Hunter Biden charged with lying on his federal firearms form, but pothead MisterV is just as guilty

[MDawg]

"Status" laws have always been difficult to uphold or enforce. In the 1950s in America there were laws popping up that made it a crime to be an addict. What exactly is or how exactly to define an addict was unclear, and eventually these laws were struck down as unconstitutional, because you can't punish someone for drug addiction because it is a status versus an act, and being an addict doesn't mean that the person has engaged in any illegal conduct. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

In immigration law, it remains on the books that a person who has at any time been a drug addict or abuser may not become a citizen or immigrate to this country, but that law hasn't been enforced in a long time too, and in fact, when an immigrant gets in trouble and is at risk of being removed (deported) proof of rehabilitation is accepted as a defense against removal, even though technically that proof would be evidence of a drug problem to begin with.

In California, the State Bar moral character question as it relates to drug use is whether or not the person's use of drugs or alcohol would presently affect his practice of law.

President Biden's son Hunter is charged in connection with allegedly lying on the application to obtain a firearm by answering No to whether he was addicted to drugs. But this sort of thing gets back again to "status" of whether he was really addicted to drugs in the first place, and then the constitutionality of the law to begin with. Someone could be addicted to drugs or alcohol and still be functioning and another person could be not addicted and drink or use enough to be a danger to himself or others. And how to define whether someone is addicted or not?

I believe the question is “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” and that would make all the potheads in violation of the law as well. Marijuana users typically use the drug daily, and even if not, marijuana remains illegal at the federal level.
Anyway, I am sure that Biden's attorneys will challenge the constitutionality of the law besides trying to make a factual defense on the grounds of that he wasn't addicted. The unlawful use, if he was using something other than marijuana, may get tricky, but still the question as a whole seems to proscribe status versus any specific act, which gets back to those old 1950's anti-addict laws, which were all struck down.

Today, being under the influence of an illegal drug is against the law, being under the influence of anything legal or not to the point where you're a danger to yourself or others is illegal, but simply being an addict or abuser of drugs is not a crime. In a state like Nevada, for example, they essentially don't even have an under the influence law because it's so hard to enforce it, absent some other crime being committed (i.e. driving under the influence) the police need a search warrant just to gather the evidence (blood test, etc.) to make a case. Driving impaired - Nevada prosecutes. Walking around loaded - as long as the person isn't bothering anyone and is staying away from the high rollers on the Strip - is left alone.

[tableplay]

I believe the idea here was to appease the public by going after Hunter Biden for something that won't stick, like you wrote (or which could be plead down to a nothingburger rather than its current slightly-worse-than-a-nothingburger status), rather than for his traitorous activities with the Chinese and Ukrainians since these would carry more than just a slap on the wrist and of course would legally expose the Big Guy during discovery.

[Gottlob1]

It doesn't bode well for anyone if even the people supposedly with everything invariably end up never really knowing what they're doing, or, why, and, so, they, too, die like dogs. Like the old DeMango line, "After everything is said and done, there's more said then done." No regulation of the big rich is a recipe for a different sort and degree of psychopath.


Gottlob1 Gottlob1 is online now
Gold
Gottlob1's AvatarJoin Date
Jul 2023
Posts
216 -------------------------------------> 6*6*6

[MDawg]

A conservative appeals court just ruled against the federal gun law used to charge Hunter Biden

"Our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage," Smith wrote. "Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users."

[Gottlob1]

Guns are a waste of time, money, and life, to begin with. Certainly, no match for the government's.

People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.

We detected much larger differences for particular types of homicide. Most notably, people living with handgun owners were seven times more likely to be shot by their spouse or intimate partner. In many of these cases, instead of being protective, the household gun probably operated as the instrument of death.

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/

[accountinquestion]

Guns are a waste of time, money, and life, to begin with. Certainly, no match for the government's.

Tell that to the victims of Hamas or perhaps Hamas themselves.

I get a kick out of liberal Jews and their love of gun control.

You think that if the Jews of the WWII ghettos had the equivalent of assault rifles that many of them would have been hauled off? It would be hard to procure food and such but I can't imagine the situation of the abducted Jew being worse due to lack of gun control. Tanks don't work so well in cities like that and otherwise the Germany basically opens up internal battle lines. I've never read a good explanation why this isn't true.

[DGenBen]

Guns are a waste of time, money, and life, to begin with. Certainly, no match for the government's.

Tell that to the victims of Hamas or perhaps Hamas themselves.

I get a kick out of liberal Jews and their love of gun control.

You think that if the Jews of the WWII ghettos had the equivalent of assault rifles that many of them would have been hauled off? It would be hard to procure food and such but I can't imagine the situation of the abducted Jew being worse due to lack of gun control. Tanks don't work so well in cities like that and otherwise the Germany basically opens up internal battle lines. I've never read a good explanation why this isn't true.

And also tell that to the Afghans. Mountain people and goat herders who defeated not just one, but two nuclear armed superpowers.