohibition would fall entirely,” he said.

[smithers599]

"A well-protected ruling class being necessary to the security of a totalitarian state, the right of liberal politicians and their crackhead children to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[YNOTAZ]

The ATF dropped the case against the guy in Cali for having a machinegun when his lawyers argued that an AR lower did not even meet the codified definition of a firearm. They didn't want the proletariat to learn AR lowers are not firearms. Part of the new rule changes fix that.

You think this thing won’t turn into pure vapor over a guy who's POTAsses son?

Disappear faster and quieter than alter boy underwear in the Vatican.

[xerts1191]

[Longhair1957]

Disappear faster and quieter than alter boy underwear in the Vatican.

[Suck My Glock]

Hunter indicted in Delaware today.

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking- ... laware?cfp

[Surprise270WIN]

Heard Hunter Biden was indicted on 3 count felony federal gun charges today.

[Suck My Glock]

[NBC_LT]

Billy Carter v2.0 - this time with more drama...

[Joe_Blacke]

Seems like a win/win.

Either he goes to jail, possibly causing his dad to pardon him (crushing his reelection chances), or he gets some of these crazy background check requirements declared unconstitutional.

[Suck My Glock]

Well, it seems CNN has finally picked up on the potential applicability of BRUEN to Hunter's predicament.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/27/politics ... index.html

How Clarence Thomas’ landmark Second Amendment ruling could help Hunter Biden fight his gun charges

[Dauph]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-reject ... 45807.html

Court rejects Hunter Biden's appeal in gun case, setting stage for trial to begin next month

[Suck My Glock]

It looks like Hunter's financial cut-out hasn't been appropriately compensated by daddy Biden because he has declared he is no longer capable of funding Hunter's defense support. Unless sleepy Joe is able to deliver on whatever promises he made to this errand boy, Hunter now goes to trial June 3rd without his attorneys being paid. Hmmmm. It seems one central scheme by which Hunter was able to (semi-covertly) receive slush funding to feed and water the attorneys was the art scam. But the gallery that previously participated in that scheme has been so damaged in reputation by doing so, of necessity they backed away from doing anymore Biden "art" brokering a year ago and no one else seems willing to step forward to replace them.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/1 ... y-00158237

Hunter Biden’s legal defense has a problem: The patron paying the bills is running out of cash

Kevin Morris, a Hollywood entertainment lawyer who has loaned millions to the president’s son, has told associates he is tapped out.

By Betsy Woodruff Swan and Brittany Gibson

05/15/2024 05:45 PM EDT

Less than a month before the start of his first trial, Hunter Biden may be losing a key financial lifeline.

Kevin Morris, a Hollywood entertainment lawyer who has long supported the president’s son, has told associates that he has run out of resources to help fund Biden’s legal defense, according to a person close to Morris who was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

“The reason Kevin got involved financially in the first place was that he could see that no one was going to help Hunter,” said the person. “Now, four and a half years later, there’s still no help — and now Kevin is completely tapped out. So just when Hunter is facing two criminal trials starting in a few weeks, he has no resources. It’s pretty dire.”

Reached for comment about this reporting, Morris confirmed the person’s account but declined to elaborate further. A spokesperson for Biden’s legal team also declined to comment.

Biden is scheduled to begin trial on June 3 on federal gun charges in Delaware. A separate case, in which Biden is charged with federal tax crimes, is scheduled to go to trial June 20 in California.

Morris has played a key role in handling Biden’s legal bills, as he detailed in an interview with lawmakers in January. The possibility that Morris can no longer serve as a benefactor is the latest sign of the tumult surrounding the president’s son in the final weeks of preparation for two trials that he — and his father — had hoped would never happen.

The person close to Morris said that the Hollywood lawyer faces financial constraints that present “a huge problem” and that there are concerns about how Biden will pay for expert witnesses to testify for him at his Delaware trial. It is unclear precisely how much Morris has spent thus far to support Biden, but in a January letter to the House oversight committee, Morris’ lawyer said Morris had loaned Biden more than $6.5 million.

At a pretrial hearing on Tuesday in Wilmington, Biden’s lead defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, signaled that the preparation for the first trial — on charges that Biden illegally bought a gun as a drug user and lied about it on a government form — is facing headwinds. As the hearing opened, Lowell told Judge Maryellen Noreika that for the first time in his long career, he wasn’t ready for a trial to start. He noted the complexity of Biden’s legal situation: two trials looming within weeks of each other, and appeals proceedings already underway in both jurisdictions.

Lowell told Noreika that he and his team have been preparing for the trial, but that one hurdle was finding expert witnesses to testify on a variety of evidentiary issues, including drug addiction and forensics. He said he found three experts who had “tentatively agreed” to get involved but that he was still working to finalize retention agreements for these people.

Experts who testify for defendants at trials can bill $500 per hour or more for their work. They can rebut the analysis that government experts provide about evidence presented at trial.

Lowell described having strained “resources” to handle preparation for two trials — currently scheduled to start in the same month — on two different coasts.

But the judge was unmoved, and declined his requests for the trial to be postponed.

It’s not clear how much Lowell, or the other lawyers working on Biden’s cases, are charging for their services. In other recent cases, Lowell has sought fees of $855 per hour and over $1,500 per hour.

Morris and Biden met in 2019 during now-President Biden’s campaign. They both were raised in the mid-Atlantic in Roman Catholic families, and immediately developed a close bond. At the time, Biden was trying to get his life on track and stay sober. Morris helped him get safe housing and pay his overdue tax bill. In his January interview with congressional investigators, Morris said he and Biden spoke every day and were like family.

CNN reported in October that Biden has racked up more than $10 million in legal bills over the years. Since becoming sober several years ago, the president’s son has focused on painting as his occupation. He signed with a New York gallerist, Georges Berges, to sell his work. But that gallerist told congressional investigators that the relationship was not as lucrative as he had hoped, and that Biden’s art would have sold for more if not for the baggage associated with his name.

“Had his name been somebody else, he would have been doing a lot better,” Berges said in his testimony. “I have artists that I don’t think are as good that are selling for higher than he is. And so it’s actually — I feel bad for him in so many ways because I think he’s a great artist, and he just can’t get a break.”

Of about 20 pieces of art Biden sold with Berges’ gallery, 11 works were sold to Morris, he said. Morris purchased the art by paying the gallery’s commission for the sale, and Biden’s share was handled without the gallery.

Berges also told lawmakers he stopped representing Biden last year.

“From a business perspective, it hasn’t been the best decision for me,” he said.