Robert Hunter Biden Indicted

[Flynn]

On 6/11/2024 at 3:01 PM, soundguy said:

Under similar circumstances, an ordinary citizen would not have been indicted. 

 

I would beg to differ, if there were similar circumstances I'm betting an ordinary citizen would have been charged and probably charged with a lot more, there are potentially 400+ crimes detailed on Huter's laptop...  I'm betting if the police came into possession of an ordinary citizen's laptop with that evidence it would have resulted in many more indictments...  But, then again, an ordinary citizen would not have 51 former US intelligence officers and MSM running cover for a discovered laptop either...

Edited June 11, 2024 at 09:56 PM by Flynn

[davel501]

On 6/11/2024 at 4:44 PM, Flynn said:

 

I would beg to differ, if there were similar circumstances I'm betting an ordinary citizen would have been charged and probably charged with a lot more, there are potentially 400+ crimes detailed on Huter's laptop...  I'm betting if the police came into possession of an ordinary citizen's laptop with that evidence it would have resulted in many more indictments...  But, then again, an ordinary citizen would not have 51 former US intelligence officers and MSM running cover for a discovered laptop either...

 

What was the reason for the search of his laptop other than who it belonged to. I don't see law enforcement having probable cause for that search. 

[Flynn]

On 6/11/2024 at 5:17 PM, davel501 said:

What was the reason for the search of his laptop other than who it belonged to. I don't see law enforcement having probable cause for that search. 

 

It was abandoned property any rights Hunter had to the privacy of what was contained on the laptop were abandoned with the laptop at that point...  Later when it was released for public consumption, any probable cause needed to potentially search the laptop contents further or potentially search other things was provided to law enforcement under the plain view doctrine because everything was published all over the Internet and now in plain view...

 

Plus at the time Hunter was already being watched and under investigation for taxes, the FBI was actually present at the grocery store where the gun was dumped and although there is a lot of denials it also appears the Secret Service was running cover and trying to retrieve the 4473 from the gun store at that time...

 

This was no ordinary case from the get-go...

Edited June 11, 2024 at 10:48 PM by Flynn

[fxdpntc]

On 6/11/2024 at 4:37 PM, davel501 said:

 

That's a pretty steep penalty for exercising a constitutional right.

Biden’s attorney is signaling his intent to appeal on 2A grounds, so…got popcorn?

[steveTA84]

On 6/11/2024 at 6:32 PM, fxdpntc said:

Biden’s attorney is signaling his intent to appeal on 2A grounds, so…got popcorn?

Good lol. Pops vs crackhead 

[Flynn]

On 6/11/2024 at 6:32 PM, fxdpntc said:

Biden’s attorney is signaling his intent to appeal on 2A grounds, so…got popcorn?

 

It will be interesting to see if the appeals court allows that since I don't believe a 2nd grounds defense was used in the original trial and appeals courts generally don't like re-litigating the case under new arguments, they want to rule on the issues argued in the lower court...

[soundguy]

On 6/11/2024 at 7:50 PM, Flynn said:

 

It will be interesting to see if the appeals court allows that since I don't believe a 2nd grounds defense was used in the original trial and appeals courts generally don't like re-litigating the case under new arguments, they want to rule on the issues argued in the lower court...

I think the 2A argument was rejected in pre-trial hearings. 
 

Cheers,

Tim

[mauserme]

Some media are reporting that:

 

Hunter Biden’s attorneys cited Bruen, along with the 5th and 3rd Circuit rulings, in a failed bid to dismiss the charges against him, even as the Justice Department has sought to reverse the two rulings and has asked the Supreme Court to review them.

...

Hunter Biden’s legal team argued that it’s “inevitable under the Bruen framework” that Section 922(g)(3), which prohibits drug users from being allowed to own a gun, “violates the Second Amendment,” in a motion to dismiss the charges filed in December....

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2024 at 01:11 AM by mauserme
Added link to quote lost during the copy & paste.

[Flynn]

On 6/11/2024 at 7:54 PM, soundguy said:

I think the 2A argument was rejected in pre-trial hearings. 

