After the spectacular collapse of his sweetheart deal with the Justice Department in court, Hunter Biden’s lawyer angrily told the prosecutors in open court to “just rip it up.” It appears, however, that the defense team does not want to shred one part of the deal: the diversion agreement to avoid any charge over his false statement to obtain a gun permit. The defense is now arguing that, since the two sides signed the agreement before the implosion in court, it is final and complete.
The Justice Department thinks otherwise. It is arguing that neither the probation officer nor the Court agreed to the plea agreement to finalize it. Indeed, it was the sweeping immunity language buried in the gun charge section that led the Court to throw a flag on the play. Accordingly, the Justice Department is now pledging to indict Hunter by the end of the month.
Hunter, however, is insisting that the Justice Department will have to pry the agreement from his cold, dead fingers. Indeed, the President’s son may be channeling more from the National Rifle Association (NRA) than its catchline. If the court rejects the diversion agreement as executed, Hunter could be making an argument that will leave the Biden White House in something of a pickle.
One obvious attack against a charge is to argue that the underlying law itself is unconstitutional.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” including marijuana, is barred from possessing a gun and can face up to 10 years in prison.
However, recently the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the law violated the Second Amendment in United States v. Daniels. The case involved a man who was arrested in possession of marijuana and two loaded firearms. The Fifth Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen v. New York Rifle & Pistol Association, which established that firearms laws must conform with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
President Biden denounced Bruen as a virtual abomination and has been a vocal supporter of the underlying law. Hunter, however, may now find himself in strange company in seeking to avoid any federal charge.
In the appellate opinion, Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote that “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.”
That sounds tantalizingly familiar, but is it enough for Hunter to go full Wayne LaPierre?
If so, this would not be the first time that Hunter followed a path that his father has previously condemned in others. For example, for decades, Joe Biden has railed against “deadbeat dads” despite his son’s long effort to avoid paying child support to Lunden Alexis Roberts. Hunter spent years fighting support for his daughter Navy, even after a court confirmed that he was her father. Joe Biden himself only recently acknowledged the existence of Navy after routinely excluding her from the list of his grandchildren.
Yet, the President may not be quite ready for his son to join actual hunters in advocating for sweeping gun rights protections, including for drug users.
In making the argument, Hunter will have to claim that references to gun ownership by “law-abiding citizens” in past cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and Bruen should not be read to exclude everyone who breaks the law. Judge Smith cites a prior ruling in United States v. Rahimi, rejecting the federal ban on gun possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. In that decision, the court held that the phrase should be read as “shorthand” alluding to “people who were historically ‘stripped of their Second Amendment rights.'”
The government has argued (and would likely argue in the Biden case) that there were laws from the 17th and 18th centuries barring people from publicly carrying or firing guns while intoxicated. However, the Fifth Circuit rejected the historical claim and noted that “under the government’s reasoning, Congress could ban gun possession by anyone who has multiple alcoholic drinks a week…based on the postbellum intoxicated carry laws. The analogical reasoning Bruen prescribed cannot stretch that far.”
The government has tried to use other laws barring guns to the mentally ill and dangerous individuals as historical analogs, but the court would have none of it. Indeed, Hunter could find himself arguing that people are too often denied rights by the government under claims that they are “insurrectionists.” Sound familiar?
The government has pointed to how “Founding-era governments took guns away from persons perceived to be dangerous.” However, the Fifth Circuit noted that those laws targeted unpopular people, including Catholics, as akin to traitors to the Revolution. Judge Smith wrote that drug users “are not a class of political traitors, as British Loyalists were perceived to be. Nor are they like Catholics and other religious dissenters who were seen as potential insurrectionists.”
So, a rejection of the gun diversion agreement could prove an even greater diversion for the Biden family as Hunter embraces the very decisions and rights long opposed by his father. In the meantime, the Justice Department would be citing historical precedent used against Catholics (like the Bidens) as potential insurrectionists who cannot be trusted with weapons.
Of course, White House Press Spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre could defend all of this by paraphrasing the NRA that the “only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun [case] is a good guy with a gun [case].”
One is reminded of the embarrassing indignity of being raised on one’s own petard….
Better to go Full NRA than Full IRA
GO FULL NRA?
DOES 18 U.S.C S 922(g)(3) UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AMEND THE CONSTITUTION?
DOES “CARRY PERMIT” MEAN “KEEP AND BEAR”?
IS THE 2ND AMENDMENT NOT A “CARRY PERMIT”?
Are these questions revealing?
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is unambiguous, direct, and clear.
Anti-American, anti-Constitution communists don’t get to change it.
That one does not like the 2nd Amendment does not bear.
And yet, the Justices of the Supreme Court who have sworn an oath to “support” the literal, manifest tenor of the Constitution just can’t, for the life of them, understand or grasp fundamental law.
