Hunter may use Bruen to beat gun rap.

[Paul B.]

Hunter may use Bruen to beat gun rap.

https://www.aol.com/news/us-supreme-...100220300.html

Seems his lawyers are going to use the Bruen decision so Hunter Biden probably won't face prosecution for his possession of a firearm while using drugs or in possession of drugs. Makes me wonder if that doesn't open a Pandora's box letting all felons so charged skate or released from prison id sentence as such? Somewhat ironic it seems to me.
Paul B.

[44 AMP]

This is the one, possible bright spot in the nepotistic protection of Hunter Biden.

IF, (and I do actually hope it works), IF the argument that the law is invalid, because since the Bruen decision, it would be found unconstitutional, THEN that does open the door to review and possibly exoneration of everyone convicted of that same offense.

HOWEVER, it may not come to pass, because there are two issues involved here.

One is Hunter buying a gun while demonstrably an illegal drug user.

The other is, and could be treated separately, and that is lying on the 4473 form.

The defense may focus on the Bruen rules regarding historical precedent and claim the law invalid due to that, but if the prosecution focuses on the fact that he lied on the form (and the form clearly states that is a crime, in and of itself, which, it does) he could still be found guilty of that crime, and the drug matter could simply be ignored/glossed over. What he lied about doesn't matter all that much, as long as it is provable that he did lie about something, then he could be convicted of that.

Best case, for us, we swallow the distaste of seeing Hunter walk, but get the law overturned as a result.

less good, he gets convicted and the law stays unchanged.

Worst case, he walks and the law remains unchanged.
that's how I see it, at the present time

[gwpercle]

He Walks ...

It ain't what you know ... it's who you know .

But at least they nailed that horrible criminal ... Martha Stewart !

Gary

[Tom Servo]

The word for the day is irony. Here's what President Biden had to say about the Bruen decision when it was published:

I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Since 1911, the State of New York has required individuals who would like to carry a concealed weapon in public to show a need to do so for the purpose of self-defense and to acquire a license. More than a century later, the United States Supreme Court has chosen to strike down New York’s long-established authority to protect its citizens. This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.

If Hunter's attorneys want to go this route, it'll probably be decided by the Supreme Court. That could set yet another precedent rolling back gun-control laws. It would be interesting to see.

Most likely outcome is, the President just pardons his son on the way out.

[FrankenMauser]

One of the lawyers that wrote briefs for Bruen has a personal hatred of the idea of non-violent felons becoming prohibited persons for life, as well as the ridiculously arduous and slow process for restoring rights after exoneration. So, he should be dancing in the streets.
I don't know what language was in the briefs, however. I haven't read them.

[jmr40]

We better hope that he isn't convicted on THIS gun charge. If he is 1/2 the gun owners in the country could be in trouble.

Not going to get into the politics of what he may or may not have done and if he is guilty or not of other things. That is a separate issue. But bringing the gun charges was really a stretch. He won't be convicted of the gun charges, nor should he be.

If he is, then Trump must be convicted of the same crime. There is a stronger case against him violating the law by having his photo made while in possession of a Glock pistol while under indictment than they have against Hunter Biden.

[44 AMP]

There is a stronger case against him violating the law by having his photo made while in possession of a Glock pistol while under indictment than they have against Hunter Biden.

I'm not so certain. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it might be that holding a pistol for a photo op while under indictment and buying a pistol by lying on the 4473 form and signing it, might be adjudicated somewhat differently.

I mean, yes Trump technically possessed it while holding it, but I think that might be a different matter from possession where the gun was taken home and, if I recall correctly was later found in a dumpster??

IF you could leave their political personalities out of the picture (not sure that's possible in the real world) but only considering points of law, is there a difference between being prohibited from acquiring firearms while under inditement (which is an as yet unproven accusation) and willingly intentionally lying on the federal form in order to obtain a firearm?

Admittedly both are violations of law, but are they, should they be treated equally?? Are they both actually violations of the same law?

Is it the possible that some variant of "bearing false witness /lying under oath" is a separate matter??

[Tom Servo]

If he is, then Trump must be convicted of the same crime.

In Trump's case, all we have is him briefly in possession of a firearm. But that's not a crime. Under US Code § 922(n):

It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

If he actually bought a gun, he'd be on the hook.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by jmr40

We better hope that he isn't convicted on THIS gun charge. If he is 1/2 the gun owners in the country could be in trouble.

I doubt that half of american gun owners obsessively make videos of themselves smoking crack before signing a 4473 verifying that they aren't unlawful drug users, but I've not met them all.

That said, it would be great if HB beat that charge by employing the 2d and 5th.

[natman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I'm not so certain. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it might be that holding a pistol for a photo op while under indictment and buying a pistol by lying on the 4473 form and signing it, might be adjudicated somewhat differently.

I mean, yes Trump technically possessed it while holding it, but I think that might be a different matter from possession where the gun was taken home and, if I recall correctly was later found in a dumpster??

