newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
Hunter Biden’s lawyers angrily told prosecutors in open court to “break it anyway,” after his lover’s deal with the Justice Department had spectacularly collapsed in court. But the lawyers don’t seem to be willing to break a part of the contract, the diversion agreement to avoid charges of making false statements to obtain a gun license. The defense now argues in court that the agreement was final and complete because both sides signed the agreement before the implosion.
The Justice Department has a different idea. He claims that neither the probation officer nor the court agreed to finalize the plea bargain. In fact, it was the blanket immunity language embedded in the firearms section that prompted the court to flag the play. Therefore, the Justice Department is now committed to indicting Hunter by the end of this month.
But Hunter insists the Justice Department needs to pry the deal out of his cold, dead fingers. In fact, the president’s son may have embraced more than the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) catchphrase. If the court rejects the diversion agreement that was signed, Hunter could make a claim that puts President Biden in a bind.
Comertorch National Archives Fight Over Unredacted Hunter Business Emails: ‘I Believe There’s More’
One obvious attack on accusations is to argue that the underlying law itself is unconstitutional.
A courtroom sketch depicting Hunter Biden in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware, July 26, 2023. (Courtesy: William J. Hennessy Jr.)
Under 18 USC § 922(g)(3), “illegal users or addicts of controlled substances,” including marijuana, are prohibited from possessing firearms and can be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.
However, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently ruled in US v. Daniels that the law violates the Second Amendment. A man was arrested in the case with marijuana and two loaded firearms. The Fifth Circuit relied on the Supreme Court decision of Bruen v. New York Rifle Association, which stated that firearms laws must conform to the nation’s “historic tradition of firearms control.”
President Joe Biden has condemned Mr. Bruen as a de facto abomination and has been a vocal supporter of the underlying legislation. But Mr. Hunter could get caught up in strange company as he tries to avoid federal prosecution.
In an opinion on appeal, Justice Jerry E. Smith said, “While our nation’s history and tradition may support certain restrictions on the right of an intoxicated person to bear arms, they are not based solely on past drug use.” It does not justify the disarmament of sober citizens through
It sounds intriguingly familiar, but is it enough for Hunter to be Wayne Lapierre entirely?
If so, this wouldn’t be the first time Hunter has gone down a path his father has previously accused others of. For example, Joe Biden has lashed out at his “dead father” for decades despite his son’s years of trying to avoid paying child support to Landen Alexis Roberts. . Mr. Hunter continued to fight his support for his daughter, Mr. Navy, for years after he was recognized as the father in court. Joe Biden himself, who routinely left her off the list of her grandchildren, only recently acknowledged her Navy presence.
But the president may not be ready for his son to join real hunters in advocating sweeping gun rights protections involving drug users.
In making this argument, Hunter said references to gun ownership by “law-abiding citizens” in past lawsuits, such as the District of Columbia v. Heller v. Bruen, were used to eliminate all those who broke the law. I would have to argue that it should not be interpreted.
Gun charges against Hunter Biden are so looming that defending them could lead the president’s son to argue the law is unconstitutional. FILE: Hunter Biden exits the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building in Delaware, USA on July 26, 2023. (Photo credit: Celal Gunes/Anadolu Agency, Getty Images)
Justice Smith, citing an earlier decision in the United States v. Rahimi case, rejected a federal ban on gun possession by those subject to domestic violence orders. In its ruling, the court held that the phrase should be construed as a “shorthand” to imply “those who have historically been ‘disenfranchised’ with the Second Amendment.”
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONS
Governments have argued in the 17th and 18th centuries (and they probably will in Biden’s case) that there were laws against public possession and firing of firearms while intoxicated. . However, the Fifth Circuit dismissed this historic allegation, stating, “Based on the government’s reasoning, Congress decided that gun possession by persons who drink more than one alcoholic beverage per week would be prohibited under the post-war Drunken Persons Carrying Act. The method of class reasoning as prescribed by Bruen cannot be extended to that extent.” . ”
The government has tried to use other laws banning the use of guns on mentally ill or dangerous people as historical analogues, but courts will not allow them. In fact, Mr. Hunter may end up arguing that too often people are denied rights by governments under the claim that they are “rebels.” Sound familiar?
But the president may not be ready for his son to join real hunters in advocating sweeping gun rights protections involving drug users.
The government points out how “the founding-era government took guns away from people who were considered dangerous.” However, the Fifth Circuit noted that these laws target unpopular people, including Catholics, as near-rebels to the revolution. Smith said drug users were “not the class of political traitors that the British Loyalists perceived, nor were Catholics and other religious dissenters, who were seen as potential rebels.” No,” he wrote.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Therefore, rejecting the gun diversion deal could be an even bigger diversion for the Biden family, as Hunter embraces the very decisions and rights his father has long opposed. Meanwhile, the Justice Department will cite historical precedents in which weapons were used against Catholics (such as the Bidens) as unreliable potential rebels.
Of course, White House Press Secretary Carine Jean-Pierre could defend all of this by paraphrasing, in the NRA’s words, “the only thing that stops bad guys with guns.” [case] good guy with a gun [case]. ”
Click here to read more about Jonathan Turley
