Hunter Biden indicted, federal gun charges, Sept 2023

[Kudzuu]

The Supreme Court is requiring an appeals court to review a ruling on a case with the same charge Hunter was charged with.

This is kind of hard to follow, but what I'm getting out of the story is that if the appeals court decides it's not legal to restrict gun ownership if someone has a drug problem, then it could also affect Hunter's conviction.

MOO

What am I missing?

Supreme Court orders another review of gun charge behind Hunter Biden's conviction

The Supreme Court told another defendant convicted of the same gun charge as Hunter Biden to have his conviction reviewed again at the appeals court.

www.usatoday.com

Good heavens! This is all we need now is to say a drug addict's rights are violated. This is just as nonsensical as to say a president is immune to prosecution while conducting presidential business.

All my opinions.

Where are my rights as a law abiding citizen for the pursuit of happiness while drug crazed people, or mentally unstable people play shoot em up because they claim to fear for their life? What about my rights to my body? What about the rights to children to go to school to learn and not be sitting ducks for some person to hunt them down with an assault rifle that can legally be modified into an automatic weapon?

Common sense people!

Just had to get that off my chest. I'm sure I have lots of company.

 

[Inthedetails]

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, it does seem like a bit of a mess.

I wonder if Hunter's conviction would be thrown out if the courts determine it's not constitutional to ban drug users from owning firearms.

I mean, he lied on the application, but if it's determined that question should never have been on the application...

It's pretty confusing.

It is confusing and I'm thinking since domestic abusers can own guns perhaps that opens the door to drug users being able to own guns.

Lovely situation all around. (not)

jmo

 

[GRT]

It is confusing and I'm thinking since domestic abusers can own guns perhaps that opens the door to drug users being able to own guns.

Lovely situation all around. (not)

jmo

And, I'm thinking, what defines what a drug abuser is or isn't?

If I take an extra Midol, am I an abuser? Or does it have to be an illegal drug? Or, a legal drug that was illegally obtained?

It seems like there's so much wiggle room there.

It'll be interesting to see what they do with this.

Years ago, the owner of a nightclub told me that they never allow firearms in the club. He was very clear about "drinking and guns" not being a good mix. I agree. But, alcohol is also a drug.

Like you said, thing are messy.

 

[IceIce9]

It is confusing and I'm thinking since domestic abusers can own guns perhaps that opens the door to drug users being able to own guns.

Lovely situation all around. (not)

jmo

I heard a commentator state “Just because someone has a mental illness or a history of domestic violence is no reason to deny their second amendment right to own firearms.”

What kind of world are we living in?

 

[GRT]

I heard a commentator state “Just because someone has a mental illness or a history of domestic violence is no reason to deny their second amendment right to own firearms.”

What kind of world are we living in?

The Wild West. If some get their way.

 

[PrairieWind]

The Supreme Court is requiring an appeals court to review a ruling on a case with the same charge Hunter was charged with.

This is kind of hard to follow, but what I'm getting out of the story is that if the appeals court decides it's not legal to restrict gun ownership if someone has a drug problem, then it could also affect Hunter's conviction.

MOO

What am I missing?

Supreme Court orders another review of gun charge behind Hunter Biden's conviction

The Supreme Court told another defendant convicted of the same gun charge as Hunter Biden to have his conviction reviewed again at the appeals court.

www.usatoday.com

The case involving the drug conviction was remanded back to the 5th Circuit to reconsider (I think that case was originally out of Miss or Louisianna?). The SC essentially saying, re-read our opinion and try again. But regardless, it is 5th circuit (which includes Delaware). So any finding there is not binding upon Hunter's case which is in the 3rd Circuit.

 

[mickey2942]

I believe that it is the same conundrum that has been happening in many areas, about Marijuana use, which is completely legal in almost half of the states, yet Marijuana is still considered an illegal drug by federal law.

This issue will hit the Supreme Court at some point in time, and it will be interesting to see the outcome. Because, if Marijuana use is legalized by the federal government, that opens a new can of worms, regarding Medical use of Marijuana, and health insurance coverage. Medicaid recipients could receive Marijuana courtesy of tax payers.

It really is a crazy mess.

Back to HB, this ruling could be interesting, because if the law is repealed, and retroactive it will affect literally 1,000s of people currently in federal prison with the exact same charges. Illegal drug use, lying on a federal document, and purchasing a gun while using illegal drugs and being an addict.

It has much further implications...if lying on federal forms is waived, imagine all of the people in prison for federal tax evasion.

 

[mickey2942]

The case involving the drug conviction was remanded back to the 5th Circuit to reconsider (I think that case was originally out of Miss or Louisianna?). The SC essentially saying, re-read our opinion and try again. But regardless, it is 5th circuit (which includes Delaware). So any finding there is not binding upon Hunter's case which is in the 3rd Circuit.

Interesting, so the Supreme Court just punts it back down. Sidestepping any issues.

 

[PrairieWind]

It is confusing and I'm thinking since domestic abusers can own guns perhaps that opens the door to drug users being able to own guns.

Lovely situation all around. (not)

jmo

The Court upheld prohibitions for domestic violence abusers, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

 

[PrairieWind]

Interesting, so the Supreme Court just punts it back down. Sidestepping any issues.

They aren't "punting" the case, just saying "re-consider what you did because you didn't read our opinion correctly.

 

[Inthedetails]

The Court upheld prohibitions for domestic violence abusers, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

I stand corrected. I thought the opposite. Appreciate the correction.

 

[GatorFL]

Good heavens! This is all we need now is to say a drug addict's rights are violated. This is just as nonsensical as to say a president is immune to prosecution while conducting presidential business.

All my opinions.

Where are my rights as a law abiding citizen for the pursuit of happiness while drug crazed people, or mentally unstable people play shoot em up because they claim to fear for their life? What about my rights to my body? What about the rights to children to go to school to learn and not be sitting ducks for some person to hunt them down with an assault rifle that can legally be modified into an automatic weapon?

Common sense people!

Just had to get that off my chest. I'm sure I have lots of company.

BBM: this is still illegal. One cannot modify a rifle and legally make it into an automatic weapon. And no, a bump stock does not make a rifle an automatic rifle.

As always, JMO.