For that dereliction and negligence, all involved must be impeached and convicted, and Congressmen and Senators who fail to accomplish that must be similarly impeached and convicted.
Americans have the absolute right to keep and bear arms.
American citizens are not asking for or requesting that right; they possess it over any conception or power of any branch of government or any elected official.
The 2nd Amendment is not a suggestion; it is a possession of citizens of the United States.
No entity has even a scintilla of power to withdraw, modify, or abolish that right, other than through the prescribed constitutional amendment process.
Any branch of government or citizen that challenges the authority of the Constitution and the rights of citizens must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for subversion and treason.
Of course, until recent centuries, the penalty for challenging the authority of the Sovereign, engaging in subversion, and committing treason in Great Britain, from whence much of American law was derived, was Drawing and Quartering.
I would recommend something this side of that obviously cruel and unusual punishment; it is evident that I could be outvoted.
Does anyone know how to get in touch with Jonathan Turley?
I’m with ZeroHedge and trying to book him for a debate on the Trump indictments (pairing him with a prominent Bush lawyer). I cannot find a good email (other than his GW email which is no good).
email is liam.co20@gmail.com
Check for his GWU email addy.
Man, I really hate it when the bug boy gets his Fani handed to him and it all gets wiped out because he pitches a tantrum when proven wrong. I guess I’ll just have to wait for Dennis’ daily lies to have some more fun.
To summarize:
Lying on an official form that bears notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable, is by definition PERJURY.
Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-10-101 Perjury I
Written statements shall be treated as if made under oath if [Read as appropriate]: a. The statement was made on or pursuant to form bearing notice, authorized by law, to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable; (OR) b. The statement recites that it was made under oath, the declarant was aware of such recitation at the time he/she made the statement and intended that the statement should be represented as a sworn statement, and the statement was in fact so represented by its delivery or utterance with the signed jurat of an officer authorized to administer oaths appended thereto. [13A-10-100(b)(3)]
How can I get in touch with Turley? I’m with ZeroHedge. We are putting on a live debate on the Trump indictments and want him to join.
My email is liam.co20@gmail.com if anyone knows how (not his GW email address).
Tom,
It is comical to see all bugs time and effort go up in a digital poof.
But it is also nice to see how much more professional the blog looks once his dumb comments are gone.
I know it is gone but I mentioned before, taking my own advice, just scroll past. Feeding into him feeds into his feeble ego.
And all my brilliant legal analysis got deleted along with it. 😉
Perjury is only a crime if the lie is material. If the law is unconstitutional, then the lie was immaterial, and therefore not perjured.
The idea of using the NRA argument is wrong.
Biden lied on his 4473 which is the felony.
The idea is that if they promise to charge him… they can keep Weiss in as Special Prosecutor.
Again, why isn’t anyone talking about the on going conspiracy to protect the Bidens?
That would remove any issue over the statute of limitations.
Probably for the same reason(s) almost no one is talking about the 25th amendment.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-is-no-one-discussing-the-25th-amendment-for-joe-biden/ar-AA1got2B?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=182f990804c14e2c940301e9152b430e&ei=9
“This is a national security issue at this point. It really is,” he said. “Biden doesn’t know what’s going on with Ukraine,” Jackson explained. “He doesn’t know what’s going on with anything. He’s not cognitively capable of leading.” ~ story
– An NRA is wholly unnecessary and moot.
– An ATF Form 4473 is invalid, illegitimate and unconstitutional as U.S. citizens possess the absolute right to keep and bear arms, without further qualification, per the 2nd Amendment.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No right is absolute and that includes the 2nd Amendment.
But it’s only a felony if the statute is valid. If the statute barring drug users from owning guns is invalid, then lying about his drug use was not perjury, because it was immaterial.
Never underestimate Biden and the Democrats hypocrisy.
The Hunter Biden indictment is merely political theater. It’s simply an attempt to deceive the public into believing that the DOJ is “fair and balanced.” But, in reality, the Two-Tiered System of Justice at the DOJ is unchanged and Hunter Biden remains a member of the protected Tier.
The DOJ similarly indicted Ray Epps to attempt to deceive the public into believing that Epps was not an agent provocateur, working directly for the U.S. Government or indirectly (via an FBI controlled shell company). But that too was political theater.
The DOJ’s real objective in each case is to protect the criminals and to run out the clock. That legal pundits have been discussing these indictments as though they were genuine demonstrates that the DOJ’s bogus schemes are working.
