Are the statutes Hunter Biden was charged with, Constitutional?

[Flash]

Are the statutes Hunter Biden was charged with, Constitutional?

Hunter Biden's lawyer claims their defence will include the fact the statutes, his client was charged with, are not Constituional.

What are the thoughts of those on this site?

I think you have identified the scam.

The law he was charged under is illegal under Bruen.

The legal team can win this one.

It will be a win for the right to keep and bear arms but a lost for real justice against the Potatohead family's corruption.

This is a sideshow to take the spotlight off the real crime of corruption and laundering money.

Democrat dirty tricks at work.

He should be charged with a dozen other crimes relating to Potatohead selling government influence to get rich and him being the bag boy.

They are just throwing a bone.

 

[forkup]

Are the statutes Hunter Biden was charged with, Constitutional?

Hunter Biden's lawyer claims their defence will include the fact the statutes, his client was charged with, are not Constituional.

What are the thoughts of those on this site?

Hunter Biden’s Lawyers Intend to Appeal to Bruen in Court | National Review

Joe Biden hates the Supreme Court’s most recent Second Amendment decision. His son, Hunter, seems to love it.

www.nationalreview.com

A federal appeals court ruled in June that the government cannot ban those convicted of nonviolent crimes from possessing a weapon, and a federal court in Texas recently ruled — following a major Supreme Court case last year that expanded gun rights — that the ban on drug users possessing weapons violates the Second Amendment.

This is what you're talking about and the reasoning why. A broad interpretation of the second amendment. I personally disagree with it. Most people on the right seem to have no problem with the broadest possible interpretation of it. Unless of course Hunter Biden violated this particular law.

I also think, and this is ironic. That if Hunter gets convicted he will not only appeal but most likely will prevail on that appeal before SCOTUS precisely because they have the conservative majority and has shown to be very hesitant towards restrictions on the second amendment.

As a last opinion, I don't think Hunter will be convicted. I think the prosecutor. The one those on the right accuse off giving Hunter a sweetheart deal will have a hard time making a charge stick in front of a jury that is rarely ever prosecuted and doesn't include any aggravating circumstances.

Hunter in front of the law is a first time offender and the weapon wasn't used in a crime. This particular statute has been prosecuted about 350 times nationwide. Without being certain I have the feeling that such a rarely used charge will only be brought as a added charge with aggravating circumstances. Stand alone without those a competent defense will probably convince at least one juror it's prosecutorial overreach.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Hunter Biden’s Lawyers Intend to Appeal to Bruen in Court | National Review

Joe Biden hates the Supreme Court’s most recent Second Amendment decision. His son, Hunter, seems to love it.

www.nationalreview.com

A federal appeals court ruled in June that the government cannot ban those convicted of nonviolent crimes from possessing a weapon, and a federal court in Texas recently ruled — following a major Supreme Court case last year that expanded gun rights — that the ban on drug users possessing weapons violates the Second Amendment.

This is what you're talking about and the reasoning why. A broad interpretation of the second amendment. I personally disagree with it. Most people on the right seem to have no problem with the broadest possible interpretation of it. Unless of course Hunter Biden violated this particular law.

I also think, and this is ironic. That if Hunter gets convicted he will not only appeal but most likely will prevail on that appeal before SCOTUS precisely because they have the conservative majority and has shown to be very hesitant towards restrictions on the second amendment.

As a last opinion, I don't think Hunter will be convicted. I think the prosecutor. The one those on the right accuse off giving Hunter a sweetheart deal will have a hard time making a charge stick in front of a jury that is rarely ever prosecuted and doesn't include any aggravating circumstances.

Hunter in front of the law is a first time offender and the weapon wasn't used in a crime. This particular statute has been prosecuted about 350 times nationwide. Without being certain I have the feeling that such a rarely used charge will only be brought as a added charge with aggravating circumstances. Stand alone without those a competent defense will probably convince at least one juror it's prosecutorial overreach.

Why do you think the prosecutors charged him with something that they cannot win?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Leftists for gun rights, WOOOOOOT!!!!!!!

 

[forkup]

Why do you think the prosecutors charged him with something that they cannot win?

First I didn't say they cannot win. I said I don't think they will. A slight but important difference.

As to your question. My educated guess is that actual convictions aren't as important then the political implications of charging the son of the sitting president.

I call it an educated guess because it's happened before. Weiss is 1 of only 2 prosecutors allowed to stay in their position when the administration changed. The other being Durham.

Durham spend something like 3 years to charge 3 people. He secured one guilty plea and went to trial twice. Those trials resulted in 2 aquittals. Not hung juries but 12 jurors deciding to say not guilty. It took them a combined 5 hours to reach those verdicts which is lightning fast for 1 trial let alone 2.
Federal prosecutors have a well over 90 percent success rate in your typical trial.

