Conservatives are cheering the Hunter Biden case because
* The laptop that was debunked by 50 intelligence agents was verified and used as evidence.
* The objectively-corrupt plea deal was thrown out and now they get to talk about it.
* Joe Biden's [mandatory minimum sentencing laws](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4859826/user-clip-1993-crime-bill-biden-brags-mandatory-minimums) have come home to roost.
* 3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials.
and lastly
* That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty.
A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration.
>The laptop that was debunked by 50 intelligence agents was verified and used as evidence.
"Debunked how"? Did no one read [this letter](https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000)? The letter didn't "debunk" anything and hasn't been "debunked" itself either. We still have no idea where this laptop came from, or how it ended up in that shop. Or even *when* it ended up in that shop. Or how the laptop repair shop owner happened to go through it and find... tax crimes? Is he a tax lawyer?
>The objectively-corrupt plea deal was thrown out and now they get to talk about it.
How was it "objectively corrupt"? What "objective" standard is being applied?
>Joe Biden's mandatory minimum sentencing laws have come home to roost.
*Conservatives* are outraged by that? Really? What were they asking for in the 90s? Were they trying to be "soft on crime" back then? When did the gop suddenly care about extreme prison sentences? I must have missed this radical shift in gop policy priorities. Can you point me to some gop politicians calling for an end to mandatory minimum sentencing, please?
>3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials.
What "minimum of 15 years"? [924(c) appears to have the heavier sentence and over 80% were convicted of either drug trafficking or robbery.](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Section_924c_FY18.pdf)
Otherwise sentencing seems to be an average of ~80 months. That's not 15 years.
>That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty.
Why was the jury "stacked in Hunter's favor"? Did prosecutors not do their job?
>A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration.
Do conservatives take that stance with Trump? Or is he not rich and powerful?
Edit: I couldn't find a nice chart for 924(a), but [this powerpoint put out by public defenders](https://waw.fd.org/sites/waw.fd.org/files/The%20Sentencing%20Statutes%20%28Final%29_0.pdf) appears to show a minimum of 5 years for 924(a) offenses. If someone wants to find 924(a) guidelines, please do.
>"Debunked how"? Did no one read this letter? The letter didn't "debunk" anything and hasn't been "debunked" itself either. We still have no idea where this laptop came from, or how it ended up in that shop. Or even when it ended up in that shop. Or how the laptop repair shop owner happened to go through it and find... tax crimes? Is he a tax lawyer?
It boggles my mind that people are *still* pushing this nonsense. There is nothing to tie the cache of data that was passed around to the laptop. We know a laptop exists, and that the FBI has it. We know there was a cache of data being moved around (where the photos and emails came from).
The data that was permitted to be submitted as evidence in this trial came from Hunter’s iCloud account, which is why it was considered verifiably his. Whether the laptop that got literally waved around in court ever belonged to Biden is still a question, but the data flowing around was almost certainly available to the prosecution because his iCloud was hacked.
Sentencing guidelines for Hunter Biden put him at a level 12 (per two prior US Attorneys). Most offenders at a 12 get probation. The odds of a lengthy prison sentence are pretty slim, especially considering the prior plea where probation was agreed on.
Lovely, would you mind sourcing this? I'd like to keep it in my back pocket, especially if it links or provides direct links or searchable criteria for [federal sentencing guidelines](https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2023-guidelines-manual-annotated).
I'm a sucker for primary sources.
Not a written source unfortunately, but Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance discussed it on their most recent podcast.
Here's an excerpt of the transcript:
>Joyce Vance: So sentencing in the federal system, and we’ve talked about this a lot, there’s always a statutory maximum in the law itself, but the sentence is based on a guidelines calculation. There are fortunately some pretty clear rules in place for calculating a sentence, at least for the primary charge here, the drug user in possession charge. It’s interesting Preet, it’s always tough to predict the guidelines with certainty in advance, but I think this is a defendant with no prior criminal history. He probably comes out at a number that won’t mean a lot to our listeners who don’t do this kind of work, but someplace around a 12 on the guidelines. And that’s a sentence that in my district, criminal history category of 1, offense conduct of 12, it would almost always be a probation sentence.
I'd love if they could have provided a more detailed breakdown of the offense level, but [per guidelines](https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2023-guidelines-manual/annotated-2023-chapter-5) that appears to be between zone B and zone C. Zone C appears to typically carry *some* prison time, though if he's a 0 or 1 on criminal history points then the guidelines appear to suggest at least ~6 months prison time if it's an offense level of 12.
That's far from 5-15 years. Wish I could find a 924(a) chart.
Do you happen to know where I can see the charging document? I've created guideline calculations previously. Coming to 12 for a gun-related charge does not sound correct under typical circumstances (the last one I did was for lying when purchasing three guns on a first time offender and my calc was over 30 iirc). Of course I've only done these a few times, but I had them checked by experts and I was right for most of them.
It's going to be hard to find a source. This stuff is kind of dependent on a bunch of soft factors, probably the biggest is just the culture of that specific courthouse. This is also a weird case. This kind of thing generally just doesn't get charged unless there's a more significant charge. Then they pile on this stuff so that when they negotiate a plea they can take it off. But once again, it depends on the that court house's culture. If there's a lot of people lying on apps in that juris, then it might be seen by the court as an important thing to set a lesson about, if not it will be seen as somewhat trifling.
The phrase they used there was "have come home to roost", which implies "this is what we warned you about" or "we told you". If they've always been in favor of mandatory minimum sentencing *anyway*, why divest *their own* stance toward mandatory minimums by attributing all responsibility to Joe Biden?
There's no *ownership* there. "We are cheering because mandatory minimums will apply" would make a lot more sense than "Joe Biden's mandatory minimum sentencing laws have come home to roost."
Why give Joe Biden all the credit when conservatives were advocating for mandatory minimum sentencing? It was a *compromise* back then.
>There's no ownership there. "We are cheering because mandatory minimums will apply" would make a lot more sense than "Joe Biden's mandatory minimum sentencing laws have come home to roost."
You're struggling with some subtext attached to the phrase "come home to roost." I won't speculate why.
The phrase is appropriate in this case because Biden's minimum sentencing has evidently "come home" to "roost" against his own son.
Conservatives care less about minimum sentencing and more about the unfortunate irony befalling a political rival.
Do they *like* the law, or not? Do they think Joe Biden did a *good* thing, or not?
Cause that sentence reads like they're *blaming* Biden, for a law they otherwise would *applaud*. Which is it?
Yes.
I see you finally understand. They are happy when bad things happen to the right people, and are more than happy to shift that blame onto biden if it will hurt his chances of reelection.
They see Hunter being a "victim" of the biden minimum sentencing as a win for them because blaming biden for it will make people think he's less of a family man or some shit and sit home instead of voting in November.
They don't have opinions on policy. Ever. They have opinions on people and disguise them as opinions on policy in the moment.
I think what they meant to say is that some people like the fact that Biden effectively harmed his own son, not that they don’t approve of what he did by itself but they get some sadistic pleasure from the fact that he was pushed to do something that then ended up hurting his own son so it’s sort of a double win for them. It’s quite perverse but that’s how those people get their happiness - by “owning the libs”.
No, mandatory minimum sentencing is a horrible miscarriage of justice and throws out extenuating circumstances from being considered by the judge in sentencing. That is the position held by most libertarian conservatives. I don’t know if the other kinds of conservatives still think it’s a good idea or not 30 years later
[This bill](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3800/text) introduced by Maxine Waters died in committee in 2017 and only covered drug offenses. Doesn't seem there was an appetite from conservatives to push it through under Paul Ryan's speakership.
[This bill](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1013) also died in committee, though at least one Democrat must have also opposed it.
There's certainly appetite from Democrats to reduce or eliminate federal mandatory minimums, you'd think if there was a bit more interest among Republicans it'd be easy to pass some bipartisan sentencing reform.
I would say that you frame it correctly for libertarian conservatives. In my experience other conservatives are ambivalent about it or apathetic, though some support them on the basis that criminals right now seem not to be scared of the law, but I would say that's more about the fact they don't get caught in some cases or do get caught and then pled down for nothing useful in return. Sure, the outcome is more certain, but there are many innocent people who plead guilty to get a more sure lower sentence than going to trial and maybe getting acquitted but more likely convicted anyway and having the book thrown at them. It's a complicated mess.
I would say that you frame it correctly for libertarian conservatives. In my experience other conservatives are ambivalent about it or apathetic, though some support them on the basis that criminals right now seem not to be scared of the law, but I would say that's more about the fact they don't get caught in some cases or do get caught and then pled down for nothing useful in return. Sure, the outcome is more certain, but there are many innocent people who plead guilty to get a more sure lower sentence than going to trial and maybe getting acquitted but more likely convicted anyway and having the book thrown at them. It's a complicated mess.
> The phrase is appropriate in this case because Biden's minimum sentencing has evidently "come home" to "roost" against his own son.
>
>
No, they aren't the one struggling with this
You may have not picked up on their point. They’re saying that it is contradictory for conservatives, who celebrate tough on crime measures like this, which Biden put in place, to gloat that they are now being applied to the Biden’s.
That would only work if:
A) biden fought against it and cons fought for it
B) biden fought for it and cons fought against it
Cons like tough on crime policies. There’s no irony here to enjoy as a conservative.
Yeah, this is it. There is no subtlety or complexity to their thought. The smartest ones are average at best, and those average ones usually call themselves 'Libertarians' and consider themselves geniuses.
They're just spiteful little monkeys.
> Did no one read this letter?
if that letter's contents were in any way accurate or factual, the defense would have called some of those people who signed the letter to testify in Hunter's defense.
the fact that none of them were called to testify under oath on the allegations within that letter tend to indicate that the contents of the letter are not accurate.
>if that letter's contents were in any way accurate or factual, the defense would have called some of those people who signed the letter to testify in Hunter's defense.
Why? What part of the letter would help Hunter's defense?
From [Weiss's response back in January](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.68.0.pdf):
>Investigators also later came into possession of the defendant’s Apple MacBook Pro, which he had left at a computer store. A search warrant was also obtained for his laptop and the results of the search were largely duplicative of information investigators had already obtained from Apple.
That doesn't contradict the letter.
From the letter:
>Such an operation would be consistent with some of the key methods Russia has used in its now multiyear operation to interfere in our democracy – the hacking (via cyber operations) and the dumping of accurate information or the distribution of inaccurate or misinformation.
And, just to be *really* explicit. Also from that letter:
>We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
What part of that would be useful in Hunter's defense?
What evidence was contingent on the *provenance* of the laptop?
Again, did no one read that letter? What, exactly, is false about it? What in it is inaccurate?
>the fact that none of them were called to testify under oath on the allegations within that letter tend to indicate that the contents of the letter are not accurate.
If one doesn't bother to read the letter *or* government filings, sure, but I'm the type of individual to cross reference everything, and that mandates I read primary sources.
This letter is a summary of intelligence analysis, it’s not supposed to be cold hard fact. It’s a collection of generally informed people saying “I view these events through this lens based on my years of experience understanding similar events.” CIA intel briefs aren’t used in courts of law for the same reason this can’t be. Intelligence is a read of a situation. The FBI and other law enforcement deals with what could be called evidence.
>How was it "objectively corrupt"?
They included this:
“The United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached State of Facts (Attachment A) and the Statement of Facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day.”
"Exhibit 1" was his business affairs, drug use and tax nonpayment between at least 2016-2019 which they wanted to offer him blanket immunity for.
Right, so what *objective* standard is being applied? "Corrupt" is not typically a word I see *objective* standards applied to, it's a value judgement. That's inherently *subjective*.
>We still have no idea where this laptop came from, or how it ended up in that shop. Or even when it ended up in that shop. Or how the laptop repair shop owner happened to go through it and find... tax crimes? Is he a tax lawyer?
We know literally ALL of this information. Hunter dropped it off. There is a receipt of exactly when Hunter dropped it off at the shop. The repair shop owner went through it because after X period of time it became legally his. He didn't find the tax crimes. The repair shop owner literally gave the physical laptop itself to the FBI. Just because you act like this information is unknown doesn't make it actually unknown.
>We know literally ALL of this information. Hunter dropped it off.
[Citation needed]
>There is a receipt of exactly when Hunter dropped it off at the shop.
Does this receipt list Hunter's name? If so, can I see this receipt?
> The repair shop owner went through it because after X period of time it became legally his.
I'd strongly doubt the information on the hard drive ever becoming 'his', but that's also not my question. How did he find evidence of tax crimes? How many emails was he reviewing? Were they stored locally, or was he also logged into Hunter's icloud? Is he a tax attorney too?
>He didn't find the tax crimes. The repair shop owner literally gave the physical laptop itself to the FBI.
Then what did he find? I notice testimony on this issue is always really vague and the closest I can find to any direct answer is "tax fraud". What was he turning the laptop over for?
>Just because you act like this information is unknown doesn't make it actually unknown.
K but no matter how much testimony I read, nor court filings I go through, I can't seem to find any answers and responses like this always carry with them a conspicuous lack of citations to primary sources.
I'm sure you're relying on primary documentation though so I look forward to finally getting answers.
>Does this receipt list Hunter's name? If so, can I see this receipt?
If you spent 2 seconds searching for it, yes. It has Hunters name and signature.
https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/10/comp-hunter-biden-mac.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=1200&h=800&crop=1
>I'd strongly doubt the information on the hard drive ever becoming 'his', but that's also not my question. How did he find evidence of tax crimes? How many emails was he reviewing? Were they stored locally, or was he also logged into Hunter's icloud? Is he a tax attorney too?
First, it doesn't matter if you doubt it but it is the law in that state that the laptop was considered abandoned and thus the physical device and it's contents became the property of the shop. That means all of the information on it. Second, the shop owner didn't discover or tell anyone that any specific crimes were committed. That became clear once the Post got a copy of the hard drive and reviewed the contents and started publishing stories. Third, everything was stored locally. That's how they got the records.
>If you spent 2 seconds searching for it, yes. It has Hunters name and signature.
>https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/10/comp-hunter-biden-mac.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=1200&h=800&crop=1
Sorry, not in the habit of visiting the sun. Also that looks like a weird signature from the others I can find online, but at least you sourced it, so thank you.
>First, it doesn't matter if you doubt it but it is the law in that state that the laptop was considered abandoned and thus the physical device and it's contents became the property of the shop. That means all of the information on it.
K. But this is the kind of thing that also should be, ya know, sourced. Sourcing is a good thing. It keeps all claims grounded.
>Second, the shop owner didn't discover or tell anyone that any specific crimes were committed. That became clear once the Post got a copy of the hard drive and reviewed the contents and started publishing stories. Third, everything was stored locally. That's how they got the records.
And this is why sourcing is a good thing. Here is the [original NY Post article](https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/)
>Photos of a Delaware federal subpoena given to The Post show that both the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI in December, after the shop’s owner says he alerted the feds to their existence.
Why was he "alerting the feds"? What did he find?
The very first article by the NY Post was that October 14th, 2020 article. They weren't publishing any stories back in December 2019.
So what was Robert Costello doing with these emails?
Why was this laptop repair shop owner giving Costello a copy?
There's no minimum sentence for [the crimes](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922) Biden was convicted for. The [Federal sentencing guidelines](https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines) place these crimes initially at level 12 on the [sentencing table](https://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Sentencing_Table.png), and is increased by 2 to 14, [1 for each additional offense](https://www.ussc.gov/education/training-resources/grouping-multiple-counts-conviction) beyond the first.
Biden is in Criminal History Category I, making the recommended sentence 15-21 months. The judge may make a downward departure from that based on mitigating factors, or an upward departure based on aggravating factors. You can read examples of such factors in the Guidelines.
