Isn’t Hunter Biden actually innocent?

[SavannahMann]

In NY Pistol and Rifle vs. Bruen the Supreme Court held that prohibitions on Firearms Ownership must have been either common practice or similarly prohibited at the time the Second was adopted.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN

www.law.cornell.edu

So where is the Analogous example that such restrictions are Constituional under the Second Amendment?

At the time of the adaptation of the Second the only paperwork you might deal with was a receipt for payment.

Hunter was not prohibited by Court Order. He hadn’t been convicted of anything previously where the Court had ordered that he not own firearms for a period of time. His right to keep and bear arms had been stripped from him without due process of law.

Isn’t the crime he is charged with, in fact tents of thousands have been charged with, unconstitutional on its face under the Bruen decision?

 

[1srelluc]

You could look at it like that and have a very good argument.

Can you just see the delicious irony if it was the degenerate Hunter Biden that led to the abolishment of the 4473 and even the F part of the BATF!

 

[SavannahMann]

You could look at it like that and have a very good argument.

Can you just see the delicious irony if it was the degenerate Hunter Biden that led to the abolishment of the 4473 and even the F part of the BATF!

I’m just saying if you are driven by principle that this conclusion is the one you have to reach. Republicans, and especially the Gun Rights Advocates should be out there making this argument. They aren’t. They are jumping with joy that a Biden is going to be found guilty.

I didn’t write the decision. I didn’t have any input into it. The decision was written by the Supreme Court. This is their rules. Not mine. But if these are the rules, then you gotta follow them too.

 

[pknopp]

Do I agree with the law? No. Did Hunter violate the law? Yes.

This applies to many in jail.

Release them all or none.

 

[1srelluc]

I’m just saying if you are driven by principle that this conclusion is the one you have to reach. Republicans, and especially the Gun Rights Advocates should be out there making this argument. They aren’t. They are jumping with joy that a Biden is going to be found guilty.

I didn’t write the decision. I didn’t have any input into it. The decision was written by the Supreme Court. This is their rules. Not mine. But if these are the rules, then you gotta follow them too.

I've heard that argument made and I don't disagree with it.....The 4473 as well as the F part of the BATF is blatantly unconstitutional.....If I cut a shotgun barrel to 17.75" I'm a "felon" but at 18" I'm GTG.....That makes no sense at all.

Thing is the leftist dems would never allow it to get to SCOTUS if Hunter were convicted .....FJB would pardon him first.

 

[SavannahMann]

I've heard that argument made and I don't disagree with it.....The 4473 as well as the F part of the BATF is blatantly unconstitutional.....If I cut a shotgun barrel to 17.75" I'm a "felon" but at 18" I'm GTG.....That makes no sense at all.

Thing is the leftist dems would never allow it to get to SCOTUS if Hunter were convicted .....FJB would pardon him first.

I’ve said for years that Hunter will be pardoned on November 6th. The day after the election no matter who wins.

 

[candycorn]

In NY Pistol and Rifle vs. Bruen the Supreme Court held that prohibitions on Firearms Ownership must have been either common practice or similarly prohibited at the time the Second was adopted.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN

www.law.cornell.edu

So where is the Analogous example that such restrictions are Constituional under the Second Amendment?

At the time of the adaptation of the Second the only paperwork you might deal with was a receipt for payment.

Hunter was not prohibited by Court Order. He hadn’t been convicted of anything previously where the Court had ordered that he not own firearms for a period of time. His right to keep and bear arms had been stripped from him without due process of law.

Isn’t the crime he is charged with, in fact tents of thousands have been charged with, unconstitutional on its face under the Bruen decision?

Unlikely...he seems like a completely lousy person to me.

But it will be fun to see the right winger's heads explode once more if he beats the rap in the wake of their idol getting 34 nails in his coffin. That would be sweet.

 

[SavannahMann]

Unlikely...he seems like a completely lousy person to me.

But it will be fun to see the right winger's heads explode once more if he beats the rap in the wake of their idol getting 34 nails in his coffin. That would be sweet.

I am not saying Hunter is a good person. I’m not saying I want him as a friend, neighbor, employee, or employer. I’m not saying anything of that sort.

What I am doing is asking if the Bruen decision which stipulated that any gun control law that did not have a similar law in effect at the time the Second was adopted is probably unconstitutional applies. I want to hear arguments why it doesn’t apply. I want to hear why Hunter is not being improperly targeted because the Feds are enforcing a law they know is unconstitutional in the light of Bruen.

 

[Polishprince]

Over these charges? Hunter Biden should be found innocent.

The gentleman has to deal with disreputable characters , including pimps and dope dealers, as part of his day to day life.

Seems like he had good cause to say whatever he has to in order to be able to carry an appropriate firearm.

Circumstances made it imperative for Mr. Biden to tell a few white lies in this situation. And there is no victim here, no innocent people were shot.