 

On 6/11/2024 at 7:59 PM, mauserme said:

Some media are reporting that:

 

Hunter Biden’s attorneys cited Bruen, along with the 5th and 3rd Circuit rulings, in a failed bid to dismiss the charges against him, even as the Justice Department has sought to reverse the two rulings and has asked the Supreme Court to review them.

...

Hunter Biden’s legal team argued that it’s “inevitable under the Bruen framework” that Section 922(g)(3), which prohibits drug users from being allowed to own a gun, “violates the Second Amendment,” in a motion to dismiss the charges filed in December....

 

If it was brought up and argued and dismissed (I was unaware it was) it would then certainly be something an appeals court would consider...  But, that would still leave the crime(s) of lying on the form...

Edited June 12, 2024 at 01:07 AM by Flynn

[mauserme]

Sorry, when I pasted the quote above I lost the link to the motion.  Here it is.

 

 

[mauserme]

On 6/11/2024 at 8:07 PM, Flynn said:

 

 

If it was brought up and argued and dismissed (I was unaware it was) it would then certainly be something an appeals court would consider...  But, that would still leave the crime(s) of lying on the form...

 

Is there an argument to be made that if the underlying law if found to be unconstitutional, then lying about breaking it is moot?

 

 

[Flynn]

On 6/11/2024 at 8:14 PM, mauserme said:

Is there an argument to be made that if the underlying law if found to be unconstitutional, then lying about breaking it is moot?

 

I would argue no, the 4473 question is "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" he lied when he answered no to that because all the evidence pointed that he was in fact an unlawful user...  The gun law that would make him a prohibited person for answering yes, is a separate issue...  Lying on the 4473 is the crime in itself after certifying his statements were true...

 

Even if it's determined that being a drug users doesn't make you a prohibited person knownly lying and certifying you didn't lie, would still be a crime...

[mab22]

On 6/11/2024 at 8:14 PM, mauserme said:

 

Is there an argument to be made that if the underlying law if found to be unconstitutional, then lying about breaking it is moot?

 

 

Then that would condone perjury wouldn’t it? 
Lying or telling the truth only matters if the question is constitutional? 
 

[mauserme]

On 6/11/2024 at 8:49 PM, Flynn said:

 

I would argue no, the 4473 question is "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" he lied when he answered no to that because all the evidence pointed that he was in fact an unlawful user...  The gun law that would make him a prohibited person for answering yes, is a separate issue...  Lying on the 4473 is the crime in itself after certifying his statements were true...

 

Even if it's determined that being a drug users doesn't make you a prohibited person knownly lying and certifying you didn't lie, would still be a crime...

 

If the law itself is unlawful, then answering that you have not committed an unlawful act seems like the only correct answer.

 

Think of it this way.  If it is ruled unconstitutional but the question remains on the 4473, what would Hunter Biden's truthful answer be at that point?  If answering in the negative is the correct answer after that ruling, then how can two different, mutually exclusive  answers both be correct?

 

 

 

 

[Flynn]

On 6/11/2024 at 9:02 PM, mauserme said:

If the law itself is unlawful, then answering that you have not committed an unlawful act seems like the only correct answer.

 

So your argument that the question itself is unconstitutional somehow?

 

I can't see a court ruling that asking someone if they are an unlawful user or addicted to drugs is unconstitutional nor can I see a court giving a free pass to perjury because the question may or may not prevent gun ownership under a law that may or may not later be deemed unconstitutional...  Now in the future if a court rules that denying 2nd rights to drug addicts is unconstitutional and that question was still used to deny the purchase depending on how one truthfully answered it, that would be a problem, but I can't see a court condoning perjury because you don't like the outcome of answering the question truthfully...

[mauserme]

I'm exploring more than arguing but, no, I am not suggesting that the question is unconstitutional.  I am wondering if a law predicted on another, unconstitutional law is enforceable.  And, if not enforceable, is it retroactively unenforceable as would be the predicate law.

 

 

[davel501]

Chatgpt thinks you're rolling the dice if you lie on this form. I haven't checked the references for hallucinations. 

 

Prompt: Can a person be guilty of perjury if the question is unconstitutional?

