Hunter uses the Bruen decision as a defense


I haven’t watched the video so don’t know what point Hunter’s legal team is trying to make. But think it would be wonderfully ironic if Hunter’s case worked it’s way through the courts and set a precedent that past use of substances the government considers illegal is not a justification for denial of the right to purchase and own firearms. Maybe the courts would even go so far as to say that requiring people to fill out form 4473 and requiring background checks are unconstitutional.

Wouldn’t that make daddy so proud of his son?

Biden vs the ATF. The case that leads to the abolishment of the ATF. What a perfect legacy that would be for their family to look back on. The anti self defense folks would forever revile the Bidens and the pro 2A folks would be forever thankful that their criminal transgressions actually ended up supporting the right to self defense!


That would be the perfect “sandbag.”


This case has nothing to do with the 2A at all. It has as the video points out that Hunter Biden LIED ON THE FORM. And we know that Hunter was/is a drug addict. And has a history of being one. So by law he is not allowed to buy or own firearms. And yet he bought one by LYING ON THE FORM.


we the people would be in jail already


I’m not a big fan of the form and the people currently in charge of enforcing these mandates. But since Biden just signed a new law increasing the maximum penalty for those who lie on the form from 10 years to 15 years in prison, I’m sure he will want anyone who breaks it to receive the maximum penalty and won’t be granting any pardons for those who do. Am I right or does he believe the laws he pushes on the rest of us don’t apply to his family?


unfortunately you are correct, they apply to us peons and not to the elite.


I will be very surprised if this case will create any favorable precedent for the deplorables, or meaningfully punish what clearly is a felony. 2 tiered justice system.


I see that as being absolutely about the 2A.

To my reading (I am not a lawyer, though) the 2A doesn’t say “except people who use substances the government says are illegal” or anything like that. To my reading, that ‘drug addict’ infringement is an infringement and is not allowed by the Second Amendment

But I understand a lot of people don’t think users of marijuana should be allowed to own guns.

I also know some people who don’t think consumers of alcohol should be allowed to own guns.

Where do we draw the line here?

IMO, at “infringement”. None of those should disqualify one from keeping and bearing arms