I'd find the man "innocent" if I was sitting on the jury.

 

[DGS49]

Well, if you make a sworn statement to The Government, and that statement is knowingly false, that would seem to be enough. Leave the gun part out of it. Still a crime.

But a bullshit crime nevertheless. It's all politics, of course.

 

[Polishprince]

Well, if you make a sworn statement to The Government, and that statement is knowingly false, that would seem to be enough. Leave the gun part out of it. Still a crime.

But a bullshit crime nevertheless. It's all politics, of course.

I'd say its a bunch of crap as well.

If the government wanted to charge Hunter with tax fraud or something else connected to others, that would be something else. But this is a victimless paperwork offense, just let the fellow change his answers on the form.

 

[SavannahMann]

Well, if you make a sworn statement to The Government, and that statement is knowingly false, that would seem to be enough. Leave the gun part out of it. Still a crime.

But a bullshit crime nevertheless. It's all politics, of course.

But under Bruen, isn’t the question, and the form itself Unconstitutional?

If a man confesses and hasn’t been advised of Miranda, using the confession is prohibited as a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Is evidence is seized in an illegal search that evidence is Unconstitutional and can’t be used. Fourth Amendment.

Why is a form that would appear to violate Bruen a valid standard for false statements to the Government?

 

[candycorn]

I am not saying Hunter is a good person. I’m not saying I want him as a friend, neighbor, employee, or employer. I’m not saying anything of that sort.

What I am doing is asking if the Bruen decision which stipulated that any gun control law that did not have a similar law in effect at the time the Second was adopted is probably unconstitutional applies. I want to hear arguments why it doesn’t apply. I want to hear why Hunter is not being improperly targeted because the Feds are enforcing a law they know is unconstitutional in the light of Bruen.

I don’t know the details of either case really.

As far as I can tell, they ask you if you’re using drugs when you buy a gun. Hunter apparently was. Not being truthful of a federal inquiry form is illegal.

The hilarious thing is that if Jim Bob in Kensucky had done the same thing, every blob supporting hick here would be donating their last schilling to a go-fund-me to defend Jim Bob. But since this is President Biden’s kid, they are clutching their WalMart “pearls” in outrage.

 

[Bell Huey]

In NY Pistol and Rifle vs. Bruen the Supreme Court held that prohibitions on Firearms Ownership must have been either common practice or similarly prohibited at the time the Second was adopted.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN

www.law.cornell.edu

So where is the Analogous example that such restrictions are Constituional under the Second Amendment?

At the time of the adaptation of the Second the only paperwork you might deal with was a receipt for payment.

Hunter was not prohibited by Court Order. He hadn’t been convicted of anything previously where the Court had ordered that he not own firearms for a period of time. His right to keep and bear arms had been stripped from him without due process of law.

Isn’t the crime he is charged with, in fact tents of thousands have been charged with, unconstitutional on its face under the Bruen decision?

This is from last year:

Aug 9 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that a decades-old law prohibiting users of illegal drugs from owning firearms was unconstitutional as applied to the case of a marijuana user, the latest fallout from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights.

Drug user cannot be barred from owning guns, US court rules

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that a decades-old law prohibiting users of illegal drugs from owning firearms was unconstitutional as applied to the case of a marijuana user, the latest fallout from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights.

www.reuters.com

In the past two weeks I have purchased two firearms. The questions are still on the 4473.

 

[Blaster]

This trial will be decided by a Biden friendly jury.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Blaster]

Hallie is just as sick and twisted as Hunter.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

In NY Pistol and Rifle vs. Bruen the Supreme Court held that prohibitions on Firearms Ownership must have been either common practice or similarly prohibited at the time the Second was adopted.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN

www.law.cornell.edu

So where is the Analogous example that such restrictions are Constituional under the Second Amendment?

At the time of the adaptation of the Second the only paperwork you might deal with was a receipt for payment.

Hunter was not prohibited by Court Order. He hadn’t been convicted of anything previously where the Court had ordered that he not own firearms for a period of time. His right to keep and bear arms had been stripped from him without due process of law.

Isn’t the crime he is charged with, in fact tents of thousands have been charged with, unconstitutional on its face under the Bruen decision?

He's charged with lying on a Federal form. That isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[SavannahMann]

He's charged with lying on a Federal form. That isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment.

The question on the aforementioned Federal Form is Unconstitutional. At least according to the reply from Bell Huey which linked to an article reporting on a decision from the Fifth Circuit applying the standard from the Supreme Court.

So what else do you have? Since the Second Amendment doesn’t mean much to you.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

The question on the aforementioned Federal Form is Unconstitutional. At least according to the reply from Bell Huey which linked to an article reporting on a decision from the Fifth Circuit applying the standard from the Supreme Court.

So what else do you have? Since the Second Amendment doesn’t mean much to you.

That doesn't take away from the fact that he lied on a Federal form.