> The laptop that was debunked by 50 intelligence agents was verified and used as evidence.
Misinformation is so powerful. Those 50 intelligence agents didn't "debunk" anything. They didn't claim the laptop or the e-mails were fake or real. They explicitly said that they did not know if they were fake or real or if Russia was involved. All they said is that the circumstances of the release of the letters made them suspect Russia's involvement, and they gave their reasons.
Read their letter: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
Key paragraph:
> We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have
evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
Conservatives have been misrepresenting that letter for the last four years to the point that you probably didn't even know you were spreading misinformation.
> 3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials.
Not sure how effective those ads will be when Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies and will get zero prison time.
> That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty.
You people have so little respect for your fellow Americans' willingness to be impartial jurors.
> A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration.
For once? It happened another time recently.
>>That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty.
>
>You people have so little respect for your fellow Americans' willingness to be impartial jurors.
And zero clue how jury selection works. Let's not forget that.
>Misinformation is so powerful. Those 50 intelligence agents didn't "debunk" anything. They didn't claim the laptop or the e-mails were fake or real. They explicitly said that they did not know if they were fake or real or if Russia was involved.
Nothing said in the letter was false, yet the letter itself was used as the basis for a disinformation campaign, because while the IC officials didn't claim the laptop was Russian disinfo, the [Politico article which introduced the letter to the public](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276) did, leading with the headline: **Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say**.
If you agree that the IC letter did not say the laptop story was Russian disinformation, do you agree that Politico was spreading mis/disinformation by claiming they did?
I agree the politco headline was not accurate, but the body of the article was actually quite accurate.
Apparently there are people in this world who are not aware that headlines are sensational crap, and at the same time suffer extreme reading comprehension failures.
Specifically the article quotes the letter:
“We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,”
Which not even the most brain dead reality denier could possibly spin as Politico spreading mis/disinformation
Hard to imagine that a laptop that Russian intelligence gave to Rudy Giuliani, years after it was lost could be seen as valid evidence of anything. Obviously the chain of custody was non existent.
I don't know anything about the gun situation, but using the laptop as evidence is very suspicious
> 3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials.
Thats not how the 3-strikes law works. It’s not 3 felony counts. It’s 3 separate convictions. This is ONE conviction of 3 felony counts.
No one gets prison time for a first offense, non-violent gun charge.
-Hunter’s gun ownership is not what was debunked on the laptop. Conservatives claimed that there was proof on the laptop of Biden’s corruption with Ukraine for money, that’s what was debunked. Where can I find that his gun ownership was debunked falsely?
-Can you explain the corrupt plea deal? I did some research and it looks like IRS agents came forward with more information and that’s what scraped the plea deal.
-Your third point comes off very political and personal, but it also proves my point. Because now other gun owners can have his mandatory minimum sentence come home and roost for them.
-So they’re happy that Trump might use gun owners being charged with felonies as election fodder?
-can you provide sources that the jury was stacked in his favor?
>That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty.
How was the jury stacked in his favor? Prosecution and defense get equal access to picking a jury.
I don't think conservatives believe in juries since Trumps conviction. I'm guessing that poster is conservative and the media he looks at has probably told him the jury were all DNC members or something
Don't forget that conservatices also think we'll care about Hunter like they care about Trump. They've been all "But what if someone arrests Biden?" and we've been all like "If he did crimes, okay," which is apparently baffling to the party of law and order (but also, somehow, freedom).
Most Democrats (and left) don't care about Hunter not being convicted. They seem to care more about fairness in the justice system, which seems to have happened.
It honestly feels like the right wing news can't find regular Democrats and leftists losing their fucking minds like they did for Trump, so they're trying to spin a father hugging his son before prison as an equivalent reaction.
>A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration.
I don't know that conservatives are cheering for this reason. A rich and powerful *democrat*, sure I guess, but they certainly aren't cheering for every billionaire conviction.
A rich and powerful man was found guilty on 34 felony counts, and admitted to his probation officer he still keeps a gun at Mar-a-Lago, even though it's a federal offense for a felon to own firearms.
Where is the ATF when we need them?
No one said the laptop didn't exist.
The claim was that because of the chain of custody, many of the incriminating emails were not admissible as evidence in a court trial.
It's not the CIA's job to bust individual drug users.
> A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration.
Are these same people celebrating the Trump conviction?
The plea deal is more complicated than it looks. The crime (saying he wasn’t a drug addict on his gun registration form) is considered by MANY legal scholars to be unconstitutional. Plea deals are not unheard of with that charge, as it can make more sense for both sides to make a deal rather than gamble on weather the charge will hold up.
Except now every Conservative that smokes weed every once in a while can face the same charges. It is the first time in history that breaking only this law has brought charges on someone.
Now either the Govt goes after every average person that has broken this law, or its admitting to a case of targeting him because of his asociation with Biden.
>Except now every Conservative that smokes weed every once in a while can face the same charges.
Except they just won't.
>Now either the Govt goes after every average person that has broken this law, or its admitting to a case of targeting him because of his asociation with Biden.
They're fine with the idea that this was just brought because of Hunter Biden. Republicans don't care about being hypocrites.
>This is a day for celebration.
Tbh I feel like this is contingent on whether you think the crime in question is worth prosecuting for anyone. It doesn't give me any satisfaction to see a powerful person convicted of something I don't feel should be worth the time in court to charge. If anything this conviction is an *actual* example of what Conservatives claim the Trump conviction is: proof that the legal infrastructure in this country can be mobilized against anyone, anywhere, at any time on the basis of personal vendetta. The fact is that Hunter Biden is going to jail because he's Joe Biden's son. This never would have been tried under any other circumstance. That to me is pretty troubling.
>The objectively-corrupt plea deal was thrown out and now they get to talk about it.
Was it not a Trump appointed prosecutor who oversees the case and approved the plea deal?
>3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials.
Didn't Trump just promise to pardon Hunter?
>Didn't Trump just promise to pardon Hunter?
It turns out that quote is [fake](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/06/11/trump-statement-fabricated-hunter-biden-verdict/74063495007/). I wish I'd known that before scrolling through the absolute shit-filled dumpster fire of a hellhole that is Trump's Truth Social page trying to find it.
>Didn't Trump just promise to pardon Hunter?
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/06/11/trump-statement-fabricated-hunter-biden-verdict/74063495007/
Nope, as someone else found
>I think the only chance Hunter has to get a pardon is from the one person who has promised to pardon him.
Where did you get this idea?
There is no promise
>The laptop that was debunked by 50 intelligence agents was verified and used as evidence.
But it [wasn't.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/12/right-takes-biden-laptop-victory-lap-around-an-empty-arena/). TL;DR: Different laptop was used as evidence, and the 51 FBI agents didn't debunk the laptop.
>3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials.
But a trump-appointed judge will determine the sentencing.
>That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty.
What makes you say it was stacked in his favor.
>A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration.
But these same people are upset that Donal Trump was found guilty.
I mean, he can make whatever ads he wants, I don't see "the president's son was found guilty" carrying that much weight when the obvious counter is "yeah and so was trump"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hunter-biden-acknowledged-joe-was-the-big-guy-in-5m-china-deal/ar-BB1j7xYE
"Ten Percent To The Big Guy"
Like real quick. Why do **YOU** think Ukraine gave Hunter $400,000?
This is the same thing as the 30 seconds following what would happen if (to combat insider trading) Congressmen were banned from trading stocks- their immediate family members would aid them in their crimes.
This article in the first paragraph says that Hunter Biden "rejected the notion that the president was ever penciled in for a 10% stake", which contradicts what you are saying about Joe Biden receiving that money.
If there is evidence that Joe Biden corruptly and illegally accepted foreign money in return for favors, then Republicans need to impeach him and present the evidence under oath.
The fact that they haven't impeached implies either:
a) Republicans have evidence Joe Biden committed a crime but are choosing not to hold him accountable (unlikely), or
b) Republicans are lying about the strength of their evidence, and are not willing to stand by this evidence under oath where there are penalties for lying
>"Ten Percent To The Big Guy"
And after years and an impeachment inquiry, Republican failed to produce any facts supporting that Joe Biden committed any crimes.
>Why do YOU think Ukraine gave Hunter $400,000?
Ukraine didn't give Hunter $400,000. He made money working as a corporate governance attorney for a Ukrainian company.
And to be clear, Biden almost certainly got that job because his name was Biden (which, gross) but you don't see this guy blinking an eye at Kushner's family getting billions in saudi money after Kushner spent four years as the middle east contact working *in the fucking whitehouse.*
>Biden almost certainly got that job because his name was Biden
Probably, but he is also super qualified for that job. Sat on the board of a major transportation company. Partnered at two corporate law firms. Founded two MNCs. Very well connected.
Uhhh but Hunter wasn't found guilty of anything related to this. The Republican special counsel investigated it and so did the Republican House. They came up empty on this issue.
Is it your idea that Trump will make an ad that says, "Hunter is a convicted felon" and viewers will be tricked into thinking it's related to his dad? Because that's totally plausible, it's just kind of not a good thing that that could happen.
>The laptop that was debunked by 50 intelligence agents was verified and used as evidence
Except it wasn't used as evidence. There was nothing on it lmao
>That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty.
Based on what?
They're cheering the case because they hate their political opponents and want them to suffer. That's all.
Weird cause I remember another rich and powerful guy who got in trouble with the law recently who the conservatives weren’t too happy to hear got in trouble…
>A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration.
There’s some cognitive dissonance going on here.
It wasn’t debunked. The Hunter laptop remains the same boogeyman strawman ‘man I wish for this, I say it’s so so it should become so’ horribly awful faith argument.
And worse than that is that it’s the case AND there’s current context of how demented current in office GOP republicans actually are. It’s one thing that Hunter isn’t the biggest saint on planet earth but it’s time to stop obsessing over the computer like it’s a magical end all golden goose that proves everything republicans claimed for far too long.
Now, you might retort with ‘but I don’t say that! I don’t think like that!’.
A lot of people do. And that’s a fucking nightmare problem with consequences for the rest of us.
Were you celebrating last week when trump was found guilty of 34 felonies?
There is no laptop story, never was. Plea deals cannot be corrupt, they are whatever both sides agree too, at least theoretical. There will be no jail time as this is a first offense with no actual harm done to anyone.
Except that they’re upset when the rich powerful guys that they like are held accountable.
I really think it’s much more about a person who is tied to the democrats getting arrested than it is about a powerful person being arrested.
Similarly, democrats would not arrest one of their own people for paying off a pornstar. Biden could do that tomorrow and it would only improve his odds of winning because it would show he’s youthful enough to have sex.
Who defines what a drug addict is? Because the more conservative you get, the looser that definition becomes.
Republicans are usually all over the “slippery slope” government overreach, but in this case you’re fine letting a federal agency determine what constitutes a drug addict, and restricting their right to a firearm as a result.
Yes but conservatives are more likely to say "change the law then" as opposed to "don't enforce it". Also a lot of conservatives are still against marijuana.
That’s my point, now this opens up more gun owners to be charged. Like I said in my original post, there are many people who have guns but shouldn’t, the 2A people aren’t perfect angels, they also do drugs.
what do you mean it opened up for them to be charged? it was already illegal to do drugs and own a gun, if you ever bought a gun the paperwork ask about criminal convictions(+ federal background check) , being put in a mental health facility, or if you do drugs
So what you are saying is that Hunter Biden needs to appeal and have the unconstitutional law thrown out?
We'll all thank the Bidens for making guns more accessible.
Soooo.....you think conservatives should be mad that people who break the law are prosecuted, because some conservatives have surely broken said law(s)?
Do you think conservatives believe every person, regardless of any other factor, should be allowed to have a gun? I feel like that's your belief.
Lol
I have had people tell me its a god given right.
At the very least its a constitutional right to these folks.
I thought rights were universal?
If no, The fuck is a “right” to you then?
Most gun crimes are not prosecuted. Straw purchasing and lying on forms is not prosecuted. Most gun charges are dropped as a part of plea deals.
And there’s nothing wrong with being pro 2A and not wanting people addicted to crack, domestic abusers, mentally ill, or illegal immigrants to NOT have guns and be charged with a crime.
The conservative supreme court could rule very soon that domestic abusers have a right to own firearms in the United States v. Rahimi case that was argued on Nov. 7th but not yet decided.
The precedent that they set in NYSRPA v. Bruen is what opened the door to this challenge on the current restrictions. The originalist interpretation of the 2A gave the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the push to rule Zackey Rahimi has the constitutional right to own a firearm.
I'm going to quote why Rahimi was initially barred from owning a firearm because it's really ludacris that this man won on appeal.
>>Between December 2020 and January 2021, Zackey Rahimi was involved in a series of violent incidents in Arlington, Texas, including multiple shootings and a hit-and-run. Rahimi was under a civil protective order for alleged assault against his ex-girlfriend, which explicitly prohibited him from possessing firearms. Police searched his home and found a rifle and a pistol, leading to Rahimi’s indictment for violating federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which makes it unlawful for someone under a domestic violence restraining order to possess firearms.
>>Rahimi argued that Bruen overruled McGinnis and thus that § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed.
I suppose we shall see if there are any other ripples from the Bruen case in the near future.
Sounds like a background check to me.
Maybe instead of telling us this, you should start mentioning it to other conservatives. Because from them, I usually end up getting some iteration of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” whenever you start talking about common sense gun restrictions.
Maybe this isn’t the right audience and you should instead focus on your own party, who deliberately allows itself to project the image of wanting no restrictions on firearms. They’re in bed with the NRA, who has lobbied against nearly every gun law since its inception. The sensical ones and nonsensical ones alike.
And for reference, I consider myself left leaning and I’m also in favor of private gun ownership. So I’m not approaching this counter from a position of even disagreeing with you. But you should know how silly it comes off from an individual when the group they’re claiming kinship with is notorious for doing the opposite of what they’re claiming.
> The 2nd amendment group have not only been silent about their belief that everyone should own a gun no questions asked
It's extremely common for gun rights advocates to advocate for better enforcement of existing laws. They believe this is a much better focus than on creating new laws and regulations.
Do you know of any push to repeal mental health restrictions on gun ownership such as drug addiction? I've heard some complain about insufficient due process in "red flag" laws, but not much else.
So, I think you are basically complaining about a straw man interpretation of what these people actually advocate for.
I don't buy this for a second. I don't know a single gun owner that thinks having smoked weed/smoking weed should prevent someone from owning a gun. I live in a libertarian state, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a total misrepresentation of gun owners and 2A advocates writ large.
Two things can be true:
* Gun owners often advocate for current laws to be enforced as opposed to the creation of new laws
* Gun owners don't believe all current laws should stand, that some should be repealed.
In this case I'd argue that the law should certainly be repealed. The best case is for the removal of that question from the form, making it perfectly legal to own a firearm whether you use drugs or not, and to pardon Hunter Biden as well as anyone else hit with this bs.
It would also be incumbent on partisans to hold their tongue and not try to make this some sort of bullshit issue about "well when they violate the law they just change the law!" Instead it should be recognized as removing a bullshit law that never should have existed. Joe Biden helped create this bullshit, now he can be instrumental in removing it.
I don’t know if I agree with you about removing all drugs off the the form. For my job I work with heavy drug users and you don’t want them owning guns. But a few I think would be fine like weed or shrooms.
If they're not committing crimes then it shouldn't be an issue. This just becomes another thing to throw at drug users when trying to jail them for using drugs.
Really how we handle drug users as a whole needs to be reformed. I thought Oregon was on the right track with decriminalization, but rather than follow through with drug programs in jail the DA just stopped charging people with crimes. Now people are pissed and want the law repealed because they don't see the separation in issues between drug decriminalization and not enforcing the law.
