Hunter Biden's illegal gun purchase defense

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
Seems that the jokes just write themselves: Hunter is expected to argue that gun laws forbidding purchase by drug users violates their 2nd amendment rights.

Interesting twist, I think!

redstate.com...

I'm a little confused, here.

In discussions of gun laws, the argument seems to be that gun ownership should not be restricted and things like red flag laws are abusive. So he's actually standing firm on principles mentioned here.

Why aren't 2nd Amendment people here supporting his right to have guns?

I am.

But Hunter lied on the form.

He'd have an argument and a legal case if he had told the truth.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Why would Hunter Biden be using RedState to propagate his arguments to the general public?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Why would Hunter Biden be using RedState to propagate his arguments to the general public?

He isn't. Hunter's lawyers are simply making the arguments to the DOJ they think (or hope) will prevent Hunter from being charged. RedState and other MSM outlets have picked up the story and are publishing it because it is newsworthy.

The fact that they are even in discussion with the DOJ suggests to me that a charging decision is pretty close. My guess is that DOJ might be offering a plea bargain deal that would require Hunter pleading guilty to a lesser crime and Hunter is trying to squirm out of it. Personally, I don't think he has a chance of getting out of this without some kind of conviction. Nor should he, IMHO.

a reply to: Byrd

Cant ignore the hypocrisy if Hunter gets a pass.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Why would Hunter Biden be using RedState to propagate his arguments to the general public?

Because He does Not Want to See his Sorry Ahass in Jail .

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

he may inadvertently solve the current conundrum people in pot friendly states face. If you smoke weed, even if it's legal, you have to answer the question truthfully, and that might negate your ability to own a firearm.

Correct, federal and state laws should not violate constitutional protections.

Yet, we have a federal government that continues to refuse to accept that cannabis has medical benefits and is relatively safe. Although it's much safer than alcohol, the US government continues to prevent cannabis users from buying guns, via certain federal gun purchasing questions. Meanwhile, the law allows for alcohol users to buy guns without issue, so long as they don't also have a history of addiction or mental illness.

Things that deserve consideration:

1. Federally rescheduling cannabis from a schedule 1 drug, since the current definition is inaccurate, unfair, and harmful.

2. Why is it okay for residents of Washington DC to be able to grow and use cannabis, but for the rest of Americans, cannabis remains a federally scheduled, schedule 1 drug?

3. Some states have allowed for medical cannabis use. Of the people who have decided to use cannabis in those states, which of them are protected by the 2nd amendment, which of them shouldn't be, and why?

4. Some states have allowed for recreational cannabis use. Of the people who have decided to use cannabis in those states, which of them are protected by the 2nd amendment, which of them shouldn't be, and why?

5. Implementing number 1, could be a huge step towards solving numbers 3 and 4.


As far as Hunter goes, this seems like the very least of the things that he should be being investigated, and or indicted for. This almost seems like a cleaver, misleading, distraction from much more serious issues.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
Seems that the jokes just write themselves: Hunter is expected to argue that gun laws forbidding purchase by drug users violates their 2nd amendment rights.

Interesting twist, I think!

redstate.com...

I'm a little confused, here.

In discussions of gun laws, the argument seems to be that gun ownership should not be restricted and things like red flag laws are abusive. So he's actually standing firm on principles mentioned here.

Why aren't 2nd Amendment people here supporting his right to have guns?

As was mentioned he lied on his form to purchase the gun AND the FBI was complicit in the illegal act. Who runs the background checks again? Who would have denied anyone else their "right" to purchase a gun if they had the exact same record? Thinking pro 2nd amendment people would be supporting the hypocrisy of a felon who only was allowed to purchase a gun because of WHO his father is, is insulting. This is the exact kind of thing we pro 2nd people have a problem with, these certain exceptions that only seem to pop up when a Democrat is involved!