Hunter Biden to rely on 2nd Amendment ruling, concerning his father.
Hunter Biden’s Legal Boost: A Second Amendment Case and the Supreme Court
President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, may find an unexpected source of support in a Second Amendment case recently decided by the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court. The president himself expressed concern over the ruling, stating that it should “deeply trouble us all.”
On Tuesday, Hunter Biden, 53, is expected to plead not guilty in Delaware to charges of unlawfully possessing a gun as an illegal drug user and lying about his drug use on a background check form when he purchased a Colt Cobra revolver in 2018.
The Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen established a new standard for evaluating the legality of government-imposed gun restrictions. The court declared that these restrictions must align with the U.S. “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The indictment against Hunter Biden was obtained in September by Special Counsel David Weiss after a plea agreement between Hunter Biden and prosecutors fell through in August. Abbe Lowell, Biden’s defense attorney, has hinted at challenging parts of the indictment based on the Bruen decision.
Legal experts anticipate that Hunter Biden, who has admitted to past cocaine use, will argue for the dismissal of the possession charge by asserting that the federal law prohibiting gun ownership for illegal drug users lacks historical precedent and violates his Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms” under the Constitution.
President Joe Biden criticized the Bruen ruling upon its release, citing a series of mass shootings and emphasizing that the decision should concern everyone. However, Hunter Biden’s defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, refrained from commenting on the implications of the Bruen ruling in this particular case.
Democrats typically support gun restrictions, while Republicans tend to oppose them. Therefore, a challenge to a federal firearms law by the son of a Democratic president would disrupt the usual political dynamics surrounding gun control.
Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, remarked, “There would be some irony if a case greatly expanding Second Amendment rights is titled Biden v. United States.”
Ongoing cases will determine the extent to which the Bruen ruling allows courts to invalidate gun laws. Andrew Willinger, executive director of Duke University’s Center for Firearms Law, stated, “The Bruen decision has created a great deal of uncertainty in terms of which gun laws are constitutional and which may not be.”
One U.S. appeals court has already concluded that the drug-related statute relevant to Hunter Biden’s case may be unconstitutional in certain circumstances, based on the Bruen precedent. In a case involving a marijuana user, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled in August that disarming a sober citizen solely due to past drug use lacks justification in U.S. history and tradition.
Hunter Biden’s legal team may reference this ruling from the Fifth Circuit in their challenge against the drug-related possession charge.
While the dismissal of the possession charge remains uncertain, Hunter Biden still faces two counts of making false statements on the background check form. Experts suggest that these counts may be more challenging to dispute, as they resemble charges unrelated to firearms that criminalize lying to the U.S. government on significant matters.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on another gun regulation case in Texas on November 7. This case involves whether individuals under domestic violence restraining orders can be prohibited from possessing firearms. The court’s decision, expected by the end of June, may clarify the level of danger a person must pose to be barred from gun ownership.
Eric Ruben, a law professor at Southern Methodist University, believes that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Texas case could have a significant impact on Hunter Biden’s situation.
(Reporting by Andrew Goudsward in Washington and Nate Raymond in Boston; editing by Will Dunham and Scott Malone)
How does the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen potentially support Hunter Biden’s defense in his Second Amendment case?
Hunter Biden’s Legal Boost: A Second Amendment Case and the Supreme Court
President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, may find an unexpected source of support in a Second Amendment case recently decided by the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court. The president himself expressed concern over the ruling, stating that it should “deeply trouble us all.”
On Tuesday, Hunter Biden, 53, is expected to plead not guilty in Delaware to charges of unlawfully possessing a gun as an illegal drug user and lying about his drug use on a background check form when he purchased a Colt Cobra revolver in 2018.
The Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen established a new standard for evaluating the legality of government-imposed gun restrictions. The court declared that these restrictions must align with the U.S. “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The indictment against Hunter Biden was obtained in September by Special Counsel David Weiss after a plea agreement between Hunter Biden and prosecutors fell through in August. Abbe Lowell, Biden’s defense attorney, has hinted at challenging parts of the indictment based on the Bruen decision.
Legal experts anticipate that Hunter Biden, who has admitted to past cocaine use, will argue for the dismissal of the possession charge by asserting that the federal law prohibiting gun ownership for illegal drug users lacks historical precedent and violates his Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms” under the Constitution.
President Joe Biden criticized the Bruen ruling upon its release, citing a series of mass shootings and emphasizing that the decision should concern everyone. However, Hunter Biden’s defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, refrained from commenting on the implications of the Bruen ruling in this particular case.
Democrats typically support gun restrictions, while Republicans tend to oppose them. Therefore, a challenge to a federal firearms law by the son of a Democratic president would disrupt the usual political dynamics surrounding gun control.
Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, remarked, “There would be some irony if a case greatly expanding Second Amendment rights is titled Biden v. United States.”
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...