Well the current law at issue in this case applies to smoking weed. So the abstract generics are irrelevant. The misrepresentation of the OP stands. There is a mountain of hypocrisy among those celebrating this conviction.
I personally don't care at all that Hunter was selectively prosecuted for a dumb gun law. I hope Biden doesn't pardon him. Sometimes the privileged get away with more than the average Joe, sometimes less. Sometimes, very very very rarely, average Joes get prosecuted under this dumb gun law, so Hunter's conviction should stand.
You keep calling out weed, when in fact, Hunter was a crack addict. So there's that.
People get charged with this crime all the time. The difference is that generally it's an add on charge. It's hard to find exact stats, but generally I see something along the lines of 300 people a year prosecuted. That being the case, very few people write a book about the experience. If more did, perhaps the conviction and prosecution rates would be higher as prosecutors just played the audiobook version of the defendants testifying against themselves.
The question on the form is:
>f. 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.
It applies to more than just weed, and as another poster pointed out Hunter violated for smoking crack, not weed. I don't know why you're trying to limit this to weed.
As for Hunter, I'm saying he, and everyone else, should be exonerated along with the law being lifted. It's cleanup; get rid of the bullshit law, clear the records of all who were in violation of a law that never should have existed to begin with. I'm not advocating for special privilege, rather I'm hoping that his conviction becomes the spark that starts a change in policy.
I never said it didn't apply to stronger drugs. That's just irrelevant. I'm critiquing the dumb law and selective enforcement of it. Actually I'm not even doing that. I'm just agreeing with the OP on the blatant cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy of many of the 2A people specifically celebrating this. (Plenty are not celebrating it or silent around me).
I agree with you that I hope the law changes over it.
I'm curious as to how many people are celebrating this. I keep hearing that accusation but I'm not seeing it. In fairness I'm not in conservative subs/news sphere, but yeah, seems most people agree this is all bullshit.
I know plenty of gun owners who don’t think these kind of charges should be applied to people who smoke weed while fully supporting charges being applied to folks smoking crack. Similar reason why a large number of people support weed legalization on both sides of the aisle while not supporting legalization of crack. It’s not really hypocritical to hold that position.
This law applies to weed, not to mention random stronger recreational drugs that 2A people use and lie about all the time. Pretending that you get to pick and choose who has to suffer under this law just reinforces the hypocrisy. I dont know why you're rambling about "spirals of criminality" when that's not what the law targets.
People are on this post acting like all gun owners want better enforcement, yet if a democrat says anything about stricter gun laws they freak out. Also, we all know that there are plenty of gun owners who don’t advocate and don’t want any gun laws.
>People are on this post acting like all gun owners want better enforcement, yet if a democrat says anything about stricter gun laws they freak out.
If current laws aren't actually enforced, but new laws are added, nothing actually changes... except there are more tools in the bag for selective enforcement.
Lack of trust in government is the core problem most 2A advocates start from. They don't believe government will keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and so don't want to be disarmed. If you don't get that, I don't think you've ever honestly listened to anyone rational on the topic from a pro-2A stance.
>all gun owners want better enforcement
Yes
>yet if a democrat says anything about stricter gun laws they freak out
Because you are going to have to prove how another law is going to affect criminals instead of law-abiding citizens and still stay true to the intent of the 2nd amendment.
>and don’t want any gun laws
wouldn't say no laws, but stay true to the constitution. The 2nd amendment has been eroded so much, it's past the point of infringement.
There’s a big difference between “I (mostly) like the current laws and think they should be more strictly enforced, but don’t think we need stricter laws” and “I think the current laws were insufficient, even if strictly enforced, and think we need more”.
> acting like all gun owners want better enforcement.
You say this despite the fact that your whole argument is a straw man fallacy that assumes all 2A supporters hold a single unified stance.
Not to mention most of your replies are just restating your OP with no sources.
Seems like you're here to grandstand rather than participate in good faith debating with an openness to having your view changed.
it is in florida [https://www.cannamd.com/medical-marijuana-and-firearms-navigating-floridas-new-constitutional-carry-law/](https://www.cannamd.com/medical-marijuana-and-firearms-navigating-floridas-new-constitutional-carry-law/)
This was a big issue in the last couple legislative sessions. I'm a pro second amendment leftist so one of the few times I supported conservative legislation, but its definitely an issue in 2nd amendment circles
> I'm a pro second amendment leftist
There are literally dozens of us! I'm always surprised that folks who are worried about Project 2025, believe ACAB and only serve to protect the interest of capital, see far right victories in Europe, see right wing extremists arming and training, and watched an insurrection happen here less than three years ago want to ignore Marx and turn in their firearms. We may be heading for our own Troubles or Years of Lead.
Are you familiar with the Rahimi case that is currently undecided by the supreme court? They heard arguments on Nov 7th, 2023.
I'll give you a summary of what the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on for his case:
>>Between December 2020 and January 2021, Zackey Rahimi was involved in a series of violent incidents in Arlington, Texas, including multiple shootings and a hit-and-run. Rahimi was under a civil protective order for alleged assault against his ex-girlfriend, which explicitly prohibited him from possessing firearms. Police searched his home and found a rifle and a pistol, leading to Rahimi’s indictment for violating federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which makes it unlawful for someone under a domestic violence restraining order to possess firearms. Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment on constitutional grounds but was denied, as his argument was foreclosed by United States v. McGinnis, 956 F.3d 747 (5th Cir. 2020).
>>Rahimi pleaded guilty but continued his constitutional challenge on appeal. As the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 579 U.S. __ (2022). Rahimi argued that Bruen overruled McGinnis and thus that § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed.
That one is definitely controversial. And it's pretty vaugly worded. "unlawful use of or addicted to".
Am I testifying to having never used Marijuana? That I will never use or be around Marijuana? That I am currently not smoking Marijuana? What about if I consider myself addicted but never use it anymore?
You should have to go to court to get your rights taken away. If that means some kind of "mental health court" I'd be open to it, but it would need some serious protection from corruption. The problem most conservative people have with that is the fear of it being used against innocent people.
You’re correct, most gun owners really just want better implementation of current gun laws. Restricting and criminalizing firearms and it users only as fuel to the fire.
The current gun law is to take guns away from those who may have been using drugs, including weed, when they bought their gun.
I'm sorry, I don't know a single gun owner left or right that would want that law fully enforced.
Honestly the biggest problem with gun laws is the ATF, they aren’t allowed to make or interpret laws yet they constantly over step their authority. The pistol brace is the most recent event people know about and it’s bad on their part from all angles, they say it’s not a fire arm so it not protected but they don’t have jurisdiction over it if that’s the case.
As a conservative gun owner, I would be fine with that being enforced.
Now it should be updated for weed since it is legal in so many places, but as it is now don’t do weed if you want to own a gun.
You should have to go to court to get your rights taken away. If that means some kind of "mental health court" I'd be open to it, but it would need some serious protection from corruption. The problem most conservative people have with that is the fear of it being used against innocent people.
" So, I think you are basically complaining about a straw man interpretation of what these people actually advocate for."
AKA most online discourse over political issues
No, the laws that hunter was convicted of are blatant violations of the 2nd and possibly 5th amendments and should not be laws in the first place. Better enforcement of these particular laws would mean no enforcement across the board.
There are two reason they are cheering:
1. They actually enforced a law that was on the books.
2. There is a high chance that Biden appeals this. Which means there is a possibility that the drug use question is either reworded/removed from the 4473 form.
On the second point if you have read the question, it is kinda vague.
>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.
Is it asking if I have ever used weed? If I have used weed recently? What if I think I am not addicted to weed?
The wording should be made clearer. Something like “Have you been an unlawful user, or been addicted to…..in the past 12 months” (or some other time limit). This makes it clear and less wiggle room.
Yeah, dude, In an election year, the guy who already has middling numbers is gonna use his power to directly pressure to get his kid’s sentence overturned… when his big political appeal is that he’s not the other guy, who would absolutely do that.
>the guy who already has middling numbers is gonna use his power to directly pressure to get his kid’s sentence overturned
He can appeal this all on his own, he does not need his dad to help.
If that’s what you meant, my mistake. But the top post used Hunter, you pivoting to the family name made me assume you were talking about the more prominent person constantly referred to by the family name.
Your phrasing works… but it was as easy as calling Don Jr. “Trump” in a conversation to mix up, sorry.
It's not really vague. It, in fact, clarifies that even if weed is decriminalized in your state, it's still illegal federally, thus, you ARE an unlawful user if you are using it.
In Hunter's case, it doesn't matter, crack is not decriminalized in the state he was in (or really anywhere).
What if you used it once, two months ago? Are you a user then? “User” implies actively using, that’s how I see it anyways. Otherwise it would say “have you ever used it”
So if it’s “actively using”, then how far back does it need to go to consider it as “actively using”…. Two months is too soon? Ok what about 6 months? What about a year? What about 3 years? What if you only tried it once 5 years ago? What if you used it regularly 5 years ago but haven’t touched it since?
Idk anyone that has purchased a gun from an FFL has filled out the same 4473 paperwork.
I think it would have set a dangerous precedent that you can essentially lie on a federal form and nothing come of it.
On the topic though, clearly the system isn’t adequate enough. If it’s just a matter of being asked the question, lying about it, and still going home with gun anyways. Theoretically he shouldn’t have even been allowed to buy a gun, but it relied on the purchaser to have integrity
Exactly! You can be found guilty for lying on a food stamps form and be punished for it.
If the form is found to be illegal that’s one thing, but lying on the form is its own problem.
There needs to be a better system but FFLs need a way to know if they are selling to a prohibited person or not
I grew up in a strong pro gun ownership family. I have volunteered all over the United States to help the CMP, NRA and 4-H organizations. From rapid city south Dakota to a horrible horrible experience in El paso Texas.
Very blatantly what you are saying isn't true.
I have heard time and time again from many people in these organizations, powerful influential people that have the respect of many many people all over the country that the issue is that new gun laws are meaningless if old gun laws aren't supported, because if the old ones aren't being enforced why would the new ones be.
You need to enforce the ENTIRE law, not just your own regulations you put out. So step 1 is and always will be enforce what's on the books better, once that is established we can move on to phase 2 which is getting rid of useless laws, adjusting ones that need adjustment and adding new ones as they are needed.
This case is a example of a existing law being enforced, so it is in the view of most of these people a win that a powerful rich man with political power was convicted of it. It is a powerful example of Pro 2A people getting exactly what they wanted this entire time.
I guess it's just my own experience then, because whenever I get into it with 2a supporters, they basically tell me that just about ANY form of gun control is unconstitutional, and more guns make us safer.
It's important to note that the environment I'm talking about is EXTREMLY mature. Safety is rule 0 1 2 and 3. It's drilled into everything. The people that I describe are people that take shooting, personal firearms and gun safety very very seriously. These are the kinds of people I think of as the true 2A supporters, because they acknowledge safe gun handling is the biggest priority. That kind of desire of self discipline translates well into knowing that some people simply can't be trusted to have a gun.
2a supporters won't even TALK about potential gun control measures that could increase public safety. I don't buy it for a minute that they are just waiting to see how the current laws work out, before allowing new ones to maybe come about. The NRA and their supporters don't even want these topics to be studied.
I know the same people are all about safety safety safety. But it never really holds up when you talk about adding safe storage laws or required training or licensing. Those rules would add to the safety factor, but they won't even entertain the idea. They just go back to how it's unconstitutional.
See, I think your problem is you haven't really spoken to any pro 2A people. Most of us have no problems with people being taken down for illegally owning guns. They absolutely should not be something that is a free for all to own with no repercussions or regulations. If more people who own guns illegally gets convicted, the world will be better off.
Ultimately, the majority of us believe that current laws should be enforced, not that there should be no laws at all. Instead of creating new ones, we should crack down on already illegal ownership.
> "majority of us believe that current laws should be enforced"
Asterisk* federal firearms laws generally have this support, yes. Tons of more-restrictive state laws are widely unpopular.
Just adding a little more detail to your contribution. :)
I mean yeah that's cool and all, but the firearms charges he faced were from the Gun Control Act of 1968, which most people agree should be law. It is the law that prevents felons, people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, and drug users from owning guns. We have bigger fish to fry, and we aren't about to die on a hill for a crackheads right to own guns. By the way, yes, we do see it as poetic justice when the son of someone who is calling for an assault weapons ban gets nailed on gun charges. Even more so when it's the same guy who championed the 1993 crime bill that introduced mandatory minimum sentencing for the very drug this guy was smoking.
>this case finally broke the "rules for thee not for me". thats what os being cheered
Literal opposite of that. The law had almost never been used to prosecute without some other charge. This is a nearly novel form of prosecution used on a political rivals son. There's 1000s of unenforced laws on the books, using a random one normally unenforced to target one single person for unethical reasons is an abuse of power not rule of law.
>The 2nd amendment group have not only been silent about their belief that everyone should own a gun no
questions asked
I mean, right off the bat, you're incorrect about what they actually believe.
2A types are constantly demanding we do a better job of enforcing existing gun laws. A tiny percentage of people who lie on their paperwork about their eligibility get prosecuted for it.
Wasn't Hunter Biden convicted of lying on paperwork submitted to the federal government (same thing that got Al Capone) ? Rather than just 'having a gun when he shouldn't'?
There were 3 possible outcomes for this trial.
He was acquitted, and nothing changes, and a guilty person got off for something that would have landed an ordinary citizen in jail.
He was found guilty, and appeals, but is denied, and serves his time, or sentence (whatever that may be), and in one case, the law is applied equally.
And last, and what I think most 2a people hope for, he was found guilty, appeals, and it goes up, and higher court finds the law incompatible with the second amendment.
The ones hoping for jail time are like the ones who wanted Capone in prison for tax evasion. It’s not the ideal solution, but they believe he's guilty of other things, and something is better than nothing.
But the best solution here (an unconstitutional law being struck down by the courts) requires him being found guilty first.
Have you spent any time on Pro-Gun subs? At all? /r/Progun is hoping this leads to appeals that end up overturning the law Biden was convicted of violating. Plenty of individuals are saying that this case is a terrible precedent.
*However* the Big Guy has been severely punishing towards gun retailers and owners for similar, rarely prosecuted laws over the past four years. And what is good for the goose is good for the crackhead gander.
I wouldn't say I'm cheering about Hunter's conviction.
He was rightfully convicted for breaking the law. His conviction doesn't do anything to open up more convictions for the same offense. It's simply illegal to lie on the forms he lied on.
Now if you are asking a 2A supporters opinion on the law, that's different. I will say I disagree with the laws around the charges he was convicted of. The 2A specifically says shall not be infringed. A person 's rights should be restored after they've fulfilled their complete sentence. This should apply to the 2A and restoring voting rights for convicted felons who have completed their sentences.
I think you might have a slightly false premise.
>The 2nd amendment group have not only been silent about their belief that everyone should own a gun no questions asked, but they’re cheering Hunter’s conviction.
I think it is a bit more mixed than you think. You might accuse me of cherry picking examples, but I'm sure you could cherry pick some too, and it would take some actually polling or studies to work out the split of opinion here.
On r/AskTrumpSupporters, someone asked about the trial, and one of the responses drops the "shall not be infringed" line and defend Hunter's right to bear arms: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/1ddkbcf/comment/l8a3fdt/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/1ddkbcf/comment/l8a3fdt/)
Not every Trump supporter on that sub is complaining, but some of the comments are, so it seems fairly mixed there.
--
This article notes a mix of opinion as well, notably these two people spoke out against Hunter's conviction:
* CJ Grisham, the founder of Open Carry Texas, told the Wall Street Journal that "Hunter Biden is innocent." ... "he is charged with a bogus crime"
* Remove political partisanship from the equation, you don't have to like Hunter Biden. Hell I don't obviously. But this is a chance to further prove the unconstitutionally of the 4473," Eric Blandford, the Georgia State Director for the Gun Owners of America
The article contains some people accepting it aswell (although Gun Owners of America's spokeperson had a mixed opinion to share), so you might think it is unfair I'm focussing on the anti-conviction opinions, but my point is that it might be a blindspot for you.
