Hunter Biden indicted today on 3 federal gun charges

[Subduction Zone]

That is not what it usually takes.
You just made that up.

No, it seriously is. Please note, no one has risen to my more than reasonable challenge. Find a case where the conviction using this law was the primary case against a person. Plea agreements are not allowed because one cannot appeal those That is why it appears that this law is still on the books. It is currently used as a tool for plea bargaining when they want someone to plead guilty and still have a record of what they did wrong.

Losing Your 2nd Amendment Rights: Everything You Should Know - Ray Eppard | Christian Politics

While the 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans, it is not a guarentee. Read more about how you can lose your right to bear arms here.

libertyjusticehq.com

"Excessive drug use or substance addiction can lead to a permanent loss of your 2nd Amendment rights. It is hard to define the level of drug use that leads to this restriction of your rights as it varies from one individual to the next. Similarly, your 2nd Amendment rights can be taken away due to alcohol abuse or recurring DUIs. Any situation or lifestyle that could reasonably impair an individual’s judgment may lead to a permanent loss of Second Amendment rights.

Now this article does note that drug use can currently cause one to lose one's rights The problem is that it is very unclear as to how much illegal drug usage would qualify. If I smoked pot in Alabama (I don't smoke it anywhere) would that make me unable to get a gun in Alabama but able to get one in Washington state?

This law has quite a few constitutional problems. Lawyers are unsure if it is constitutional or not. Prosecutors do not appear to think so which is why it is used only in cases where one is making a plea bargain. Hunter, if found guilty, will appeal, and he has a good chance of winning.

 

[Audie]

No, it seriously is. Please note, no one has risen to my more than reasonable challenge. Find a case where the conviction using this law was the primary case against a person. Plea agreements are not allowed because one cannot appeal those That is why it appears that this law is still on the books. It is currently used as a tool for plea bargaining when they want someone to plead guilty and still have a record of what they did wrong.

Losing Your 2nd Amendment Rights: Everything You Should Know - Ray Eppard | Christian Politics

While the 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans, it is not a guarentee. Read more about how you can lose your right to bear arms here.

libertyjusticehq.com

"Excessive drug use or substance addiction can lead to a permanent loss of your 2nd Amendment rights. It is hard to define the level of drug use that leads to this restriction of your rights as it varies from one individual to the next. Similarly, your 2nd Amendment rights can be taken away due to alcohol abuse or recurring DUIs. Any situation or lifestyle that could reasonably impair an individual’s judgment may lead to a permanent loss of Second Amendment rights.

Now this article does note that drug use can currently cause one to lose one's rights The problem is that it is very unclear as to how much illegal drug usage would qualify. If I smoked pot in Alabama (I don't smoke it anywhere) would that make me unable to get a gun in Alabama but able to get one in Washington state?

This law has quite a few constitutional problems. Lawyers are unsure if it is constitutional or not. Prosecutors do not appear to think so which is why it is used only in cases where one is making a plea bargain. Hunter, if found guilty, will appeal, and he has a good chance of winning.

So as your link shows, your
" usually takes" is the opposite of
fact

 

[England my lionheart]

Witch hunt or legitimate charges? Now remember, 'the law is the law'(for those that use that arguement)

"Two counts are tied to Biden allegedly completing a form indicating he was not using illegal drugs when he purchased a Colt Cobra revolver in October 2018. The third count alleges that he possessed a firearm while using a narcotic"

Hunter Biden indicted on federal gun charges

The president's son was indicted after a plea agreement on tax and gun charges fell apart in July and as House Republicans investigate his finances.

www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Desperate witch hunt imo but there’s irony here:

 

[Shaul]

Any charges for acting as a foreign agent, violating the Logan Act, or transporting a prostitute across state lines?

 

[fantome profane]

Any charges for acting as a foreign agent, violating the Logan Act, or transporting a prostitute across state lines?

There might be more charges still coming.

 

[Shaul]

There might be more charges still coming.

Is anyone holding their breath waiting?

 

[We Never Know]

There might be more charges still coming.

That's not possible. Joe said my son has done nothing wrong

Opinion | Biden Says ‘My Son Has Done Nothing Wrong’

The President sends an inappropriate signal to the Justice Department.

www.wsj.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

So as your link shows, your
" usually takes" is the opposite of
fact

How so?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not possible. Joe said my son has done nothing wrong

Opinion | Biden Says ‘My Son Has Done Nothing Wrong’

The President sends an inappropriate signal to the Justice Department.

www.wsj.com

Paywall. But it may be right. Biden may have sent an improper message. That of course is not the topic of this thread. Are the gun charges a witch hunt? They appear to be..

