newYou can listen to the Fox News article!
On Friday, Hunter Biden may have missed the greatest Hail Mary pass of all time. In 1975, when Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach threw his famous game-winning touchdown pass to wide receiver Drew Pearson, he later explained, “I closed my eyes and said Hail Mary.” For Hunter, his pass to the Supreme Court nearly 50 years later narrowly missed in similarly spectacular fashion.
Hunter and his legal team had hoped the Supreme Court would strike down the federal gun control law at issue in U.S. v. Rahimi.. Hunter, who was just convicted by a unanimous Delaware jury of lying on a gun declaration and possessing a gun as a drug addict, has challenged the constitutionality of the law, opposing the position of his father’s administration and adopting the same arguments as the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The Supreme Court voted 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the lone dissenter, that the law was indeed constitutional and that courts could temporarily strip citizens of their right to bear arms for the defense of others.
Supreme Court upholds federal firearms ban for subjects of domestic violence restraining orders
The case involved Zackie Rahimi, a drug dealer who had been served with a restraining order following an argument with his boyfriend (referred to in the ruling as CM) with whom he had a child in 2019. Rahimi allegedly punched CM, knocked him down, dragged him to his car, and then shot at CM or passersby (while CM fled the scene), and threatened to shoot him if he complained to police.
Hunter Biden disagrees with the position of his father’s administration and has adopted the same arguments as the NRA in challenging the constitutionality of the law. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
The Texas court found that Rahimi had not only engaged in “domestic violence” but that there was a “high likelihood that further violence would reoccur in the future.” Under the protective order, The order suspended Rahimi’s gun license for two years and prohibited him from contacting the governor during that time. The order will suspend his gun license for one or two years after his release, depending on whether he serves any prison time.
But Rahimi’s actions didn’t end there. He subsequently violated the order by approaching the CM and contacting him on social media. A few months later, Rahimi threatened another woman with a gun and was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Police officers subsequently identified him as a suspect in at least five additional shootings.
A judge poses for an official photograph at the Supreme Court. (Olivier D’Uglier/AFP via Getty Images)
This was not a typical example of a lawful gun owner, and the Court did not find the suspension of his gun rights an unconstitutional deprivation. The Court has said that since first recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008), this is not an absolute right. There are no truly absolute rights in the Constitution.
I’m the cake artist who won a Supreme Court case. Here’s why I’m still in court.
The Supreme Court found that federal law places reasonable temporary restrictions on this right: “Individuals determined by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others may be temporarily disarmed pursuant to the Second Amendment,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote.
The key is temporary status: the Supreme Court is simply saying that, based on such a record, courts can make reasonable decisions to protect other people from defendants who are allegedly violent.
A view of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Nov. 15, 2023. (AP Photo/Maryam Zuhaib, File)
The majority found that such temporary restrictions were consistent with historical practice, but Blue En In a decision that strengthened Second Amendment protections after Heller, he dissented, arguing that the Supreme Court cannot cite a “single historic regulation” to justify a federal law. Such historical practices have been given weight when interpreting Second Amendment protections.
Back to Hunter: The sentence in Washington was not as bad as the unanimous sentence in Delaware, but it may have sealed his fate on appeal. U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika oversaw a fair, textbook trial, leaving him little room for appeal.
Biden’s defense team had been banking on a Hail Mary pass since the special counsel was appointed, and it was largely successful: Special Counsel David Weiss appeared to be trying hard to avoid felony charges against the president’s son.
The Department of Justice tried to craft an immoral plea deal that not only allowed for the statute of limitations for serious crimes, but also offered Hunter no prison time. During the hearing to accept the plea deal, Judge Noreika decided to ask the prosecutor a few quick questions, especially about the blanket immunity clause that covered any crime Hunter had committed. The prosecutor admitted that he had never seen such a generous agreement for a defendant.
Click here to read more FOX News Opinion
The plea failed, and the Biden campaign seemed unwilling to accept anything less than a one-shot victory. They told prosecutors in court to just throw it out.
Then Biden’s defense team made the mistake of trying to go to trial with a jury nullification strategy. Some of us wrote that Hunter needed to plead guilty to avoid going to prison. But they hoped that the jury in Bidentown, Delaware would never convict Biden. They were wrong.
All that was left was a final pass to the Supreme Court that looked like it landed in the stadium seats. In reality, it was not a strong pass at all. After all, Hunter was convicted of lying on his gun declaration, and the Supreme Court is unlikely to let him off the hook.
What’s left for the Hunter Sentencing guidelines strongly support prison sentences And some judges have handed down similar prison sentences in past cases.
Click here to get the FOX News app
Another group that may be even more outraged by this decision may be many in the media and Congress. The Supreme Court has once again shattered the misconception that this Court is hopelessly divided along ideological lines. This month, the Court has continued to deliver unanimous or near-unanimous decisions, including in the controversial Rahimi case, on constitutional issues.
“Instead, the Supreme Court took a reasonable and proportionate approach in the interest of public safety, based on the Second Amendment. It’s not clear whether Hunter or the Court’s critics are more disappointed.”
To read more articles by Jonathan Turley click here