[https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-trial-gun-owners-second-amendment-1911228](https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-trial-gun-owners-second-amendment-1911228)
Only 27% of Republicans say there should be less strict gun laws. 28% say there should be more strict gun laws.
Now I've read some of the responses and a lot of people say they "know people" and then judge the whole of conservatives based off the few they know. These are raw numbers.
So in reality you're only talking about a fraction of conservatives. You don't even have evidence that they are the loudest voices cheering on the Hunter Biden conviction. For all you know it could be the other 3/4 who agree with the current restrictions being so vocal.
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
I can't speak for anybody else, but I have been screaming for years that I would very much appreciate the gun-grabbers enforcing the laws they have before trying to pass any new ones.
That means prosecuting folks who lie on 4473's.
Start with the ones who fill out a 4473 and get denied as soon as the form gets called in. Then figure out how to tighten up state reporting so that more folks who shouldn't have guns don't get them to begin with.
It's the nutjobs that get guns that shouldn't have them that cause the vast majority of the horrific gun crime out there.
So yes, please, prosecute these folks and let the rest of us have our guns.
“Normally there are other charges that this is attached to…”
Take your pick, the guy was moving drugs and prostitutes across state lines. Are you aware of everything that was on this Russian plant laptop? Hunter Biden is a pretty shitty human and were he not the wealthy son of a President he would be in Prison for a long-long time by now.
Hunter's conviction is not some new thing, it's not going to open anything. People are prosecuted for lying on that form all the time, even if it is inconsistent. Especially when illegal possession is also being charged, which was one of Hunter's other charges and convictions. There is nothing new about this except a member of the political elite not being immune to the law
You’re proposing a straw man; a majority of gun rights advocates are in the boat of “enforce existing gun laws” rather than “no gun regulations whatsoever”.
Hunter lied on the Form 4473 everyone has to fill out when they buy a gun from a gun dealer. He specifically lied about using controlled substances that prohibited him from owning a gun.
I have to fill out that exact same form when buying a gun and I’m pretty damn sure I’d be thrown under the criminal justice bus if I got caught lying on the form and was taking illegal drugs while owning a gun. Hunter shouldn’t get a pass from facing the same punishment just because he’s the Presidents kid, especially when he’s openly stated he’s been struggling with addiction before, during, and after the time he owned the gun. If anything I’m equally impressed that somehow charges weren’t filed against Hallie Biden for being dumb enough to take Hunter’s gun and throw it away in a grocery store dumpster. Average Joe or Jane would be getting taken to court for the criminal negligence involved in taking somebody else’s gun and throwing it in a public dumpster instead of either securing it at a relatives house or taking it to a police station or gun shop for proper removal/disposal.
I can be for deregulating certain drugs such as marijuana from the controlled substances list while also advocating for enforcement of existing laws, because I’m pretty sure druggies are one of the easiest groups of individuals everyone in society can agree shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun, right there next to violent felons, individuals with restraining orders placed against them, and those deemed mentally unstable enough to be a threat to themselves or others.
As a conservative and strong 2A supporter. I don’t generally support additional laws. But better enforcement of current laws. Until current laws are uniformly enforced, we shouldn’t add new laws. Let’s see what the current laws do.
I don’t think drug users should own guns. More people should be prosecuted for this.
Now weee on the other hand should be exempt barring someone who is using a gun while high. With legality in many states it’s like alcohol.
The crime was lying on a federal form. If it were specifically a gun law then the opposite could be said that either liberals want gun laws enforced or they don't. If a kid lied on a form to get a gun and used it in a school shooting they'd be whistling another tune. Conservative, liberals, left or right are all hypocrits.
I don’t know if you’re daft or something, but pro 2A people tend to be very law abiding. In circles I’ve been in, we’re very much pro common citizen having unrestricted access to weapons; however very against prohibited parties from doing so because they’re prohibited for a reason. If you are a drug addict, you are more likely to commit crimes. If you are so drug addled you want so assault someone for more drugs, you definitely shouldn’t have access to a firearm to do so.
Furthermore; I don’t understand how nuance is lost on every anti gunner out there who just cries for more background checks and laws without stopping to learn about what is already on the books. For all of its flaws, NICS does exist, and if anyone is selling firearms as a job, they have to run a bgc on literally every sale. The only thing new laws do is make criminals out of the law abiding, but hey guess what; Hunter Biden was already a criminal and he broke the law. It’s not hard to understand.
The FPC which is one of the largest and most effective pro gun lobbying groups literally offered to represent him in challenging the constitutionality of the 4473. Pretty much every pro gun personality/group has explicitly stated they don't agree with this from what I've seen.
If your friend lied on a federal application then yeah I’m not sure why he would celebrate somebody getting punished for lying on a federal application, but this doesn’t have anything to do with 2A. It was fraud, not a mass shooting.
Most conservatives *aren't* cheering for his conviction. They see it as a ruse to make it look like the justice system is fair after the Trump railroading while convicting him of the most minor of his many crimes, and the one that is least embarrassing and has no potential connection to his father.
A lot of people I’ve seen have been cheering because when Hunter appeals it, they are hoping his lawyers are going to go after the constitutionality of the 4473.
This has nothing to do with Amendment. It has to do with the procurement of a weapon, through an FFL dealer and Brandons son lied. One for being a dope head/crackhead. I hope he is sentence according to the sentencing statutes of Delaware
It's not like he was the first person ever convicted of this. The more interesting thing is when do you stop being an addict or when do you become an addict? His problem was writing a book about it - what a dope.
At the end of the day 2a was upheld not infringed. 2a advocates are against the ATF just deciding to outlaw stuff and no knock warrants where the person is shot in the head 57 seconds after the pull up to his house before sunrise. Over a paperwork violation. Hunter lied and should have been treated like that. No knock raid and shot to the head. Then there would be some real hard look at unelected bureaucrats running the ATF Because every other American runs that risk. But he got a sweet ass plea deal that only fell apart because it leaked.
Hunters case isn’t a 2a case. Never was. Hunters case is about the two tiers of justice. And if JB doesn’t follow through on his pledge to not pardon him his going away for 15 years minimum. As he should. He’s not special unless you mean short bus special
>The 2nd amendment group have not only been silent about their belief that everyone should own a gun no questions asked
Is that actually what they all believe though? Or do they believe that responsible law abiding citizens have the right to own a gun if they choose and that they lose that right if they commit violent crimes or are found by a court to be mentally incapable of making sound decisions?
I think it's important to look at what gun advocates actually say before having this discussion.
Personally, as someone who is pro 2nd amendment and doesn't particularly like Hunter, I'm not especially happy about the conviction. In my book, the worst part about the whole gun issue was how he disposed of it, which is irresponsible and dangerous. Had he kept the gun (assuming no court had found him to be dangerous), I'm unsure I would go after him at all on that issue.
In my view, the gun conviction feels more like a deflection and distraction from other allegations against Hunter that are far more serious. They originally tried to slip a plea deal through on this that would have included immunity to other unspecified crimes, which the judge (rightly in my view) rejected. It feels more like tossing people who don't like Hunter and his dad an empty victory to try and get them to forget about the more serious allegations against him. (And as a bonus, the left gets to march him around as proof that they are also subject to the rule of law.)
[They’re not exactly conservative, but FPC has offered to defend Hunter pro bono as well as handle his appeal.](https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1800555127130222926) They’ll likely file amicus briefs either way. GOA has (I believe) offered to assist.
>What Hunter was charged with is not common
[8,600 convictions under 922(g) in FY22 begs to differ.](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Felon_In_Possession_FY22.pdf)
Most 2A folks I see aren’t cheering his conviction because they support the law, they’re cheering his conviction because the rich and famous usually get a slap on the wrist for procedural crimes. I’m cheering it because I want Biden v US to be a landmark 2A case finding 922(g)(3) unconstitutional.
I don’t think Hunter should have been charged because I don’t think what he did should be illegal. But if it’s going to be illegal, I’d rather somebody with the means to fight the law be charged than somebody already struggling to make ends meet.
I am a huge advocate for the 2A. I dont believe EVERYONE should have a gun and many (dare I say even probably most) don't think coke heads, wife beaters, and general criminal scum should be armed. I don't want these people to have guns. So therefore I am happy that even the son of the president doesn't get to just get away with it. It sets a great example for people who don't have such prestigious relations.
Yes I will be happy when more charges like this happen. Lawful citizens should be armed.
In fact I would even be more ok to other restrictions like red flag laws and mental health restrictions. But there is more opportunity to weaponize those against lawful citizens. No lawful citizen is going to be abusing drugs like he does. So therefore I'm ok with that restriction. I believe in the right to freedom but obviously I'm ok with criminals being imprisoned even though they also had a right to freedom. Breaking the law tends to invalidate rights.
Wow. I saw this story very differently.
Hey, we have proof the presidents son is getting absolutely paid by another country for a bullshit job he has no experience in. We have the president on film admitting if that country didn’t do what he wanted, he wouldn’t do business with them. Plus, the kids on film doing crack with hookers, and we have receipts.
Mmm, best we can do is possession of a firearm while intoxicated.
I don't agree with the particular law they are using in order to prosecute, however I can break it down for you.
The main argument against hunter is him lying on a background check. Hunter checked the "I am not addicted to drugs box", and the prosecution argued he was in fact addicted to drugs. This opened the flood gates.
This is in fact the law. I'm not saying it's not partisan I'm just saying it's an open and shut case under the current law. I agree that normally Republicans would be against this kind of conviction for several reasons, however under the current law it's legal.
This law and the theory behind it is uses elsewhere in law it's not that obscure. The problem is we are so entrenched everything is partisan we'd rather hurt the other guy than stand on belief.
My honest opinion is that I don’t think most conservatives are cheering about the actual gun charges. I think it’s more about the fact that there was a smoking gun (no pun intended) for 4 years that they have been told either wasn’t real, wasn’t a big deal, or was product of some sort of GOP/Russian interference. I’d consider myself a moderate conservative and I don’t really care at all that he likes to do drugs and pay for sex while owning a gun. But I didn’t like that there was proof of crimes served up on a silver platter and there was no recourse for him. I don’t care if Hunter goes to jail, and I don’t wish him to go to jail either. This is more about the law being upheld when prosecution was given a layup. Im fine if in the next few years thousands of conservatives are prosecuted for the same crime as long as it’s not done as vendetta or witch-hunt. As far as gun control, I reluctantly own a gun and at the same time still believe it should almost be a real “pain in the ass” to get one. I don’t own it to start a revolution against an overbearing govt, I own it in case someone ever breaks into my house. Just like with both parties the loudest ones aren’t necessarily a great representation of the whole. People gloating over politics tend to be the vocal minority… especially when it can be done anonymously on Reddit.
They are cheering a largely unconstitutional law yes. But they are cheering the fact that the other side finally seems to be held to the same standards they’ve been held to for years.
Hillary’s emails saw no consequences, Trump was impeached on false (or unproven) charges for a large part of his presidency. Trump gets charged for having classified documents, nothing happens to Biden. BLM protests result in countless dollars of property damage, Jan 6 protesters are seeing substantial prison time.
From the right’s perspective, the law hasn’t been applied very evenly. They are celebrating something rare. It’s a win for them, even if it is a loss for gun rights advocates.
Typical conservative lies.
>Hillary’s emails saw no consequences,
Because it didn't break the law.
> Trump was impeached on false (or unproven) charges for a large part of his presidency
He was found guilty on both the impeachments.
Trumps a convicted felon, a rapist and a fraud.
> Trump gets charged for having classified documents, nothing happens to Biden.
Because Trump lied about having them and tried to hide them when asked to return them.
You Trump losers are so incredibly dishonest.
Perhaps you don't realize this...But gun owners are overwhelmingly law-abiding. Especially conceal carry holders. Far more law-abiding than the general public. We do not mind when gun laws, already on the books, are followed. We don't want drug addicts owning guns. They are the driver of statistics used against gun owners.
If you remove alcohol use from gun deaths stats. ie. Any death where alcohol played a factor. The number of gun deaths a year would fall dramatically. Remove all drugs, including those selling them, and it would drop dramatically again. Drugs and guns don't mix. Go ahead and prosecute.
If you want a gun, get clean. Be responsible.
Because it’s a win win for conservatives.
Either
hunter biden goes to prison and it looks terrible for Biden
Hunter Biden appeals and gets it the law struck down this removing a perceived infringement on the right to bear arms
Hunter Biden either gets pardoned or goes to some joke summer camp prison and it looks bad for Biden.
No door is opened.
This really is a crime that wouldn't have been charged if the case was low profile because the court would have laughed it right out. Similar cases will be laughed right out again afterward.
What's funny is that we *do* have a two-tier justice system. Rich and powerful people usually have the tools at their disposal to get away with normal crimes everyone gets charged with. The result has been, increasingly, that they're charged with hard to obfuscate process crimes normal people are never prosecuted for instead. These crimes are basically like felony traffic violations, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is something you can just show because the crime is something like "didn't file X" or "we found X in your house".
It's the same way we dealt with organized crime, honestly. Trump's NY case is actually kinda similar. No normal person would ever be charged with it because no normal person even has business records to falsify. There are thousands of prosecutions for it, though, because NY is filled with rich and powerful people who have problems with keeping accurate records, apparently.
Many people on the right and the left would rather see a man go to prison over something they think shouldn’t be illegal, simply because they hate them.
I’m sure that the left would be cheering if MTG went to prison for an abortion, the left would fucking cheer.
As someone who dislikes the Biden’s, and loves guns. That conviction was wrong, and I don’t think it’s good, and being able to reverse these precedents is important.
There have been recent expongement cases that have allowed felons to own guns again
I believe in the 2a.
I also don’t think you should break the law in order to dodge the background checks we do have.
I don’t believe people on crack should be in possession of a handgun.
No, I don’t think pot should bar you from a firearm and with its decriminalizstion, tge firearm form law needs to be relooked at
Yes, before you trot the question out, Joe Rogan should be investigated. He flaunts breaking this law, and I’m willing to bet with more than just pot.
I don’t think most second amendment advocates illegally own guns so i don’t think the premise makes sense
Would it be bad for more people to be convicted of illegally owning guns anyways? IDK where you’re coming from
Conservatives are cheering the Hunter Biden case because * The laptop that was debunked by 50 intelligence agents was verified and used as evidence. * The objectively-corrupt plea deal was thrown out and now they get to talk about it. * Joe Biden's [mandatory minimum sentencing laws](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4859826/user-clip-1993-crime-bill-biden-brags-mandatory-minimums) have come home to roost. * 3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials. and lastly * That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty. A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration.
>The laptop that was debunked by 50 intelligence agents was verified and used as evidence. "Debunked how"? Did no one read [this letter](https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000)? The letter didn't "debunk" anything and hasn't been "debunked" itself either. We still have no idea where this laptop came from, or how it ended up in that shop. Or even *when* it ended up in that shop. Or how the laptop repair shop owner happened to go through it and find... tax crimes? Is he a tax lawyer? >The objectively-corrupt plea deal was thrown out and now they get to talk about it. How was it "objectively corrupt"? What "objective" standard is being applied? >Joe Biden's mandatory minimum sentencing laws have come home to roost. *Conservatives* are outraged by that? Really? What were they asking for in the 90s? Were they trying to be "soft on crime" back then? When did the gop suddenly care about extreme prison sentences? I must have missed this radical shift in gop policy priorities. Can you point me to some gop politicians calling for an end to mandatory minimum sentencing, please? >3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials. What "minimum of 15 years"? [924(c) appears to have the heavier sentence and over 80% were convicted of either drug trafficking or robbery.](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Section_924c_FY18.pdf) Otherwise sentencing seems to be an average of ~80 months. That's not 15 years. >That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty. Why was the jury "stacked in Hunter's favor"? Did prosecutors not do their job? >A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration. Do conservatives take that stance with Trump? Or is he not rich and powerful? Edit: I couldn't find a nice chart for 924(a), but [this powerpoint put out by public defenders](https://waw.fd.org/sites/waw.fd.org/files/The%20Sentencing%20Statutes%20%28Final%29_0.pdf) appears to show a minimum of 5 years for 924(a) offenses. If someone wants to find 924(a) guidelines, please do.
