Why Hunter Biden Shouldn’t Be Charged In Gun Trial

News broke this morning that Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, was found guilty by a jury for three counts involving a purchase of a handgun. The most serious of the three charges levied against the younger Biden was a charge for lying on an ATF background check form.

Hunter Biden, in order to purchase a gun, filled out an ATF background check form in which he stated that he did not have an addiction to any controlled substances. Prosecutors say that Hunter Biden falsely answered no to the question of “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

At the time, Biden was addicted to crack cocaine, and according to testimony from his trial, was using the drug up to every 20 minutes.

While it may seem on its face like Hunter Biden is clearly guilty in this trial, several adjudicated cases from federal courts across the United States have given life to legal arguments that should vindicate Hunter Biden, and erase the charges against him in his gun trial.

An Unfollowed Precedent In Federal Court Reaffirms Second Amendment

A precedent has been set in federal court recent years that citizens cannot be punished for using drugs while also owning a firearm.

In the case of a Mississippi man who was sentenced to four years in prison after police found firearms and marijuana cigarette butts in his vehicle, a new legal precedent was set regarding the Second Amendment rights of drug users.

In 2023, a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the federal law against drug users owning firearms violated a Mississippi man’s right to “keep and bear arms” under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

A Judge said in that ruling,

“Throughout American history, laws have regulated the combination of guns and intoxicating substances. But at no point in the 18th or 19th century did the government disarm individuals who used drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another. … In short, 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. Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users.”

The decades-old law prohibiting users of illegal drugs from owning firearms was ruled unconstitutional in that case.

While the charges are technically not the same in Hunter Biden’s case, as the President’s son was charged with lying on an ATF form, and a much more coherent charge than was levied at this Mississippi man, the gist of the legal argument is nearly identical.

Drug users, as determined by the federal court of appeals, cannot broadly be denied access to their Second Amendment rights on the basis of their use of substances.

The larger question at hand, which was left unrelieved in the Hunter Biden case, and the Mississippi case, is the legality of the ATF’s question about drug use included in the universal ATF background check form.

By what authority does the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ask the question about drug use on the form, which many legal scholars question the entire legality of in the first place.

Is The Type Of Drug Being Used Important?

In the case of the Mississippi man in question, he was accused of using marijuana. Hunter Biden recorded himself smoking crack cocaine.

My legal question becomes, based on these facts, is there a difference, or should their be a difference, in the law’s view of somebody who uses crack cocaine, and somebody who uses marijuana?

Was Hunter Biden punished more severely than the precedent had indicated he would be because of the seriousness of the substance he was abusing? Furthermore, should authorities make a distinction between the use of more serious drugs like cocaine and heroin over more common and less dangerous drugs like marijuana?

What Will Happen To Hunter Biden?

It’s most likely, based on information provided to Slingshot News by several sources, that Hunter Biden will not receive a harsh legal penalty for his infraction in regards to the ATF form.

He will most likely be given parole, and will gladly take a light sentencing over an appeal process that could end up with the President’s son serving an extended sentence in prison.

The maximum sentence for Biden’s gun charges is 25 years.

President Joe Biden has already claimed that he will not pardon his son Hunter Biden, and will respect the decision of the Judge and Jury in this matter.

The President held a press conference shortly after the verdict in Hunter Biden’s trial, touting gun control measures that his Administration plans to implement following the hearing.

Unfortunately, this decision to further expand gun restrictions, which have a questionable basis in legality, is exactly the opposite of what needs to occur. In order to achieve a victory for the people of the United States, Hunter Biden must appeal this case.

Grounds For An Appeal That Would Affirm Second Amendment Rights Nationwide

Hunter Biden has the budget, and the status, to wage a legal war against the ATF for their wrongful pursuit of charges against him.

Unlike millions of Americans who work paycheck-to-paycheck, Hunter Biden is a wealthy man. He has resources to wage legal battle.

Hunter Biden could be the lone individual capable, at this time, of successfully going after the legality of ATF form 4473.

Considering that there have been multiple rulings affirming the Second Amendment rights of drug users in the United States, it is evident that the legality of ATF Form 4473 in its current incarnation is certainly is certainly questionable, and ripe for challenging.

It would appear, based on all evidence absent Hunter Biden’s recent ruling, that a successful appeal of this verdict may be entirely possible.

While he may remain a controversial political figure, Hunter Biden has an opportunity to orchestrate a truly crucial legal battle to affirm the Constitutional rights of millions of Americans.