 

Response: Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. The constitutionality of a question could potentially affect a perjury charge, as the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides protection against self-incrimination. This means that a person cannot be compelled to testify against themselves, which includes providing testimony that could lead to their own criminal conviction.

In the case of **United States v. Dunnigan**, a conviction for perjury resulted in an enhanced sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines because the defendant was found to have willfully impeded the administration of justice¹. However, the Court of Appeals initially found that enhancing a sentence based on a defendant's alleged perjury would be unconstitutional, reasoning that it would apply to every defendant who is convicted after testifying in their own defense¹.

The Supreme Court has also recognized the power to compel testimony and disclosure, provided there is an immunity from prosecution for the compelled testimony. This means that if a person is compelled to testify, they cannot be prosecuted based on that testimony or any information derived from it².

Therefore, if a question is deemed unconstitutional, such as violating the Fifth Amendment rights, it could potentially invalidate a perjury charge. However, this is a complex area of law and the specific circumstances of each case can greatly affect the outcome. It's important to consult with a legal professional for advice on specific legal matters.

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 6/11/2024
(1) United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) - Justia US Supreme Court .... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/87/.
(2) The Power to Compel Testimony and Disclosure - Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/08-power-to-compel-testimony-and-disclosure.html.
(3) Nixon v. United States - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States.

[mab22]

On 6/11/2024 at 10:31 PM, mauserme said:

I'm exploring more than arguing but, no, I am not suggesting that the question is unconstitutional.  I am wondering if a law predicted on another, unconstitutional law is enforceable.  And, if not enforceable, is it retroactively unenforceable as would be the predicate law.

 

 

Has the original/first law been declared unconstitutional? If not found unconstitutional yet, then there is no reason that the subsequent or predicated laws would not be enforceable, correct?

[TomKoz]

Hmmm 🤔,  if a tax on ammo was found unconstitutional … then All taxes collected on that unconstitutional law would be returned to those who paid the tax?

 

Bigger Hmmm 🤔, if a law (PICA) is passed but was later determined unconstitutional would those who didn’t “register” their firearms/accessories/ammo under the PICA law  - would the PICA law still be enforceable and would those who didn’t “register” be guilty of a felony?   LIED - didn’t register!!
 

FUBAR

 

[mauserme]

On 6/11/2024 at 11:09 PM, mab22 said:

Has the original/first law been declared unconstitutional? If not found unconstitutional yet, then there is no reason that the subsequent or predicated laws would not be enforceable, correct?

 

Yes, of course.  As we're discussing, they are currently being enforced against Biden.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yurimodin]

On 6/11/2024 at 3:01 PM, soundguy said:

Under similar circumstances, an ordinary citizen would not have been indicted. 
 

Cheers,

Tim

 

[davel501]

On 6/11/2024 at 5:48 PM, Flynn said:

 

It was abandoned property any rights Hunter had to the privacy of what was contained on the laptop were abandoned with the laptop at that point...  Later when it was released for public consumption, any probable cause needed to potentially search the laptop contents further or potentially search other things was provided to law enforcement under the plain view doctrine because everything was published all over the Internet and now in plain view...

 

Plus at the time Hunter was already being watched and under investigation for taxes, the FBI was actually present at the grocery store where the gun was dumped and although there is a lot of denials it also appears the Secret Service was running cover and trying to retrieve the 4473 from the gun store at that time...

 

This was no ordinary case from the get-go...

 

Right, I don't think a normal person's laptop would be valuable in any way beyond reimaging the hard drive and using the machine as your own.

[RandyP]

Like it or not, several Federal regulations apply when purchasing a firearm, including the 4473 form. Like it or not, wacky weed remains a Federal no-no. I reckon the easiest and simplest way to avoid issues with the Feds would be to NOT smoke wacky weed, or use any other Federally banned drug in the first place, if you choose to be a gun owner/buyer. 

[davel501]

On 6/12/2024 at 9:50 AM, RandyP said:

Like it or not, several Federal regulations apply when purchasing a firearm, including the 4473 form. Like it or not, wacky weed remains a Federal no-no. I reckon the easiest and simplest way to avoid issues with the Feds would be to NOT smoke wacky weed, or use any other Federally banned drug in the first place, if you choose to be a gun owner/buyer. 