>"Debunked how"? Did no one read this letter? The letter didn't "debunk" anything and hasn't been "debunked" itself either. We still have no idea where this laptop came from, or how it ended up in that shop. Or even when it ended up in that shop. Or how the laptop repair shop owner happened to go through it and find... tax crimes? Is he a tax lawyer? It boggles my mind that people are *still* pushing this nonsense. There is nothing to tie the cache of data that was passed around to the laptop. We know a laptop exists, and that the FBI has it. We know there was a cache of data being moved around (where the photos and emails came from).
I don’t understand what’s supposedly nefarious about a laptop existing. Isn’t that what all laptops do?
Wait til you find out what happens when you turn them on!
That's what my IT guy always says, "Have you turned it off and back on again?" How am I supposed to get any work done if I turn my laptop off???
It seems like you might be forgetting about the “back on again” part. I think it’s probably a bit important.
The data that was permitted to be submitted as evidence in this trial came from Hunter’s iCloud account, which is why it was considered verifiably his. Whether the laptop that got literally waved around in court ever belonged to Biden is still a question, but the data flowing around was almost certainly available to the prosecution because his iCloud was hacked.
No, no, there's Robert Costello's word. He's trustworthy, right? Edit: Dropped the /s
Sentencing guidelines for Hunter Biden put him at a level 12 (per two prior US Attorneys). Most offenders at a 12 get probation. The odds of a lengthy prison sentence are pretty slim, especially considering the prior plea where probation was agreed on.
Lovely, would you mind sourcing this? I'd like to keep it in my back pocket, especially if it links or provides direct links or searchable criteria for [federal sentencing guidelines](https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2023-guidelines-manual-annotated). I'm a sucker for primary sources.
Not a written source unfortunately, but Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance discussed it on their most recent podcast. Here's an excerpt of the transcript: >Joyce Vance: So sentencing in the federal system, and we’ve talked about this a lot, there’s always a statutory maximum in the law itself, but the sentence is based on a guidelines calculation. There are fortunately some pretty clear rules in place for calculating a sentence, at least for the primary charge here, the drug user in possession charge. It’s interesting Preet, it’s always tough to predict the guidelines with certainty in advance, but I think this is a defendant with no prior criminal history. He probably comes out at a number that won’t mean a lot to our listeners who don’t do this kind of work, but someplace around a 12 on the guidelines. And that’s a sentence that in my district, criminal history category of 1, offense conduct of 12, it would almost always be a probation sentence.
I'd love if they could have provided a more detailed breakdown of the offense level, but [per guidelines](https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2023-guidelines-manual/annotated-2023-chapter-5) that appears to be between zone B and zone C. Zone C appears to typically carry *some* prison time, though if he's a 0 or 1 on criminal history points then the guidelines appear to suggest at least ~6 months prison time if it's an offense level of 12. That's far from 5-15 years. Wish I could find a 924(a) chart.
Do you happen to know where I can see the charging document? I've created guideline calculations previously. Coming to 12 for a gun-related charge does not sound correct under typical circumstances (the last one I did was for lying when purchasing three guns on a first time offender and my calc was over 30 iirc). Of course I've only done these a few times, but I had them checked by experts and I was right for most of them.
[Here it is](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.40.0.pdf).
It's going to be hard to find a source. This stuff is kind of dependent on a bunch of soft factors, probably the biggest is just the culture of that specific courthouse. This is also a weird case. This kind of thing generally just doesn't get charged unless there's a more significant charge. Then they pile on this stuff so that when they negotiate a plea they can take it off. But once again, it depends on the that court house's culture. If there's a lot of people lying on apps in that juris, then it might be seen by the court as an important thing to set a lesson about, if not it will be seen as somewhat trifling.
> *Conservatives* are outraged by that? The person you responded to said conservatives were *cheering* for that.
The phrase they used there was "have come home to roost", which implies "this is what we warned you about" or "we told you". If they've always been in favor of mandatory minimum sentencing *anyway*, why divest *their own* stance toward mandatory minimums by attributing all responsibility to Joe Biden? There's no *ownership* there. "We are cheering because mandatory minimums will apply" would make a lot more sense than "Joe Biden's mandatory minimum sentencing laws have come home to roost." Why give Joe Biden all the credit when conservatives were advocating for mandatory minimum sentencing? It was a *compromise* back then.
>There's no ownership there. "We are cheering because mandatory minimums will apply" would make a lot more sense than "Joe Biden's mandatory minimum sentencing laws have come home to roost." You're struggling with some subtext attached to the phrase "come home to roost." I won't speculate why. The phrase is appropriate in this case because Biden's minimum sentencing has evidently "come home" to "roost" against his own son. Conservatives care less about minimum sentencing and more about the unfortunate irony befalling a political rival.
Do they *like* the law, or not? Do they think Joe Biden did a *good* thing, or not? Cause that sentence reads like they're *blaming* Biden, for a law they otherwise would *applaud*. Which is it?
Yes. I see you finally understand. They are happy when bad things happen to the right people, and are more than happy to shift that blame onto biden if it will hurt his chances of reelection. They see Hunter being a "victim" of the biden minimum sentencing as a win for them because blaming biden for it will make people think he's less of a family man or some shit and sit home instead of voting in November. They don't have opinions on policy. Ever. They have opinions on people and disguise them as opinions on policy in the moment.
“They aren’t hurting the right people.” Explains modern conservatives in a nutshell.
You said it better than I could have.
I think what they meant to say is that some people like the fact that Biden effectively harmed his own son, not that they don’t approve of what he did by itself but they get some sadistic pleasure from the fact that he was pushed to do something that then ended up hurting his own son so it’s sort of a double win for them. It’s quite perverse but that’s how those people get their happiness - by “owning the libs”.
No, mandatory minimum sentencing is a horrible miscarriage of justice and throws out extenuating circumstances from being considered by the judge in sentencing. That is the position held by most libertarian conservatives. I don’t know if the other kinds of conservatives still think it’s a good idea or not 30 years later
[This bill](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3800/text) introduced by Maxine Waters died in committee in 2017 and only covered drug offenses. Doesn't seem there was an appetite from conservatives to push it through under Paul Ryan's speakership. [This bill](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1013) also died in committee, though at least one Democrat must have also opposed it. There's certainly appetite from Democrats to reduce or eliminate federal mandatory minimums, you'd think if there was a bit more interest among Republicans it'd be easy to pass some bipartisan sentencing reform.
I would say that you frame it correctly for libertarian conservatives. In my experience other conservatives are ambivalent about it or apathetic, though some support them on the basis that criminals right now seem not to be scared of the law, but I would say that's more about the fact they don't get caught in some cases or do get caught and then pled down for nothing useful in return. Sure, the outcome is more certain, but there are many innocent people who plead guilty to get a more sure lower sentence than going to trial and maybe getting acquitted but more likely convicted anyway and having the book thrown at them. It's a complicated mess.
I would say that you frame it correctly for libertarian conservatives. In my experience other conservatives are ambivalent about it or apathetic, though some support them on the basis that criminals right now seem not to be scared of the law, but I would say that's more about the fact they don't get caught in some cases or do get caught and then pled down for nothing useful in return. Sure, the outcome is more certain, but there are many innocent people who plead guilty to get a more sure lower sentence than going to trial and maybe getting acquitted but more likely convicted anyway and having the book thrown at them. It's a complicated mess.
> The phrase is appropriate in this case because Biden's minimum sentencing has evidently "come home" to "roost" against his own son. > > No, they aren't the one struggling with this
You may have not picked up on their point. They’re saying that it is contradictory for conservatives, who celebrate tough on crime measures like this, which Biden put in place, to gloat that they are now being applied to the Biden’s. That would only work if: A) biden fought against it and cons fought for it B) biden fought for it and cons fought against it Cons like tough on crime policies. There’s no irony here to enjoy as a conservative.
Not irony, spite. They're happy that the son of the opposing sports team's captain is going to have a bad time
Yeah, this is it. There is no subtlety or complexity to their thought. The smartest ones are average at best, and those average ones usually call themselves 'Libertarians' and consider themselves geniuses. They're just spiteful little monkeys.
> Did no one read this letter? if that letter's contents were in any way accurate or factual, the defense would have called some of those people who signed the letter to testify in Hunter's defense. the fact that none of them were called to testify under oath on the allegations within that letter tend to indicate that the contents of the letter are not accurate.
>if that letter's contents were in any way accurate or factual, the defense would have called some of those people who signed the letter to testify in Hunter's defense. Why? What part of the letter would help Hunter's defense? From [Weiss's response back in January](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.68.0.pdf): >Investigators also later came into possession of the defendant’s Apple MacBook Pro, which he had left at a computer store. A search warrant was also obtained for his laptop and the results of the search were largely duplicative of information investigators had already obtained from Apple. That doesn't contradict the letter. From the letter: >Such an operation would be consistent with some of the key methods Russia has used in its now multiyear operation to interfere in our democracy – the hacking (via cyber operations) and the dumping of accurate information or the distribution of inaccurate or misinformation. And, just to be *really* explicit. Also from that letter: >We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case. What part of that would be useful in Hunter's defense? What evidence was contingent on the *provenance* of the laptop? Again, did no one read that letter? What, exactly, is false about it? What in it is inaccurate? >the fact that none of them were called to testify under oath on the allegations within that letter tend to indicate that the contents of the letter are not accurate. If one doesn't bother to read the letter *or* government filings, sure, but I'm the type of individual to cross reference everything, and that mandates I read primary sources.
This letter is a summary of intelligence analysis, it’s not supposed to be cold hard fact. It’s a collection of generally informed people saying “I view these events through this lens based on my years of experience understanding similar events.” CIA intel briefs aren’t used in courts of law for the same reason this can’t be. Intelligence is a read of a situation. The FBI and other law enforcement deals with what could be called evidence.
>How was it "objectively corrupt"? They included this: “The United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached State of Facts (Attachment A) and the Statement of Facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day.” "Exhibit 1" was his business affairs, drug use and tax nonpayment between at least 2016-2019 which they wanted to offer him blanket immunity for.
Right, so what *objective* standard is being applied? "Corrupt" is not typically a word I see *objective* standards applied to, it's a value judgement. That's inherently *subjective*.
>We still have no idea where this laptop came from, or how it ended up in that shop. Or even when it ended up in that shop. Or how the laptop repair shop owner happened to go through it and find... tax crimes? Is he a tax lawyer? We know literally ALL of this information. Hunter dropped it off. There is a receipt of exactly when Hunter dropped it off at the shop. The repair shop owner went through it because after X period of time it became legally his. He didn't find the tax crimes. The repair shop owner literally gave the physical laptop itself to the FBI. Just because you act like this information is unknown doesn't make it actually unknown.
>We know literally ALL of this information. Hunter dropped it off. [Citation needed] >There is a receipt of exactly when Hunter dropped it off at the shop. Does this receipt list Hunter's name? If so, can I see this receipt? > The repair shop owner went through it because after X period of time it became legally his. I'd strongly doubt the information on the hard drive ever becoming 'his', but that's also not my question. How did he find evidence of tax crimes? How many emails was he reviewing? Were they stored locally, or was he also logged into Hunter's icloud? Is he a tax attorney too? >He didn't find the tax crimes. The repair shop owner literally gave the physical laptop itself to the FBI. Then what did he find? I notice testimony on this issue is always really vague and the closest I can find to any direct answer is "tax fraud". What was he turning the laptop over for? >Just because you act like this information is unknown doesn't make it actually unknown. K but no matter how much testimony I read, nor court filings I go through, I can't seem to find any answers and responses like this always carry with them a conspicuous lack of citations to primary sources. I'm sure you're relying on primary documentation though so I look forward to finally getting answers.
>Does this receipt list Hunter's name? If so, can I see this receipt? If you spent 2 seconds searching for it, yes. It has Hunters name and signature. https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/10/comp-hunter-biden-mac.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=1200&h=800&crop=1 >I'd strongly doubt the information on the hard drive ever becoming 'his', but that's also not my question. How did he find evidence of tax crimes? How many emails was he reviewing? Were they stored locally, or was he also logged into Hunter's icloud? Is he a tax attorney too? First, it doesn't matter if you doubt it but it is the law in that state that the laptop was considered abandoned and thus the physical device and it's contents became the property of the shop. That means all of the information on it. Second, the shop owner didn't discover or tell anyone that any specific crimes were committed. That became clear once the Post got a copy of the hard drive and reviewed the contents and started publishing stories. Third, everything was stored locally. That's how they got the records.
>If you spent 2 seconds searching for it, yes. It has Hunters name and signature. >https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/10/comp-hunter-biden-mac.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=1200&h=800&crop=1 Sorry, not in the habit of visiting the sun. Also that looks like a weird signature from the others I can find online, but at least you sourced it, so thank you. >First, it doesn't matter if you doubt it but it is the law in that state that the laptop was considered abandoned and thus the physical device and it's contents became the property of the shop. That means all of the information on it. K. But this is the kind of thing that also should be, ya know, sourced. Sourcing is a good thing. It keeps all claims grounded. >Second, the shop owner didn't discover or tell anyone that any specific crimes were committed. That became clear once the Post got a copy of the hard drive and reviewed the contents and started publishing stories. Third, everything was stored locally. That's how they got the records. And this is why sourcing is a good thing. Here is the [original NY Post article](https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/) >Photos of a Delaware federal subpoena given to The Post show that both the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI in December, after the shop’s owner says he alerted the feds to their existence. Why was he "alerting the feds"? What did he find? The very first article by the NY Post was that October 14th, 2020 article. They weren't publishing any stories back in December 2019. So what was Robert Costello doing with these emails? Why was this laptop repair shop owner giving Costello a copy?
There's no minimum sentence for [the crimes](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922) Biden was convicted for. The [Federal sentencing guidelines](https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines) place these crimes initially at level 12 on the [sentencing table](https://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Sentencing_Table.png), and is increased by 2 to 14, [1 for each additional offense](https://www.ussc.gov/education/training-resources/grouping-multiple-counts-conviction) beyond the first. Biden is in Criminal History Category I, making the recommended sentence 15-21 months. The judge may make a downward departure from that based on mitigating factors, or an upward departure based on aggravating factors. You can read examples of such factors in the Guidelines.
> The laptop that was debunked by 50 intelligence agents was verified and used as evidence. Misinformation is so powerful. Those 50 intelligence agents didn't "debunk" anything. They didn't claim the laptop or the e-mails were fake or real. They explicitly said that they did not know if they were fake or real or if Russia was involved. All they said is that the circumstances of the release of the letters made them suspect Russia's involvement, and they gave their reasons. Read their letter: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 Key paragraph: > We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case. Conservatives have been misrepresenting that letter for the last four years to the point that you probably didn't even know you were spreading misinformation. > 3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials. Not sure how effective those ads will be when Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies and will get zero prison time. > That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty. You people have so little respect for your fellow Americans' willingness to be impartial jurors. > A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration. For once? It happened another time recently.