Yet despite this objectively dismal failure. His report was still touted by both the right wing media and political class as a vindication of a narrative that was never even charged by him.

The political implications were useful although the legal reality wasn't.

 

[Seymour Flops]

First I didn't say they cannot win. I said I don't think they will. A slight but important difference.

Not really. They chose a case whose constitutional validity has already been ruled against. That is black letter bad faith.

As to your question. My educated guess is that actual convictions aren't as important then the political implications of charging the son of the sitting president.

I call it an educated guess because it's happened before. Weiss is 1 of only 2 prosecutors allowed to stay in their position when the administration changed. The other being Durham.

Durham spend something like 3 years to charge 3 people. He secured one guilty plea and went to trial twice. Those trials resulted in 2 aquittals. Not hung juries but 12 jurors deciding to say not guilty. It took them a combined 5 hours to reach those verdicts which is lightning fast for 1 trial let alone 2.
Federal prosecutors have a well over 90 percent success rate in your typical trial.

Yes, a poor performance from the standpoint of convictions.

Yet despite this objectively dismal failure. His report was still touted by both the right wing media and political class as a vindication of a narrative that was never even charged by him.

The political implications were useful although the legal reality wasn't.

Useful to whom, though? Certainly not for the future generations who will pay the debt for such wasteful activities.

To answer my own question: they are charging Hunter in a case sure to be thrown out for the same reason that they allowed Durham to ineffectually pursue some unknowns. They want cover, no matter how thin, for the most colossal waste in the history of American justice, the eight year multiple Intelligence and prosecutorial missions to GET TRUMP!

 

[JWBooth]

Are the statutes Hunter Biden was charged with, Constitutional?

Hunter Biden's lawyer claims their defence will include the fact the statutes, his client was charged with, are not Constituional.

What are the thoughts of those on this site?

I agree. Sad to say Hunter Biden is more pro gun than Donald Trump.

 

[martybegan]

Are the statutes Hunter Biden was charged with, Constitutional?

Hunter Biden's lawyer claims their defence will include the fact the statutes, his client was charged with, are not Constituional.

What are the thoughts of those on this site?

Would Elmer Fucktard be asking this Question if it was Trump being accused of these crimes?

 

[ElmerMudd]

Would Elmer Fucktard be asking this Question if it was Trump being accused of these crimes?

Yes, because I think they are Constitutional.
Hunter Biden should be charged just like any other citizen.
Donald Trump should be charged for criminal acts just like any citizen.

No favortism because who you are.

The rich have a huge advantage in our judicial system because they can afford high priced attorneys.

 

[BlindBoo]

"....that such violations are rarely prosecuted, and that this case is newsworthy only because the man in question is the president’s son."

Unless there are other legal entanglement the punishment is usually you have the gun taken away.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see any exception for using recreational drugs. But then again at one time it took a whole Amendment to outlaw alcohol use nationwide and now we've given the feds the authority to take the draconian WOD worldwide by statute.

The times they are a changin?

 

[martybegan]

Yes, because I think they are Constitutional.
Hunter Biden should be charged just like any other citizen.
Donald Trump should be charged for criminal acts just like any citizen.

No favortism because who you are.

The rich have a huge advantage in our judicial system because they can afford high priced attorneys.

The rich don't usually feel the need to boost someone's stereo.

And the poor don't usually commit multi million dollar ponzi schemes.

A public defender works just fine for robbery and slinging drugs.

 

[ElmerMudd]

"....that such violations are rarely prosecuted, and that this case is newsworthy only because the man in question is the president’s son."

Unless there are other legal entanglement the punishment is usually you have the gun taken away.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see any exception for using recreational drugs. But then again at one time it took a whole Amendment to outlaw alcohol use nationwide and now we've given the feds the authority to take the draconian WOD worldwide by statute.

The times they are a changin?

Addiction is not recreational use. Addicted people make poor decisions. I agree that in many cases there would not be criminal charges. The initial plea deal was closer to what the citizen would get in Hunter Biden's situation and history. But Biden's attorney's played hard ball on agreeing to have no more charges. They took a chance and lost.

I do agree that no matter who you are, you should be treated the same by our justice system. But there is something to be said for a politician who has been fighting hard for gun regulations, son does not comply with current law.

I want more gun regulations but Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, not following current laws does not help that,

 

[ElmerMudd]

The rich don't usually feel the need to boost someone's stereo.

And the poor don't usually commit multi million dollar ponzi schemes.

A public defender works just fine for robbery and slinging drugs.

Talk to someone who has had a public defender. Talk to a public defender. A private lawyer can put more resources to a defense no matter what the crime.

 

[pknopp]

I don't believe they are Constitutional. It will suck for both sides if the Supreme Court gets to rule that way.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

.....orange man bad