 

I keep forgetting that Federal regulations > Bill of Rights.

[RandyP]

On 6/12/2024 at 10:10 AM, davel501 said:

 

I keep forgetting that Federal regulations > Bill of Rights.

No amnesia on my part, but I DO know what can get you a felony conviction in Federal court. A mantra I learned a long time ago was - "You wanna be right or you wanna be happy?"

[mauserme]

On 6/12/2024 at 9:50 AM, RandyP said:

Like it or not, several Federal regulations apply when purchasing a firearm, including the 4473 form. Like it or not, wacky weed remains a Federal no-no. I reckon the easiest and simplest way to avoid issues with the Feds would be to NOT smoke wacky weed, or use any other Federally banned drug in the first place, if you choose to be a gun owner/buyer. 

 

Depending on the next move by Biden's defense the issue may be changing from it being illegal, to whether it can withstand a likely constitutional challenge.

 

 

[Euler]

On June 12, 2024 at 09:22 AM CDT, yurimodin said:→

On 6/11/2024 at 3:01 PM, soundguy said:

Under similar circumstances, an ordinary citizen would not have been indicted.

Cheers,
Tim

After Hunter was charged, the Bidenite assertion was that no one had ever been charged under that law before.

However, 10s of 1000s have been charged. No one has ever been offered diversion. The average length of their sentences is 6 years. In fairness, for most it probably wasn't their first time through the system, either.

Edited June 12, 2024 at 10:30 PM by Euler

[Glock43]

Is the “drug addict” prohibition in the origial text of the Gun Control Act of 1968?

 

or was that prohibibitor added later on, perhaps during the drug war hysteria of the 70’s and 80’s?

[Euler]

At the time of passage (1968) only the first 4 clauses of GCA prohibitions were included. The others were added later. The drug user one [18 USC 922(g)(3)] had slightly different language, since the Controlled Substances Act was two years in the future at the time.

"who is an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana or any depressant or stimulant drug (as defined in section 201(v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or narcotic drug (as defined in section 4731(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954)"

Original text (PDF)

[Euler]

Politico said:→

The nation's top gun control groups are awkwardly avoiding talking about Hunter Biden's gun conviction -- and his widely expected appeal on Second Amendment grounds.

In the day since President Joe Biden's son was found guilty of owning a gun while being a drug user and lying about his drug use on a purchase form, POLITICO asked seven top gun control groups how they are navigating the verdict and likely appeal. Several advocates were asked directly if they believe -- as the president's son argues -- that it is unconstitutional to ban drug users from possessing guns.

Not a single one commented on the case or the broader legal question, underscoring how uncomfortable the politics around the case are for the gun control groups pushing hard for Biden's reelection.
...
The tension was never more apparent than on Tuesday, when just hours after Hunter Biden was found guilty on three felony counts stemming from his 2018 purchase of a handgun, the president delivered remarks at a high-profile event for Everytown for Gun Safety to mark national gun violence prevention month.
...
The president, in his remarks Tuesday, did not mention his son. Instead he touted progress stemming from historic gun legislation he helped pass and a drop in crime, while reiterating previous comments that the Second Amendment does not mean anyone can own a gun no matter what.
...
His campaign sees the issue as a fruitful one -- both as a way to energize base voters and court suburban independent women. It's a messaging strategy that clashes with his son's legal advocacy for a broader view of the Second Amendment.
...
In reaction to the Bruen ruling, the president issued a statement saying he was "deeply disappointed" and that it "contradicts both common sense and the Constitution." He added that the "Second Amendment is not absolute," language that is a staple of his messaging around guns.
...
"Gun control is a politically charged topic," his lawyers wrote last December. But the drug-users prohibition in the Gun Control Act is "indefensible under the Bruen framework" and must be struck down as unconstitutional, they argued.
...
"Countless lives are destroyed every year under the federal government's unconstitutional and immoral regulations. We proudly work to eliminate these laws and create a free world. Just as we have in many other cases, we stand ready to assist Mr. Biden in his challenge of federal gun laws," said FPC President Brandon Combs.