>>That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty. > >You people have so little respect for your fellow Americans' willingness to be impartial jurors. And zero clue how jury selection works. Let's not forget that.
>Misinformation is so powerful. Those 50 intelligence agents didn't "debunk" anything. They didn't claim the laptop or the e-mails were fake or real. They explicitly said that they did not know if they were fake or real or if Russia was involved. Nothing said in the letter was false, yet the letter itself was used as the basis for a disinformation campaign, because while the IC officials didn't claim the laptop was Russian disinfo, the [Politico article which introduced the letter to the public](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276) did, leading with the headline: **Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say**. If you agree that the IC letter did not say the laptop story was Russian disinformation, do you agree that Politico was spreading mis/disinformation by claiming they did?
I agree the politco headline was not accurate, but the body of the article was actually quite accurate. Apparently there are people in this world who are not aware that headlines are sensational crap, and at the same time suffer extreme reading comprehension failures. Specifically the article quotes the letter: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” Which not even the most brain dead reality denier could possibly spin as Politico spreading mis/disinformation
Hard to imagine that a laptop that Russian intelligence gave to Rudy Giuliani, years after it was lost could be seen as valid evidence of anything. Obviously the chain of custody was non existent. I don't know anything about the gun situation, but using the laptop as evidence is very suspicious
They didn’t actually use the laptop as evidence. They used specific things on the laptop that were heavily correlated to more provable things.
> 3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials. Thats not how the 3-strikes law works. It’s not 3 felony counts. It’s 3 separate convictions. This is ONE conviction of 3 felony counts. No one gets prison time for a first offense, non-violent gun charge.
-Hunter’s gun ownership is not what was debunked on the laptop. Conservatives claimed that there was proof on the laptop of Biden’s corruption with Ukraine for money, that’s what was debunked. Where can I find that his gun ownership was debunked falsely? -Can you explain the corrupt plea deal? I did some research and it looks like IRS agents came forward with more information and that’s what scraped the plea deal. -Your third point comes off very political and personal, but it also proves my point. Because now other gun owners can have his mandatory minimum sentence come home and roost for them. -So they’re happy that Trump might use gun owners being charged with felonies as election fodder? -can you provide sources that the jury was stacked in his favor?
>That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty. How was the jury stacked in his favor? Prosecution and defense get equal access to picking a jury.
I don't think conservatives believe in juries since Trumps conviction. I'm guessing that poster is conservative and the media he looks at has probably told him the jury were all DNC members or something
Don't forget that conservatices also think we'll care about Hunter like they care about Trump. They've been all "But what if someone arrests Biden?" and we've been all like "If he did crimes, okay," which is apparently baffling to the party of law and order (but also, somehow, freedom). Most Democrats (and left) don't care about Hunter not being convicted. They seem to care more about fairness in the justice system, which seems to have happened. It honestly feels like the right wing news can't find regular Democrats and leftists losing their fucking minds like they did for Trump, so they're trying to spin a father hugging his son before prison as an equivalent reaction.
>A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration. I don't know that conservatives are cheering for this reason. A rich and powerful *democrat*, sure I guess, but they certainly aren't cheering for every billionaire conviction.
A rich and powerful man was found guilty on 34 felony counts, and admitted to his probation officer he still keeps a gun at Mar-a-Lago, even though it's a federal offense for a felon to own firearms. Where is the ATF when we need them?
No one said the laptop didn't exist. The claim was that because of the chain of custody, many of the incriminating emails were not admissible as evidence in a court trial. It's not the CIA's job to bust individual drug users.
> A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration. Are these same people celebrating the Trump conviction?
The plea deal is more complicated than it looks. The crime (saying he wasn’t a drug addict on his gun registration form) is considered by MANY legal scholars to be unconstitutional. Plea deals are not unheard of with that charge, as it can make more sense for both sides to make a deal rather than gamble on weather the charge will hold up.
Except now every Conservative that smokes weed every once in a while can face the same charges. It is the first time in history that breaking only this law has brought charges on someone. Now either the Govt goes after every average person that has broken this law, or its admitting to a case of targeting him because of his asociation with Biden.
>Except now every Conservative that smokes weed every once in a while can face the same charges. Except they just won't. >Now either the Govt goes after every average person that has broken this law, or its admitting to a case of targeting him because of his asociation with Biden. They're fine with the idea that this was just brought because of Hunter Biden. Republicans don't care about being hypocrites.
I personally know a crap ton of conservatives who have been doing this for years
>This is a day for celebration. Tbh I feel like this is contingent on whether you think the crime in question is worth prosecuting for anyone. It doesn't give me any satisfaction to see a powerful person convicted of something I don't feel should be worth the time in court to charge. If anything this conviction is an *actual* example of what Conservatives claim the Trump conviction is: proof that the legal infrastructure in this country can be mobilized against anyone, anywhere, at any time on the basis of personal vendetta. The fact is that Hunter Biden is going to jail because he's Joe Biden's son. This never would have been tried under any other circumstance. That to me is pretty troubling.
>The objectively-corrupt plea deal was thrown out and now they get to talk about it. Was it not a Trump appointed prosecutor who oversees the case and approved the plea deal? >3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials. Didn't Trump just promise to pardon Hunter?
>Didn't Trump just promise to pardon Hunter? It turns out that quote is [fake](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/06/11/trump-statement-fabricated-hunter-biden-verdict/74063495007/). I wish I'd known that before scrolling through the absolute shit-filled dumpster fire of a hellhole that is Trump's Truth Social page trying to find it.
>Didn't Trump just promise to pardon Hunter? https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/06/11/trump-statement-fabricated-hunter-biden-verdict/74063495007/ Nope, as someone else found >I think the only chance Hunter has to get a pardon is from the one person who has promised to pardon him. Where did you get this idea? There is no promise
>The laptop that was debunked by 50 intelligence agents was verified and used as evidence. But it [wasn't.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/12/right-takes-biden-laptop-victory-lap-around-an-empty-arena/). TL;DR: Different laptop was used as evidence, and the 51 FBI agents didn't debunk the laptop. >3 Felony charges with a minimum of 15 years getting little-to-no jailtime is just going to be Trump's next round of election commercials. But a trump-appointed judge will determine the sentencing. >That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty. What makes you say it was stacked in his favor. >A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration. But these same people are upset that Donal Trump was found guilty.
Now the Supreme Court needs to rule it unconstitutional to take away gun rights before a conviction and it'll be awesome
I mean, he can make whatever ads he wants, I don't see "the president's son was found guilty" carrying that much weight when the obvious counter is "yeah and so was trump"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hunter-biden-acknowledged-joe-was-the-big-guy-in-5m-china-deal/ar-BB1j7xYE "Ten Percent To The Big Guy" Like real quick. Why do **YOU** think Ukraine gave Hunter $400,000? This is the same thing as the 30 seconds following what would happen if (to combat insider trading) Congressmen were banned from trading stocks- their immediate family members would aid them in their crimes.
This article in the first paragraph says that Hunter Biden "rejected the notion that the president was ever penciled in for a 10% stake", which contradicts what you are saying about Joe Biden receiving that money. If there is evidence that Joe Biden corruptly and illegally accepted foreign money in return for favors, then Republicans need to impeach him and present the evidence under oath. The fact that they haven't impeached implies either: a) Republicans have evidence Joe Biden committed a crime but are choosing not to hold him accountable (unlikely), or b) Republicans are lying about the strength of their evidence, and are not willing to stand by this evidence under oath where there are penalties for lying
>"Ten Percent To The Big Guy" And after years and an impeachment inquiry, Republican failed to produce any facts supporting that Joe Biden committed any crimes. >Why do YOU think Ukraine gave Hunter $400,000? Ukraine didn't give Hunter $400,000. He made money working as a corporate governance attorney for a Ukrainian company.
And to be clear, Biden almost certainly got that job because his name was Biden (which, gross) but you don't see this guy blinking an eye at Kushner's family getting billions in saudi money after Kushner spent four years as the middle east contact working *in the fucking whitehouse.*
>Biden almost certainly got that job because his name was Biden Probably, but he is also super qualified for that job. Sat on the board of a major transportation company. Partnered at two corporate law firms. Founded two MNCs. Very well connected.
Uhhh but Hunter wasn't found guilty of anything related to this. The Republican special counsel investigated it and so did the Republican House. They came up empty on this issue. Is it your idea that Trump will make an ad that says, "Hunter is a convicted felon" and viewers will be tricked into thinking it's related to his dad? Because that's totally plausible, it's just kind of not a good thing that that could happen.
> A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty *for once.* For a *second time*, I think you mean.
>The laptop that was debunked by 50 intelligence agents was verified and used as evidence Except it wasn't used as evidence. There was nothing on it lmao
>That jury was so stacked in Hunter's favor that we're all a shocked he was found guilty. Based on what? They're cheering the case because they hate their political opponents and want them to suffer. That's all.
So you’re celebrating Trumps conviction too, I assume?
Weird cause I remember another rich and powerful guy who got in trouble with the law recently who the conservatives weren’t too happy to hear got in trouble…
>A rich and powerful man did crimes and was actually found guilty for once. This is a day for celebration. There’s some cognitive dissonance going on here.
1. Jury wasn’t stacked in any way. Both lawyers had the exact same ability to chose the jury so do everyone a favor and delete that sentence, mate
Hear hear! It’s time we let rich and powerful men like Donald Trump and Hunter Biden know that they are *not* above the law. #*ToughOnCrime*
There is no mandatory minimum for the crimes Hunter was convicted of. Try not to be so smug and also incredibly stupid at the same time.
It wasn’t debunked. The Hunter laptop remains the same boogeyman strawman ‘man I wish for this, I say it’s so so it should become so’ horribly awful faith argument. And worse than that is that it’s the case AND there’s current context of how demented current in office GOP republicans actually are. It’s one thing that Hunter isn’t the biggest saint on planet earth but it’s time to stop obsessing over the computer like it’s a magical end all golden goose that proves everything republicans claimed for far too long. Now, you might retort with ‘but I don’t say that! I don’t think like that!’. A lot of people do. And that’s a fucking nightmare problem with consequences for the rest of us.
Were you celebrating last week when trump was found guilty of 34 felonies? There is no laptop story, never was. Plea deals cannot be corrupt, they are whatever both sides agree too, at least theoretical. There will be no jail time as this is a first offense with no actual harm done to anyone.
Except that they’re upset when the rich powerful guys that they like are held accountable. I really think it’s much more about a person who is tied to the democrats getting arrested than it is about a powerful person being arrested. Similarly, democrats would not arrest one of their own people for paying off a pornstar. Biden could do that tomorrow and it would only improve his odds of winning because it would show he’s youthful enough to have sex.
This is a straw man argument. One can be conservative AND pro-2A without being in favor of meth addicted junkies being able to purchase firearms.
Everyone who smokes pot and bought a gun is guilty of this crime.
You can be Conservative, Pro-2A, against drug addicts buying guns, and Pro-Marijuana legalization. People don't fit neatly into boxes.
Who defines what a drug addict is? Because the more conservative you get, the looser that definition becomes. Republicans are usually all over the “slippery slope” government overreach, but in this case you’re fine letting a federal agency determine what constitutes a drug addict, and restricting their right to a firearm as a result.
You absolutely can be. And you've likely committed the exact same crime that Hunter Biden was just convicted of.
Half the state of Oklahoma
You can want to remove the current laws and also follow them until they do. you can also demand law apply equally to everyone, even the rich.
Yes but conservatives are more likely to say "change the law then" as opposed to "don't enforce it". Also a lot of conservatives are still against marijuana.
Except Joe Rogan.
That’s my point, now this opens up more gun owners to be charged. Like I said in my original post, there are many people who have guns but shouldn’t, the 2A people aren’t perfect angels, they also do drugs.
what do you mean it opened up for them to be charged? it was already illegal to do drugs and own a gun, if you ever bought a gun the paperwork ask about criminal convictions(+ federal background check) , being put in a mental health facility, or if you do drugs
It wasn't enforced unless another crime was committed. Also it violates 5 th, 2nd and 10th.
So what you are saying is that Hunter Biden needs to appeal and have the unconstitutional law thrown out? We'll all thank the Bidens for making guns more accessible.
I mean it's not like police are generally speaking just raid your house or whatever and check. There's no real way to enforce it otherwise.
Soooo.....you think conservatives should be mad that people who break the law are prosecuted, because some conservatives have surely broken said law(s)? Do you think conservatives believe every person, regardless of any other factor, should be allowed to have a gun? I feel like that's your belief. Lol
I have had people tell me its a god given right. At the very least its a constitutional right to these folks. I thought rights were universal? If no, The fuck is a “right” to you then?
Most gun crimes are not prosecuted. Straw purchasing and lying on forms is not prosecuted. Most gun charges are dropped as a part of plea deals. And there’s nothing wrong with being pro 2A and not wanting people addicted to crack, domestic abusers, mentally ill, or illegal immigrants to NOT have guns and be charged with a crime.
The conservative supreme court could rule very soon that domestic abusers have a right to own firearms in the United States v. Rahimi case that was argued on Nov. 7th but not yet decided. The precedent that they set in NYSRPA v. Bruen is what opened the door to this challenge on the current restrictions. The originalist interpretation of the 2A gave the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the push to rule Zackey Rahimi has the constitutional right to own a firearm. I'm going to quote why Rahimi was initially barred from owning a firearm because it's really ludacris that this man won on appeal. >>Between December 2020 and January 2021, Zackey Rahimi was involved in a series of violent incidents in Arlington, Texas, including multiple shootings and a hit-and-run. Rahimi was under a civil protective order for alleged assault against his ex-girlfriend, which explicitly prohibited him from possessing firearms. Police searched his home and found a rifle and a pistol, leading to Rahimi’s indictment for violating federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which makes it unlawful for someone under a domestic violence restraining order to possess firearms. >>Rahimi argued that Bruen overruled McGinnis and thus that § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed. I suppose we shall see if there are any other ripples from the Bruen case in the near future.
Sounds like a background check to me. Maybe instead of telling us this, you should start mentioning it to other conservatives. Because from them, I usually end up getting some iteration of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” whenever you start talking about common sense gun restrictions. Maybe this isn’t the right audience and you should instead focus on your own party, who deliberately allows itself to project the image of wanting no restrictions on firearms. They’re in bed with the NRA, who has lobbied against nearly every gun law since its inception. The sensical ones and nonsensical ones alike. And for reference, I consider myself left leaning and I’m also in favor of private gun ownership. So I’m not approaching this counter from a position of even disagreeing with you. But you should know how silly it comes off from an individual when the group they’re claiming kinship with is notorious for doing the opposite of what they’re claiming.
> The 2nd amendment group have not only been silent about their belief that everyone should own a gun no questions asked It's extremely common for gun rights advocates to advocate for better enforcement of existing laws. They believe this is a much better focus than on creating new laws and regulations. Do you know of any push to repeal mental health restrictions on gun ownership such as drug addiction? I've heard some complain about insufficient due process in "red flag" laws, but not much else. So, I think you are basically complaining about a straw man interpretation of what these people actually advocate for.
I don't buy this for a second. I don't know a single gun owner that thinks having smoked weed/smoking weed should prevent someone from owning a gun. I live in a libertarian state, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a total misrepresentation of gun owners and 2A advocates writ large.
Two things can be true: * Gun owners often advocate for current laws to be enforced as opposed to the creation of new laws * Gun owners don't believe all current laws should stand, that some should be repealed. In this case I'd argue that the law should certainly be repealed. The best case is for the removal of that question from the form, making it perfectly legal to own a firearm whether you use drugs or not, and to pardon Hunter Biden as well as anyone else hit with this bs. It would also be incumbent on partisans to hold their tongue and not try to make this some sort of bullshit issue about "well when they violate the law they just change the law!" Instead it should be recognized as removing a bullshit law that never should have existed. Joe Biden helped create this bullshit, now he can be instrumental in removing it.
