Hunter Biden Shouldn't Go to Prison for Violating an Arbitrary Gun Law
A judge's questions about his plea deal should not obscure the point that the law he broke is unjust and arguably unconstitutional.

At a hearing in Delaware today, a federal judge questioned a plea deal that would have allowed Hunter Biden to avoid a prison sentence for failing to pay his income taxes and illegally buying a gun. Under that agreement, Biden would have pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor tax offenses. The deal also called for pretrial diversion with respect to a felony gun charge: receipt or possession of a firearm by an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance.
U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika objected to language in the agreement that seemed to preclude future prosecution for tax or lobbying crimes. The Associated Press reports that she also "expressed concern" about the decision to drop the gun charge once Biden completes a two-year diversion program that would require him to avoid drugs and firearms. As written, the plea agreement would have charged Noreika rather than the Justice Department with determining whether Biden had met the program's requirements. She suggested that arrangement was constitutionally questionable because it assigned a prosecutorial function to a judge.
After the plea agreement was announced last month, Republicans argued that the president's son was receiving preferential treatment. In addition to wondering why the tax offenses were charged as misdemeanors, they complained that the deal would have allowed Biden to get off with a slap on the wrist for a gun crime that was punishable by a up to a decade in prison when he committed it.
Assessing the latter complaint requires understanding not only the relevant statutes and sentencing guidelines but also the typical fate of someone in Biden's position. While the evidence suggests that Biden would be lucky to remain a free man, the main takeaway should be that federal law authorizes astonishingly severe penalties for violating illogical, unjust, and arguably unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership.
Biden, by his own admission, was a crack cocaine user when he bought a Colt Cobra .38 Special from StarQuest Shooters, a Wilmington gun store, in 2018. That transaction violated at least three provisions of federal law.
Under 18 USC 922(g)(3), it is a felony for an illegal drug user to "receive" or "possess" a firearm. The maximum penalty at the time of Biden's gun purchase was a 10-year prison sentence. This is the charge that David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware, filed against Biden on June 20.
Under 18 USC 922(a)(6), it is a felony "knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement…in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm…with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm." That offense also is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Since Biden bought the revolver from a federally licensed dealer, he had to fill out ATF Form 4473, which asks, among other things, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" Biden falsely checked "no," thereby violating 18 USC 922(a)(6).
That lie also was a violation of 18 USC 924(a)(1)(A), which makes it a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to submit "any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter." That crime, the Justice Department notes, "may be charged when a person provides false responses to questions on Form 4473," although it adds that "there is considerable overlap in the conduct covered" by this provision and the conduct covered by 18 USC 922(a)(6).
If Biden had bought the gun after his father signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in June 2022 and was still using crack, the potential penalties would have been even more severe. That law raised the maximum sentence for violating 18 USC 922(g)(3) to 15 years. It also created a new felony, "trafficking in firearms," which Congress counterintuitively defined broadly enough to cover cannabis consumers and other illegal drug users who obtain guns. That crime also carries a 15-year maximum.
Even under the law as it stood in 2018, Biden's gun purchase theoretically could have been charged as three different felonies, punishable by combined maximum penalties of 25 years. But any such outcome would have been highly unusual for several reasons.
First, only a tiny percentage of people who violate 18 USC 922(g)(3) are ever officially recognized as unlawful users of controlled substances, which would require evidence such as a drug arrest, court-ordered treatment, or a state-issued medical marijuana card. Generally speaking, when a person filling out Form 4473 falsely says he is not an illegal drug user, neither the gun dealer nor the FBI, which runs background checks on firearm buyers, has any basis to doubt that statement. After buying a firearm, that person ordinarily would escape charges for illegal gun possession unless he happened to be caught with drugs. Biden—whose crack habit was widely known, especially after he published his 2021 memoir Beautiful Things—is unusual in that respect.
Second, "prohibited persons" like Biden are rarely prosecuted even when they are caught trying to buy guns. In fiscal year 2017, according to a 2018 report from the Government Accountability Office, federal background checks "resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions." The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) "referred about 12,700" of those cases for "further investigation" by its field offices. Yet as of June 2018, the Justice Department had prosecuted just 12 of those cases, which represents about 0.01 percent of the blocked transactions and 0.09 percent of the cases investigated by the ATF.