The main trust on form (ATF 4473 question ‘f’) is [ADDICTED TO] which reads in total: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” [Addicted] is a relative word with an open interpretation. Black’s Law Dictionary reads: ‘The habitual user of any habit-forming drug such as a narcotic, tranquilizer, hallucinatory drug or amphetamines’ which then opens up the meaning of [habitual], again using Black’s ‘a word that means a thing is usual and customary and is repeated’, going further into meanings what is Usual and Customary. Usual and Customary are relative to the individual, in the early 1900’s there was an Armenian Oil Man Calouste Gulbenkian who smoked one cigarette a day at afternoon tea, is that an addictive behavior. Going deeper into another word on question ‘f’ a need arises to define [user]. To what amount of any substance, drug or product can you find a substantial meaning for user? Example: “you’re at a party and marijuana of some form is offered, you partake”, then it just so happens your arrested and a blood sample is taken, and marijuana is found, and it’s discovered you had just made application under 4473 and checked no on question ‘f’ could you not be found guilty of perjury? The question ‘f’ is open to all sorts of interpretations allowing disproportionate judgments to be administered. The question is an example of placing the cart before the horse and making judgments before fault of law. I am not a fan of Hunter, but using this avenue to pursue him is wrong, he has not been found guilty of any crime which would preclude the purchase of a weapon. Again, who determines the meaning of ADDICTION?
The Form does not just say “addicted”. It says, are you an unlawful user of, OR addicted to…
If you want to go to court and argue that “are” means you were under the influence of crack at the moment you filled out the form, good luck.
You made my point the wording is non-sensual. When laws are written without specificity, I become concerned about the character of the judgment of the interpreter. Asking an addict if they are addicted is like asking a Democrat if they lie! Additionally, to define ARE, is that now, or WILL BE?
Turley’s colleague @ Fox news of all places, Andrew McCarthy, is knocking it out of the park. .. and on a roll.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hunter-biden-s-expected-indictment-never-forget-they-think-we-re-idiots/ar-AA1gn0qh?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=60ecb3c6ee144fbaa366862a73dc084d&ei=10
*I submit, should any of the Biden’s past involvement in Ukraine be tied/linked to the disastrous/catastrophic conflict there now, a change of venue is order to the ICC … the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
Can’t help changing the subject but Whoopi Goldberg has Covid. She’s in her bedroom alone wearing a mask. She echoed Joe Biden when he said “If you get the shot you wont get Covid.” What do these two things have in common? “If you get the shot you won’t get Covid” and “I never met with any of my sons business partners.”
Hopefully she”ll continue to wear the mask. Joy needs a mask too.
Or maybe a muzzle!
Whoopie Goldberg is a gift from Darwinism. Any population stupid enough to look to her for medical information is already half way to going extinct.
I’ve been on a new diet weight loss program. It works! I’ve been taking better shits than Whoopi Goldberg.
I doubt that. Whoopi is full of it. .. not to impugn your prodigious bowel movements.
*also, Whoopi is a jedi master of wiffle-yoga.
That is an interesting condescending & impudent reply. I’m going to sit on the throne & squeeze a turtle; some say it’s the monk’s way of meditation.
Get vaxxed! Get boosted!! Still get COVID!!!
And still be able to spread it too.
All for a virus that is some 99.99% survival rate.
And for those most vulnerable, then do just as what the Great Barrington Declaration stated.
No what JT said is Joe will violate one of his core values, in order to get his kid out of trouble.
Some people are above the law.
Where are the charges for violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)?! DOJ had no problem indicting Trump supporters for minor FARA violations.
Where are the IRS charges for filing fraudulent tax returns for 2014-2020 (millions in unpaid taxes)?!
Joe Biden, Hunter’s doting Dad, is a self proclaimed Catholic and it would seem raised his children….to include Hunter….to be good practicing Catholics.
Thus, under the Biden Administration’s FBI…..that would make both Dad and Son potential insurrectionists (re the Richmond FBI Field Office Memo).
Thus, yet more questions arise as to why young Hunter, Son of current President, has received such favorable treatment by the DOJ/FBI/ATF/IRS, the US Attorney and now Special Prosecutor Weiss.
Nope. The memo did not say Catholics are potential insurrectionists. It was specifically about traditionalist Catholics, i.e. sedevecantists and the like. The Bidens are certainly not that!
Well explained, Jonathan. What would we do without you. You are invaluable. ⭐️🥇
So my question is a very easy one. Regardless of what Hunter is now or even was in the past, how does anyone know what he was on that day he signed the form. Before I get accused as an apologist for Hunter, I want someone to prove he was a drug addict at that moment. This is not to excuse bad behavior or give him an easy way out. I am no Hunter fan.
What this is to me is a law that is a gotcha. They leave it to you to self-confess and then prosecute? This cuts both ways to anyone regardless of politics of lack thereof. Was Hunter waiving his gun around or threatening others? Did he threaten harm to himself or police?
To lose fundamental rights, one should be convicted first. What is not apparent, is the definition of being addicted. While it seems like I am splitting hairs and it should be common sense, it actually matters. My father thought anyone who had more than two beers at a time was an alcoholic and anyone that took more than an aspirin was a drug addict. Is that a fair standard? This is how loose the law seems to be applied. Maybe there should be a better mechanism than a self-report.