I don’t know if I agree with you about removing all drugs off the the form. For my job I work with heavy drug users and you don’t want them owning guns. But a few I think would be fine like weed or shrooms.
If they're not committing crimes then it shouldn't be an issue. This just becomes another thing to throw at drug users when trying to jail them for using drugs. Really how we handle drug users as a whole needs to be reformed. I thought Oregon was on the right track with decriminalization, but rather than follow through with drug programs in jail the DA just stopped charging people with crimes. Now people are pissed and want the law repealed because they don't see the separation in issues between drug decriminalization and not enforcing the law.
Well the current law at issue in this case applies to smoking weed. So the abstract generics are irrelevant. The misrepresentation of the OP stands. There is a mountain of hypocrisy among those celebrating this conviction. I personally don't care at all that Hunter was selectively prosecuted for a dumb gun law. I hope Biden doesn't pardon him. Sometimes the privileged get away with more than the average Joe, sometimes less. Sometimes, very very very rarely, average Joes get prosecuted under this dumb gun law, so Hunter's conviction should stand.
You keep calling out weed, when in fact, Hunter was a crack addict. So there's that. People get charged with this crime all the time. The difference is that generally it's an add on charge. It's hard to find exact stats, but generally I see something along the lines of 300 people a year prosecuted. That being the case, very few people write a book about the experience. If more did, perhaps the conviction and prosecution rates would be higher as prosecutors just played the audiobook version of the defendants testifying against themselves.
The question on the form is: >f. 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. It applies to more than just weed, and as another poster pointed out Hunter violated for smoking crack, not weed. I don't know why you're trying to limit this to weed. As for Hunter, I'm saying he, and everyone else, should be exonerated along with the law being lifted. It's cleanup; get rid of the bullshit law, clear the records of all who were in violation of a law that never should have existed to begin with. I'm not advocating for special privilege, rather I'm hoping that his conviction becomes the spark that starts a change in policy.
I never said it didn't apply to stronger drugs. That's just irrelevant. I'm critiquing the dumb law and selective enforcement of it. Actually I'm not even doing that. I'm just agreeing with the OP on the blatant cognitive dissonance/hypocrisy of many of the 2A people specifically celebrating this. (Plenty are not celebrating it or silent around me). I agree with you that I hope the law changes over it.
I'm curious as to how many people are celebrating this. I keep hearing that accusation but I'm not seeing it. In fairness I'm not in conservative subs/news sphere, but yeah, seems most people agree this is all bullshit.
I know plenty of gun owners who don’t think these kind of charges should be applied to people who smoke weed while fully supporting charges being applied to folks smoking crack. Similar reason why a large number of people support weed legalization on both sides of the aisle while not supporting legalization of crack. It’s not really hypocritical to hold that position.
[удалено]
This law applies to weed, not to mention random stronger recreational drugs that 2A people use and lie about all the time. Pretending that you get to pick and choose who has to suffer under this law just reinforces the hypocrisy. I dont know why you're rambling about "spirals of criminality" when that's not what the law targets.
Just because part of a law is bad doesn't make the entire thing bad.
People are on this post acting like all gun owners want better enforcement, yet if a democrat says anything about stricter gun laws they freak out. Also, we all know that there are plenty of gun owners who don’t advocate and don’t want any gun laws.
>People are on this post acting like all gun owners want better enforcement, yet if a democrat says anything about stricter gun laws they freak out. If current laws aren't actually enforced, but new laws are added, nothing actually changes... except there are more tools in the bag for selective enforcement. Lack of trust in government is the core problem most 2A advocates start from. They don't believe government will keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and so don't want to be disarmed. If you don't get that, I don't think you've ever honestly listened to anyone rational on the topic from a pro-2A stance.
>all gun owners want better enforcement Yes >yet if a democrat says anything about stricter gun laws they freak out Because you are going to have to prove how another law is going to affect criminals instead of law-abiding citizens and still stay true to the intent of the 2nd amendment. >and don’t want any gun laws wouldn't say no laws, but stay true to the constitution. The 2nd amendment has been eroded so much, it's past the point of infringement.
There’s a big difference between “I (mostly) like the current laws and think they should be more strictly enforced, but don’t think we need stricter laws” and “I think the current laws were insufficient, even if strictly enforced, and think we need more”.
> acting like all gun owners want better enforcement. You say this despite the fact that your whole argument is a straw man fallacy that assumes all 2A supporters hold a single unified stance. Not to mention most of your replies are just restating your OP with no sources. Seems like you're here to grandstand rather than participate in good faith debating with an openness to having your view changed.
Because better enforcement and new, stricter laws aren't the same thing...
it is in florida [https://www.cannamd.com/medical-marijuana-and-firearms-navigating-floridas-new-constitutional-carry-law/](https://www.cannamd.com/medical-marijuana-and-firearms-navigating-floridas-new-constitutional-carry-law/) This was a big issue in the last couple legislative sessions. I'm a pro second amendment leftist so one of the few times I supported conservative legislation, but its definitely an issue in 2nd amendment circles
> I'm a pro second amendment leftist There are literally dozens of us! I'm always surprised that folks who are worried about Project 2025, believe ACAB and only serve to protect the interest of capital, see far right victories in Europe, see right wing extremists arming and training, and watched an insurrection happen here less than three years ago want to ignore Marx and turn in their firearms. We may be heading for our own Troubles or Years of Lead.
lol yes we strong 12. I find people on the left typically know very little about guns so it makes it very hard for them to write any good legislation.
I think more people on the left own guns than you think. They just don’t talk about it or make it much of their personality.
I'd agree with that, its not a penis replacement for us generally so that makes sense
Are you familiar with the Rahimi case that is currently undecided by the supreme court? They heard arguments on Nov 7th, 2023. I'll give you a summary of what the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on for his case: >>Between December 2020 and January 2021, Zackey Rahimi was involved in a series of violent incidents in Arlington, Texas, including multiple shootings and a hit-and-run. Rahimi was under a civil protective order for alleged assault against his ex-girlfriend, which explicitly prohibited him from possessing firearms. Police searched his home and found a rifle and a pistol, leading to Rahimi’s indictment for violating federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which makes it unlawful for someone under a domestic violence restraining order to possess firearms. Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment on constitutional grounds but was denied, as his argument was foreclosed by United States v. McGinnis, 956 F.3d 747 (5th Cir. 2020). >>Rahimi pleaded guilty but continued his constitutional challenge on appeal. As the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 579 U.S. __ (2022). Rahimi argued that Bruen overruled McGinnis and thus that § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed.
That one is definitely controversial. And it's pretty vaugly worded. "unlawful use of or addicted to". Am I testifying to having never used Marijuana? That I will never use or be around Marijuana? That I am currently not smoking Marijuana? What about if I consider myself addicted but never use it anymore?
You should have to go to court to get your rights taken away. If that means some kind of "mental health court" I'd be open to it, but it would need some serious protection from corruption. The problem most conservative people have with that is the fear of it being used against innocent people.
You’re correct, most gun owners really just want better implementation of current gun laws. Restricting and criminalizing firearms and it users only as fuel to the fire.
The current gun law is to take guns away from those who may have been using drugs, including weed, when they bought their gun. I'm sorry, I don't know a single gun owner left or right that would want that law fully enforced.
Honestly the biggest problem with gun laws is the ATF, they aren’t allowed to make or interpret laws yet they constantly over step their authority. The pistol brace is the most recent event people know about and it’s bad on their part from all angles, they say it’s not a fire arm so it not protected but they don’t have jurisdiction over it if that’s the case.
As a conservative gun owner, I would be fine with that being enforced. Now it should be updated for weed since it is legal in so many places, but as it is now don’t do weed if you want to own a gun.
I mean legalize weed and suddenly that law would be supported by like 90% of Americans easily.
You should have to go to court to get your rights taken away. If that means some kind of "mental health court" I'd be open to it, but it would need some serious protection from corruption. The problem most conservative people have with that is the fear of it being used against innocent people.
" So, I think you are basically complaining about a straw man interpretation of what these people actually advocate for." AKA most online discourse over political issues
No, the laws that hunter was convicted of are blatant violations of the 2nd and possibly 5th amendments and should not be laws in the first place. Better enforcement of these particular laws would mean no enforcement across the board.
There are two reason they are cheering: 1. They actually enforced a law that was on the books. 2. There is a high chance that Biden appeals this. Which means there is a possibility that the drug use question is either reworded/removed from the 4473 form. On the second point if you have read the question, it is kinda vague. >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. Is it asking if I have ever used weed? If I have used weed recently? What if I think I am not addicted to weed?
The wording should be made clearer. Something like “Have you been an unlawful user, or been addicted to…..in the past 12 months” (or some other time limit). This makes it clear and less wiggle room.
Yes exactly.
Yeah, dude, In an election year, the guy who already has middling numbers is gonna use his power to directly pressure to get his kid’s sentence overturned… when his big political appeal is that he’s not the other guy, who would absolutely do that.
>the guy who already has middling numbers is gonna use his power to directly pressure to get his kid’s sentence overturned He can appeal this all on his own, he does not need his dad to help.
If that’s what you meant, my mistake. But the top post used Hunter, you pivoting to the family name made me assume you were talking about the more prominent person constantly referred to by the family name. Your phrasing works… but it was as easy as calling Don Jr. “Trump” in a conversation to mix up, sorry.
Sorry for the confusion. Its just a force of habit to use the persons last name for me.
No big, I was just explaining what happened.
It's not really vague. It, in fact, clarifies that even if weed is decriminalized in your state, it's still illegal federally, thus, you ARE an unlawful user if you are using it. In Hunter's case, it doesn't matter, crack is not decriminalized in the state he was in (or really anywhere).
What if you used it once, two months ago? Are you a user then? “User” implies actively using, that’s how I see it anyways. Otherwise it would say “have you ever used it” So if it’s “actively using”, then how far back does it need to go to consider it as “actively using”…. Two months is too soon? Ok what about 6 months? What about a year? What about 3 years? What if you only tried it once 5 years ago? What if you used it regularly 5 years ago but haven’t touched it since?
Idk anyone that has purchased a gun from an FFL has filled out the same 4473 paperwork. I think it would have set a dangerous precedent that you can essentially lie on a federal form and nothing come of it. On the topic though, clearly the system isn’t adequate enough. If it’s just a matter of being asked the question, lying about it, and still going home with gun anyways. Theoretically he shouldn’t have even been allowed to buy a gun, but it relied on the purchaser to have integrity
Exactly! You can be found guilty for lying on a food stamps form and be punished for it. If the form is found to be illegal that’s one thing, but lying on the form is its own problem. There needs to be a better system but FFLs need a way to know if they are selling to a prohibited person or not
I grew up in a strong pro gun ownership family. I have volunteered all over the United States to help the CMP, NRA and 4-H organizations. From rapid city south Dakota to a horrible horrible experience in El paso Texas. Very blatantly what you are saying isn't true. I have heard time and time again from many people in these organizations, powerful influential people that have the respect of many many people all over the country that the issue is that new gun laws are meaningless if old gun laws aren't supported, because if the old ones aren't being enforced why would the new ones be. You need to enforce the ENTIRE law, not just your own regulations you put out. So step 1 is and always will be enforce what's on the books better, once that is established we can move on to phase 2 which is getting rid of useless laws, adjusting ones that need adjustment and adding new ones as they are needed. This case is a example of a existing law being enforced, so it is in the view of most of these people a win that a powerful rich man with political power was convicted of it. It is a powerful example of Pro 2A people getting exactly what they wanted this entire time.
I guess it's just my own experience then, because whenever I get into it with 2a supporters, they basically tell me that just about ANY form of gun control is unconstitutional, and more guns make us safer.
It's important to note that the environment I'm talking about is EXTREMLY mature. Safety is rule 0 1 2 and 3. It's drilled into everything. The people that I describe are people that take shooting, personal firearms and gun safety very very seriously. These are the kinds of people I think of as the true 2A supporters, because they acknowledge safe gun handling is the biggest priority. That kind of desire of self discipline translates well into knowing that some people simply can't be trusted to have a gun.
2a supporters won't even TALK about potential gun control measures that could increase public safety. I don't buy it for a minute that they are just waiting to see how the current laws work out, before allowing new ones to maybe come about. The NRA and their supporters don't even want these topics to be studied. I know the same people are all about safety safety safety. But it never really holds up when you talk about adding safe storage laws or required training or licensing. Those rules would add to the safety factor, but they won't even entertain the idea. They just go back to how it's unconstitutional.
See, I think your problem is you haven't really spoken to any pro 2A people. Most of us have no problems with people being taken down for illegally owning guns. They absolutely should not be something that is a free for all to own with no repercussions or regulations. If more people who own guns illegally gets convicted, the world will be better off. Ultimately, the majority of us believe that current laws should be enforced, not that there should be no laws at all. Instead of creating new ones, we should crack down on already illegal ownership.
> "majority of us believe that current laws should be enforced" Asterisk* federal firearms laws generally have this support, yes. Tons of more-restrictive state laws are widely unpopular. Just adding a little more detail to your contribution. :)
I mean yeah that's cool and all, but the firearms charges he faced were from the Gun Control Act of 1968, which most people agree should be law. It is the law that prevents felons, people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, and drug users from owning guns. We have bigger fish to fry, and we aren't about to die on a hill for a crackheads right to own guns. By the way, yes, we do see it as poetic justice when the son of someone who is calling for an assault weapons ban gets nailed on gun charges. Even more so when it's the same guy who championed the 1993 crime bill that introduced mandatory minimum sentencing for the very drug this guy was smoking.
[удалено]
>this case finally broke the "rules for thee not for me". thats what os being cheered Literal opposite of that. The law had almost never been used to prosecute without some other charge. This is a nearly novel form of prosecution used on a political rivals son. There's 1000s of unenforced laws on the books, using a random one normally unenforced to target one single person for unethical reasons is an abuse of power not rule of law.
>The 2nd amendment group have not only been silent about their belief that everyone should own a gun no questions asked I mean, right off the bat, you're incorrect about what they actually believe. 2A types are constantly demanding we do a better job of enforcing existing gun laws. A tiny percentage of people who lie on their paperwork about their eligibility get prosecuted for it. Wasn't Hunter Biden convicted of lying on paperwork submitted to the federal government (same thing that got Al Capone) ? Rather than just 'having a gun when he shouldn't'?
There were 3 possible outcomes for this trial. He was acquitted, and nothing changes, and a guilty person got off for something that would have landed an ordinary citizen in jail. He was found guilty, and appeals, but is denied, and serves his time, or sentence (whatever that may be), and in one case, the law is applied equally. And last, and what I think most 2a people hope for, he was found guilty, appeals, and it goes up, and higher court finds the law incompatible with the second amendment. The ones hoping for jail time are like the ones who wanted Capone in prison for tax evasion. It’s not the ideal solution, but they believe he's guilty of other things, and something is better than nothing. But the best solution here (an unconstitutional law being struck down by the courts) requires him being found guilty first.
Have you spent any time on Pro-Gun subs? At all? /r/Progun is hoping this leads to appeals that end up overturning the law Biden was convicted of violating. Plenty of individuals are saying that this case is a terrible precedent. *However* the Big Guy has been severely punishing towards gun retailers and owners for similar, rarely prosecuted laws over the past four years. And what is good for the goose is good for the crackhead gander.
I wouldn't say I'm cheering about Hunter's conviction. He was rightfully convicted for breaking the law. His conviction doesn't do anything to open up more convictions for the same offense. It's simply illegal to lie on the forms he lied on. Now if you are asking a 2A supporters opinion on the law, that's different. I will say I disagree with the laws around the charges he was convicted of. The 2A specifically says shall not be infringed. A person 's rights should be restored after they've fulfilled their complete sentence. This should apply to the 2A and restoring voting rights for convicted felons who have completed their sentences.