 

[Audie]

So as your link shows, your
" usually takes" is the opposite of
fact

How so?

Do you even remember what it is I
objected to?

 

[Audie]

Paywall. But it may be right. Biden may have sent an improper message. That of course is not the topic of this thread. Are the gun charges a witch hunt? They appear to be..

Guy commits federal crimes. It's a witch
hunt to prosecute.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you even remember what it is I
objected to?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. You used rather vague language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guy commits federal crimes. It's a witch
hunt to prosecute.

No, wrong. Guy commits what is possibly a federal crime. We will not really know until this "crime" is properly tested in the court. If the law is unconstitutional, and many legal scholars can see clear problems with it, then no. He did not commit federal crimes.

I could not find an example of this "crime" ever being a primary charge. That is very worrisome if one wants to claim that it is constitutional. But the fact that I could not find such a case does not mean that they do not exist. So I put the challenge out there to those claiming that this is not a witch hunt to show me where this was a primary charge in a case. No one has supplied one yet.

Unconstitutional laws can be useful if used with care. In this case it gives the prosecution another level to charge someone as part of a deal. One cannot appeal a plea bargain so a unconstitutional law can exist and it will benefit both defendant and prosecutor. This case may take away a useful tool.

 

[Audie]

Oh my! Now that is not exactly honest. No, it is not equivalent to a traffic ticket. But then it is not equivalent to a violent crime against someone either. That is what it usually takes to lose one's second amendment rights. And you confirmed that I was correct by running away, as you so often do, to questions that refute your position.

Here you say it usually requires a violent crime.
Unclear exactly what " it" is, or exactly what you mean by
loss of 2A rights.

The " usually" , I repeat, is not true, as you will note on form 4473 that lists reasons to be denied a firearms purchase.

If you think no crime is involved in lying about
any of them,I guess you can think that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here you say it usually requires a violent crime.
Unclear exactly what " it" is, or exactly what you mean by
loss of 2A rights.

The " usually" , I repeat, is not true, as you will note on form 4473 that lists reasons to be denied a firearms purchase.

If you think no crime is involved in lying about
any of them,I guess you can think that.

There are exceptions, but it is still usually. I did not say always or almost always. And please note, for DUI's it is not even considered until multiple convictions. That is a gross misdemeanor. having or being on drugs is just a misdemeanor. The problem is that the the law is not consistent with other laws and that is a problem for constitutionality.

 

[Audie]

There are exceptions, but it is still usually. I did not say always or almost always. And please note, for DUI's it is not even considered until multiple convictions. That is a gross misdemeanor. having or being on drugs is just a misdemeanor. The problem is that the the law is not consistent with other laws and that is a problem for constitutionality.

"usually". Where did you get that info?
Never mind what I know you didn't say,
"usually"
Your numbers? Source?


IF this particular druggie gets his case all the way to
the Supreme court- a Supreme case of justice only for
the Chosen- then you are in a position to say if the
no- drugs provision is constitutional.

Behold the worm can erupt should the addict win.

Alcohol and all other drug abuse being np longer
grounds for dismissal of non acceptance
anywhere will only be the start as your country spins
seemingly out of control.

Beware of what ya hope for.

 

[Audie]

I see the feds prosecute 0.1% of
persons who are caught lying on the 4473.

My editorial comment is that laws should be enforced or
eliminated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"usually". Where did you get that info?
Never mind what I know you didn't say,
"usually"
Your numbers? Source?


IF this particular druggie gets his case all the way to
the Supreme court- a Supreme case of justice only for
the Chosen- then you are in a position to say if the
no- drugs provision is constitutional.

Behold the worm can erupt should the addict win.

Alcohol and all other drug abuse being np longer
grounds for dismissal of non acceptance
anywhere will only be the start as your country spins
seemingly out of control.

Beware of what ya hope for.

It would probably not go all the way to the Supreme Court. I do not think that it would be seen as that important of a case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see the feds prosecute 0.1% of
persons who are caught lying on the 4473.

My editorial comment is that laws should be enforced or
eliminated.

But even unconstitutional laws can be useful. I know you want things to be black and white in the legal world, but it just is not that way at all. I both know people that have gone through the system and follow quite a few cases off and on too. Ideally what the prosecutors want is justice. Not revenge. The people going after Hunter are doing so out of revenge.

Laws are never perfect so the justice system, ideally, interprets them liberally at times. Hopefully they do not screw up to often. But our prisons are already loaded, we cannot just keep stacking up the bad guys. It is better to find a way to get them to stop being bad guys.

 

[Audie]

It would probably not go all the way to the Supreme Court. I do not think that it would be seen as that important of a case.

For from an important case but you seem to
think there's a deep constitutional issue.
And scotus is where those are settled.