BTW, if you are an addict but in recovery, does that preclude you from owning? You are technically addicted and so would not be able to own according to the law as written.
As for the son not following the father’s lead, How many walk in lock step with their parents on politics? Even if it is convenient and self-serving right now? Hunter for better or worse has all the legal rights to pursue any strategy to protect himself from consequences.
Key cannon of acknowledgement in all 12 Step Programs.
‘Once an Addict, always an Addict ‘ – It is the admission that you are an Addict.
You can not dismiss your past. (Fact)
Hunter Biden is an Addict, and will always be an Addict, to the end of his days.
Apparently, if Hunter does embrace this defense, the Bidens as a whole and Hunter specifically have absolutely no shame, doing all this right in the face of the public. It’s pathetic. I don’t think that one is “addicted” one day, and not the next. He was booted from the Navy for his addiction. He never said “I wasn’t addicted on that day or that week or that month.” I am surprised and disgusted that he has never yet been indicted for anything. That in itself is a miscarriage of justice by the criminal DOJ. It should have taken them a week to do that on the gun charge, and then at least all the $ being spent on this debacle might be somehow justified. How can he execute a plea deal when he has yet to be charged with any crime? It all stinks. They stink. And I will remember.
While your point is well taken, Hunter was not kicked out of the service for addiction, but for a bad drug test. There is a difference.
As for shameless, you get no argument from me. Any guy that dates his dead brother’s wife is full of chutzpah.
“Regardless of what Hunter is now or even was in the past, how does anyone know what he was on that day he signed the form. “
I thin the laptop might provide the specific information you wish.
Also his book just might be able to prove he was still using when he lied on the 4473.
NUTTY TALK
Please cite the Constitution for the authority of any entity, other than Congress, through the prescribed constitutional amendment process, to amend the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment constitutes the “form” that provides the license, authority, power and right of U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms.
No Form 4473 is valid, legitimate or constitutional.
No administrative department, bureaucracy, or agency, branch of government or elected official has any power to amend the Constitution or to deny the right to keep and bear arms to U.S. citizens.
___________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dictionary.com
infringe
[ in-frinj ]
verb (used with object),in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object),in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon): Don’t infringe on his privacy.
______________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
infringe
verb
synonyms: violate – breach
in·fringe in-ˈfrinj
infringed; infringing
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another – “infringe a patent”
2 (obsolete) : defeat, frustrate
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
The second part of the process is that 2/3 of the states must approve of the Amendment. Senate can make all of the Amendments it wants, but the States (The People) ratify it.
“NUTTY TALK Please cite the Constitution for the authority of any entity,”
George, the Constitution doesn’t say that common sense is required, but it is.
He lied on the application. Prosecute him for that.
If the statute is unconstitutional then you can’t prosecute him for lying on the form either.
OT,
Biden’s Official Twitter Account Photoshops President to Look Younger
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/john-hasson/2023/09/06/bidens-official-twitter-account-photoshops-president-to-look-younger-n2628076
That is not even a good photoshop job!
“Squirrel!!”
This is a diversion tactic to take the media’s attention away from the big picture. The President (then V.P.) took bribes and his son jetted around the world to collect for his dad. He, his brother and other family members were enriched and they created a complicated labyrinth of shell companies to launder the money. Further yet, the big “progressive” machine is in full gas lighting, ministry of truth mode to dampen the damage. This is blatant and obvious corruption.
The President and his allies have created a “war room” to fight off investigation and legal consequences. Just think if all the effort that is being expended to fend off investigations and petty B.S. was instead directed toward upholding our laws and solving real problems here and abroad, then the American people would be the better for it. As it stands now, Americans have 14% less spending power under Biden and are feeling the hurt at the grocery store, gas pump, and retail products. There is pandemonium and chaos in our cities. It is not safe to be on the streets. Thieves and hardened criminals are running amuck with no consequences whatsoever. Little shop owner has to stand down as the theft rings and gangs help themselves to what they did not earn.
These are troubling times and everyone knows it. Sure, they might yell support for their political party. The “progressives” have coopted the Democratic Party, have stolen the agenda yet those who are loyal to the party do nothing, will do nothing because the fear the orange man and will sacrifice principles to stop him, regardless of the consequences.
This is a sad and tragic time in our nation’s history. The consequences will be felt for decades to come, if not longer. So, the legal team has come up withe a clever strategy for one tiny aspect of the large picture. We have come to a moment in this nation where the only way out is for every man, woman and child to humbly and sincerly seek Divine intervention.
E.M. — Exactly right, and well-said.
Turley says he was raised in a Democratic family who probably do not agree with him on anything at this point and Turley also thinks Hunter’s political positions need to conform 100 percent with his Dad.