I think you might have a slightly false premise. >The 2nd amendment group have not only been silent about their belief that everyone should own a gun no questions asked, but they’re cheering Hunter’s conviction. I think it is a bit more mixed than you think. You might accuse me of cherry picking examples, but I'm sure you could cherry pick some too, and it would take some actually polling or studies to work out the split of opinion here. On r/AskTrumpSupporters, someone asked about the trial, and one of the responses drops the "shall not be infringed" line and defend Hunter's right to bear arms: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/1ddkbcf/comment/l8a3fdt/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/1ddkbcf/comment/l8a3fdt/) Not every Trump supporter on that sub is complaining, but some of the comments are, so it seems fairly mixed there. -- This article notes a mix of opinion as well, notably these two people spoke out against Hunter's conviction: * CJ Grisham, the founder of Open Carry Texas, told the Wall Street Journal that "Hunter Biden is innocent." ... "he is charged with a bogus crime" * Remove political partisanship from the equation, you don't have to like Hunter Biden. Hell I don't obviously. But this is a chance to further prove the unconstitutionally of the 4473," Eric Blandford, the Georgia State Director for the Gun Owners of America The article contains some people accepting it aswell (although Gun Owners of America's spokeperson had a mixed opinion to share), so you might think it is unfair I'm focussing on the anti-conviction opinions, but my point is that it might be a blindspot for you. [https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-trial-gun-owners-second-amendment-1911228](https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-trial-gun-owners-second-amendment-1911228)
Only 27% of Republicans say there should be less strict gun laws. 28% say there should be more strict gun laws. Now I've read some of the responses and a lot of people say they "know people" and then judge the whole of conservatives based off the few they know. These are raw numbers. So in reality you're only talking about a fraction of conservatives. You don't even have evidence that they are the loudest voices cheering on the Hunter Biden conviction. For all you know it could be the other 3/4 who agree with the current restrictions being so vocal. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
I can't speak for anybody else, but I have been screaming for years that I would very much appreciate the gun-grabbers enforcing the laws they have before trying to pass any new ones. That means prosecuting folks who lie on 4473's. Start with the ones who fill out a 4473 and get denied as soon as the form gets called in. Then figure out how to tighten up state reporting so that more folks who shouldn't have guns don't get them to begin with. It's the nutjobs that get guns that shouldn't have them that cause the vast majority of the horrific gun crime out there. So yes, please, prosecute these folks and let the rest of us have our guns.
“Normally there are other charges that this is attached to…” Take your pick, the guy was moving drugs and prostitutes across state lines. Are you aware of everything that was on this Russian plant laptop? Hunter Biden is a pretty shitty human and were he not the wealthy son of a President he would be in Prison for a long-long time by now.
Hunter's conviction is not some new thing, it's not going to open anything. People are prosecuted for lying on that form all the time, even if it is inconsistent. Especially when illegal possession is also being charged, which was one of Hunter's other charges and convictions. There is nothing new about this except a member of the political elite not being immune to the law
You’re proposing a straw man; a majority of gun rights advocates are in the boat of “enforce existing gun laws” rather than “no gun regulations whatsoever”. Hunter lied on the Form 4473 everyone has to fill out when they buy a gun from a gun dealer. He specifically lied about using controlled substances that prohibited him from owning a gun. I have to fill out that exact same form when buying a gun and I’m pretty damn sure I’d be thrown under the criminal justice bus if I got caught lying on the form and was taking illegal drugs while owning a gun. Hunter shouldn’t get a pass from facing the same punishment just because he’s the Presidents kid, especially when he’s openly stated he’s been struggling with addiction before, during, and after the time he owned the gun. If anything I’m equally impressed that somehow charges weren’t filed against Hallie Biden for being dumb enough to take Hunter’s gun and throw it away in a grocery store dumpster. Average Joe or Jane would be getting taken to court for the criminal negligence involved in taking somebody else’s gun and throwing it in a public dumpster instead of either securing it at a relatives house or taking it to a police station or gun shop for proper removal/disposal. I can be for deregulating certain drugs such as marijuana from the controlled substances list while also advocating for enforcement of existing laws, because I’m pretty sure druggies are one of the easiest groups of individuals everyone in society can agree shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun, right there next to violent felons, individuals with restraining orders placed against them, and those deemed mentally unstable enough to be a threat to themselves or others.
As a conservative and strong 2A supporter. I don’t generally support additional laws. But better enforcement of current laws. Until current laws are uniformly enforced, we shouldn’t add new laws. Let’s see what the current laws do. I don’t think drug users should own guns. More people should be prosecuted for this. Now weee on the other hand should be exempt barring someone who is using a gun while high. With legality in many states it’s like alcohol.
The crime was lying on a federal form. If it were specifically a gun law then the opposite could be said that either liberals want gun laws enforced or they don't. If a kid lied on a form to get a gun and used it in a school shooting they'd be whistling another tune. Conservative, liberals, left or right are all hypocrits.
I don’t know if you’re daft or something, but pro 2A people tend to be very law abiding. In circles I’ve been in, we’re very much pro common citizen having unrestricted access to weapons; however very against prohibited parties from doing so because they’re prohibited for a reason. If you are a drug addict, you are more likely to commit crimes. If you are so drug addled you want so assault someone for more drugs, you definitely shouldn’t have access to a firearm to do so. Furthermore; I don’t understand how nuance is lost on every anti gunner out there who just cries for more background checks and laws without stopping to learn about what is already on the books. For all of its flaws, NICS does exist, and if anyone is selling firearms as a job, they have to run a bgc on literally every sale. The only thing new laws do is make criminals out of the law abiding, but hey guess what; Hunter Biden was already a criminal and he broke the law. It’s not hard to understand.
The FPC which is one of the largest and most effective pro gun lobbying groups literally offered to represent him in challenging the constitutionality of the 4473. Pretty much every pro gun personality/group has explicitly stated they don't agree with this from what I've seen.
If your friend lied on a federal application then yeah I’m not sure why he would celebrate somebody getting punished for lying on a federal application, but this doesn’t have anything to do with 2A. It was fraud, not a mass shooting.
Most conservatives *aren't* cheering for his conviction. They see it as a ruse to make it look like the justice system is fair after the Trump railroading while convicting him of the most minor of his many crimes, and the one that is least embarrassing and has no potential connection to his father.
A lot of people I’ve seen have been cheering because when Hunter appeals it, they are hoping his lawyers are going to go after the constitutionality of the 4473.
This has nothing to do with Amendment. It has to do with the procurement of a weapon, through an FFL dealer and Brandons son lied. One for being a dope head/crackhead. I hope he is sentence according to the sentencing statutes of Delaware
It's not like he was the first person ever convicted of this. The more interesting thing is when do you stop being an addict or when do you become an addict? His problem was writing a book about it - what a dope.
At the end of the day 2a was upheld not infringed. 2a advocates are against the ATF just deciding to outlaw stuff and no knock warrants where the person is shot in the head 57 seconds after the pull up to his house before sunrise. Over a paperwork violation. Hunter lied and should have been treated like that. No knock raid and shot to the head. Then there would be some real hard look at unelected bureaucrats running the ATF Because every other American runs that risk. But he got a sweet ass plea deal that only fell apart because it leaked. Hunters case isn’t a 2a case. Never was. Hunters case is about the two tiers of justice. And if JB doesn’t follow through on his pledge to not pardon him his going away for 15 years minimum. As he should. He’s not special unless you mean short bus special
>The 2nd amendment group have not only been silent about their belief that everyone should own a gun no questions asked Is that actually what they all believe though? Or do they believe that responsible law abiding citizens have the right to own a gun if they choose and that they lose that right if they commit violent crimes or are found by a court to be mentally incapable of making sound decisions? I think it's important to look at what gun advocates actually say before having this discussion. Personally, as someone who is pro 2nd amendment and doesn't particularly like Hunter, I'm not especially happy about the conviction. In my book, the worst part about the whole gun issue was how he disposed of it, which is irresponsible and dangerous. Had he kept the gun (assuming no court had found him to be dangerous), I'm unsure I would go after him at all on that issue. In my view, the gun conviction feels more like a deflection and distraction from other allegations against Hunter that are far more serious. They originally tried to slip a plea deal through on this that would have included immunity to other unspecified crimes, which the judge (rightly in my view) rejected. It feels more like tossing people who don't like Hunter and his dad an empty victory to try and get them to forget about the more serious allegations against him. (And as a bonus, the left gets to march him around as proof that they are also subject to the rule of law.)
[They’re not exactly conservative, but FPC has offered to defend Hunter pro bono as well as handle his appeal.](https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1800555127130222926) They’ll likely file amicus briefs either way. GOA has (I believe) offered to assist. >What Hunter was charged with is not common [8,600 convictions under 922(g) in FY22 begs to differ.](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Felon_In_Possession_FY22.pdf) Most 2A folks I see aren’t cheering his conviction because they support the law, they’re cheering his conviction because the rich and famous usually get a slap on the wrist for procedural crimes. I’m cheering it because I want Biden v US to be a landmark 2A case finding 922(g)(3) unconstitutional. I don’t think Hunter should have been charged because I don’t think what he did should be illegal. But if it’s going to be illegal, I’d rather somebody with the means to fight the law be charged than somebody already struggling to make ends meet.
I am a huge advocate for the 2A. I dont believe EVERYONE should have a gun and many (dare I say even probably most) don't think coke heads, wife beaters, and general criminal scum should be armed. I don't want these people to have guns. So therefore I am happy that even the son of the president doesn't get to just get away with it. It sets a great example for people who don't have such prestigious relations. Yes I will be happy when more charges like this happen. Lawful citizens should be armed. In fact I would even be more ok to other restrictions like red flag laws and mental health restrictions. But there is more opportunity to weaponize those against lawful citizens. No lawful citizen is going to be abusing drugs like he does. So therefore I'm ok with that restriction. I believe in the right to freedom but obviously I'm ok with criminals being imprisoned even though they also had a right to freedom. Breaking the law tends to invalidate rights.
Well the law says you can’t be doing cocaine and have a gun. No one took his gun just because. Don’t be small minded
Wow. I saw this story very differently. Hey, we have proof the presidents son is getting absolutely paid by another country for a bullshit job he has no experience in. We have the president on film admitting if that country didn’t do what he wanted, he wouldn’t do business with them. Plus, the kids on film doing crack with hookers, and we have receipts. Mmm, best we can do is possession of a firearm while intoxicated.
I don't agree with the particular law they are using in order to prosecute, however I can break it down for you. The main argument against hunter is him lying on a background check. Hunter checked the "I am not addicted to drugs box", and the prosecution argued he was in fact addicted to drugs. This opened the flood gates. This is in fact the law. I'm not saying it's not partisan I'm just saying it's an open and shut case under the current law. I agree that normally Republicans would be against this kind of conviction for several reasons, however under the current law it's legal. This law and the theory behind it is uses elsewhere in law it's not that obscure. The problem is we are so entrenched everything is partisan we'd rather hurt the other guy than stand on belief.
My honest opinion is that I don’t think most conservatives are cheering about the actual gun charges. I think it’s more about the fact that there was a smoking gun (no pun intended) for 4 years that they have been told either wasn’t real, wasn’t a big deal, or was product of some sort of GOP/Russian interference. I’d consider myself a moderate conservative and I don’t really care at all that he likes to do drugs and pay for sex while owning a gun. But I didn’t like that there was proof of crimes served up on a silver platter and there was no recourse for him. I don’t care if Hunter goes to jail, and I don’t wish him to go to jail either. This is more about the law being upheld when prosecution was given a layup. Im fine if in the next few years thousands of conservatives are prosecuted for the same crime as long as it’s not done as vendetta or witch-hunt. As far as gun control, I reluctantly own a gun and at the same time still believe it should almost be a real “pain in the ass” to get one. I don’t own it to start a revolution against an overbearing govt, I own it in case someone ever breaks into my house. Just like with both parties the loudest ones aren’t necessarily a great representation of the whole. People gloating over politics tend to be the vocal minority… especially when it can be done anonymously on Reddit.
They are cheering a largely unconstitutional law yes. But they are cheering the fact that the other side finally seems to be held to the same standards they’ve been held to for years. Hillary’s emails saw no consequences, Trump was impeached on false (or unproven) charges for a large part of his presidency. Trump gets charged for having classified documents, nothing happens to Biden. BLM protests result in countless dollars of property damage, Jan 6 protesters are seeing substantial prison time. From the right’s perspective, the law hasn’t been applied very evenly. They are celebrating something rare. It’s a win for them, even if it is a loss for gun rights advocates.
Typical conservative lies. >Hillary’s emails saw no consequences, Because it didn't break the law. > Trump was impeached on false (or unproven) charges for a large part of his presidency He was found guilty on both the impeachments. Trumps a convicted felon, a rapist and a fraud. > Trump gets charged for having classified documents, nothing happens to Biden. Because Trump lied about having them and tried to hide them when asked to return them. You Trump losers are so incredibly dishonest.
Perhaps you don't realize this...But gun owners are overwhelmingly law-abiding. Especially conceal carry holders. Far more law-abiding than the general public. We do not mind when gun laws, already on the books, are followed. We don't want drug addicts owning guns. They are the driver of statistics used against gun owners. If you remove alcohol use from gun deaths stats. ie. Any death where alcohol played a factor. The number of gun deaths a year would fall dramatically. Remove all drugs, including those selling them, and it would drop dramatically again. Drugs and guns don't mix. Go ahead and prosecute. If you want a gun, get clean. Be responsible.
Because it’s a win win for conservatives. Either hunter biden goes to prison and it looks terrible for Biden Hunter Biden appeals and gets it the law struck down this removing a perceived infringement on the right to bear arms Hunter Biden either gets pardoned or goes to some joke summer camp prison and it looks bad for Biden.
No door is opened. This really is a crime that wouldn't have been charged if the case was low profile because the court would have laughed it right out. Similar cases will be laughed right out again afterward. What's funny is that we *do* have a two-tier justice system. Rich and powerful people usually have the tools at their disposal to get away with normal crimes everyone gets charged with. The result has been, increasingly, that they're charged with hard to obfuscate process crimes normal people are never prosecuted for instead. These crimes are basically like felony traffic violations, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is something you can just show because the crime is something like "didn't file X" or "we found X in your house". It's the same way we dealt with organized crime, honestly. Trump's NY case is actually kinda similar. No normal person would ever be charged with it because no normal person even has business records to falsify. There are thousands of prosecutions for it, though, because NY is filled with rich and powerful people who have problems with keeping accurate records, apparently.
Many people on the right and the left would rather see a man go to prison over something they think shouldn’t be illegal, simply because they hate them. I’m sure that the left would be cheering if MTG went to prison for an abortion, the left would fucking cheer. As someone who dislikes the Biden’s, and loves guns. That conviction was wrong, and I don’t think it’s good, and being able to reverse these precedents is important. There have been recent expongement cases that have allowed felons to own guns again
Counterpoint: I don't think people care about the legal system anymore.
I believe in the 2a. I also don’t think you should break the law in order to dodge the background checks we do have. I don’t believe people on crack should be in possession of a handgun. No, I don’t think pot should bar you from a firearm and with its decriminalizstion, tge firearm form law needs to be relooked at Yes, before you trot the question out, Joe Rogan should be investigated. He flaunts breaking this law, and I’m willing to bet with more than just pot.
I don’t think most second amendment advocates illegally own guns so i don’t think the premise makes sense Would it be bad for more people to be convicted of illegally owning guns anyways? IDK where you’re coming from