IF you could leave their political personalities out of the picture (not sure that's possible in the real world) but only considering points of law, is there a difference between being prohibited from acquiring firearms while under inditement (which is an as yet unproven accusation) and willingly intentionally lying on the federal form in order to obtain a firearm?

Admittedly both are violations of law, but are they, should they be treated equally?? Are they both actually violations of the same law?

Is it the possible that some variant of "bearing false witness /lying under oath" is a separate matter??

There are two different types of laws in effect with Hunter Biden. One is OWNING a firearm while addicted to drugs. That issue may have some recourse under Bruen.

The other issue is that he lied on the 4473 about it and he lied to an FFL. Both are illegal and won't be affected by Bruen. Perjury is not protected by the Second Amendment.

Prosecuting Trump holding a gun for a photo at a gun dealer would be a stretch, even under current standards for prosecuting Trump.

[44 AMP]

Prosecuting Trump holding a gun for a photo at a gun dealer would be a stretch, even under current standards for prosecuting Trump.

A while back I heard of a lady, some kind of model, who was a prohibited person (some kind of drug conviction I think) on parole, and took a job doing a photoshoot where actual firearms were used as props. She posts pictures of herself holding them online.

Her parole officer saw them, and she went back to prison.

In the larger picture of the matter, I find it somewhat ironic that, back when Joe Biden was VP, he was caught on camera (not a scheduled interview) being asked why the Fed govt didn't do more to prosecute people who illegally tried to get guns by lying on the Fed form. His answer (and I saw it, personally) was a dismissive hand wave and "we don't have time for that".

Seems like now that he's Pres and it is HIS SON facing charges, he has time for it....

[Eddiejoe]

I don't know the 4473 by heart, so forgive me, but wouldn't President Trump have to actually be convicted of a felony to be in violation of the felony prohibitions in the 4473?

[rickyrick]

A prohibited person is a prohibited person, no matter if a form is filled out or not… at least that’s my view on it.

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't know the 4473 by heart, so forgive me, but wouldn't President Trump have to actually be convicted of a felony to be in violation of the felony prohibitions in the 4473?

Question 21.c:

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/downl...f-f-4473-1.pdf

[natman]

Prosecuting Trump holding a gun for a photo at a gun dealer would be a stretch, even under current standards for prosecuting Trump.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

A while back I heard of a lady, some kind of model, who was a prohibited person (some kind of drug conviction I think) on parole, and took a job doing a photoshoot where actual firearms were used as props. She posts pictures of herself holding them online.

Her parole officer saw them, and she went back to prison.

There's a world of difference between being indicted and being tried with due process, convicted, imprisoned and out on parole.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

In the larger picture of the matter, I find it somewhat ironic that, back when Joe Biden was VP, he was caught on camera (not a scheduled interview) being asked why the Fed govt didn't do more to prosecute people who illegally tried to get guns by lying on the Fed form. His answer (and I saw it, personally) was a dismissive hand wave and "we don't have time for that".

Seems like now that he's Pres and it is HIS SON facing charges, he has time for it....

That was back in 2013, when the NRA was urging him to enforce existing laws rather than creating new ones.

Biden has since changed his tune and has been running a no tolerance campaign against FFLs and people who lie on 4473s. Well, most people.

[Eddiejoe]

Thanks!

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Eddiejoe

I don't know the 4473 by heart, so forgive me, but wouldn't President Trump have to actually be convicted of a felony to be in violation of the felony prohibitions in the 4473?

Eddie, Aguila Blanca answered your question, but your questions does raise another question: In the absence of an adjudication, what interest does the government have is denying a transfer through a licensee simply for having been named in a felony indictment?

If a person is so dangerous that he shouldn't have a gun, should he be out and about with access to knives, cars, fertilizer and gasoline?

[44 AMP]

If a person is so dangerous that he shouldn't have a gun, should he be out and about with access to knives, cars, fertilizer and gasoline?

And access to his bank account to get them, or get a gun on the black market???

This is the crap that bugs me most about the so called "red flag" laws. Take someone's guns, based on an accusation, (not a conviction) and leave them on the street with all the means to acquire more weapons or any other means of causing harm?

How the heck does that make anyone "safer"?????

ITs not the tools that make someone dangerous, its the desire and the will.

[Spats McGee]

This raises an interesting wrinkle. As Tom Servo and Aguila Blanca point out:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo, post #8

In Trump's case, all we have is him briefly in possession of a firearm. But that's not a crime. Under US Code § 922(n):

If he actually bought a gun, he'd be on the hook.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Question 21.c:

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/downl...f-f-4473-1.pdf

Question 21.c reads as follows:

Originally Posted by Form 4473

Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more
than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?

But also note 18 USC 922(d):

Originally Posted by 18 USC 922(d)

...(d)It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person, including as a juvenile—
(1)is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;...

So it does not appear that simple possession of a firearm is barred by a felony indictment, in and of itself. (Leaving the question about domestic violence cases to the side for the moment.) It does appear to bar the one under felony indictment from shipping or transporting a firearm, and it bars everyone else from selling to or disposing of a firearm to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is under indictment.