Third, the statutory maximums are a misleading indication of what typically happens even when prohibited gun buyers are prosecuted. In fiscal year 2021, according the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 7,454 people received sentences for violating 18 USC 922(g). In addition to unlawful users of controlled substances, that provision covers several other broad categories of people who are not allowed to own guns. They include people with conviction records involving crimes punishable by more than a year of incarceration, who accounted for most of the cases identified by the commission.
Keeping that point in mind, 97 percent of the defendants received prison sentences, and the average sentence was 60 months. That includes the impact of mandatory minimums under other statutes, which applied in less than 10 percent of the cases.
Unlike the typical defendant sentenced under 18 USC 922(g), Biden has no prior criminal record. Under federal sentencing guidelines, it looks like his "base offense level" would be 12, which corresponds to a recommended sentence of 10 to 16 months for someone with zero criminal history points.
Under the plea deal that is now up in the air, of course, Biden would have avoided prosecution on that charge, and Weiss chose not to file other possible charges. That decision is open to question if you accept the premise that violating the prohibition that applied to Biden is a serious crime worthy of a prison sentence.
But that premise is dubious. While an illegal drug user who owns a gun might pose a danger to public safety, so might a drinker. Yet 18 USC 922(g)(3) covers anyone who uses illegal drugs, regardless of whether he handles guns while intoxicated or otherwise behaves recklessly. An analogous policy regarding alcohol would categorically prohibit drinkers from owning guns, regardless of how much they drink or the circumstances in which they do so. Ongoing litigation poses the question of whether the ban on gun ownership by illegal drug users is consistent with the Second Amendment. Two federal judges have concluded that it is not, at least as applied to cannabis consumers.
Form 4473 warns that "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." In other words, people who use marijuana in compliance with state law are still committing federal felonies, punishable by the same potential penalties that Biden faces, if they buy or possess firearms.
Biden's behavior—which according to Politico triggered "a bizarre incident" in which his wife took his gun and "threw it in a trash can behind a grocery store, only to return later to find it gone"—may have been more careless than that of the average gun-owning marijuana user. But his crime does not hinge on any specific thing he did that injured or endangered others; its essence was exercising Second Amendment rights that Congress had arbitrarily decided he did not deserve, based purely on his choice of recreational intoxicants. That should not be any sort of crime, let alone one that can send someone to prison. The fact that President Joe Biden stubbornly defends a policy that could put his own son behind bars should not blind us to the injustice that would entail.
[This post has been updated with additional information about Noreika's objections to Biden's plea agreement.]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A judge's questions about his plea deal should not obscure the point that the law he broke is unjust and arguably unconstitutional.
*looks past corruption with Burisma, Joe Biden, and all the other shenanigans* Hey, but about this like, total bullshit bummer head trip gun law!
Pro tipper question: would I go to prison for violating this law?
If the answer is yes, then so should Hunter Biden. If the law is unconstitutional, then let's litigate that.
If the answer is "no, but we're just doing this to be mean to Joe Biden" then... maybe you have a point.
'cause I'm all about conceding points today. don't get used to it.
Reason is totes libertarian and not carrying water for the Biden admin AT ALL.
Of all the buckets of water that have been carried for the administration the magazine reluctantly supports, the top couple of inches of this bucket that they're carrying are completely empty!
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Fine. No prison for fake laws against 2a.
Let's just put him in prison for sex trafficking and treason with his father.
Plus high treason.
*You* wouldn’t have violated this bullshit law because you aren’t a corrupt son of a vice president.
You mean a son of a corrupt vice president, right?
The corrupt son of a corrupt Vice President.
Bad apples, spoil the barrel, etc.
What do bad barrels spoil?
Whisky.
++
What's the bit where you argue one stupid little point to ignore all of the other points? You know focus the argument on the petty thing and people will argue with you. You win through distraction.
I mean, even on the gun issue, he THREW IT AWAY IN A GARBAGE CAN. It's not like he was a responsible gun owner, who just happened to smoke the reefer or something.
Since I'm thinking about it, I'll add: Your typical subject of criminal prosecution is always, ALWAYS, charged with tons of lesser crimes to force a plea deal, and if he doesn't take the deal has to face them all in court. Lots of those charges are unjust. But choosing Hunter Biden for this argument is ridiculous. He's the least sympathetic person possible. If you're really trying to argue against charging for stupid crimes, there have to be a million better examples than a rich, corrupt, privileged asshole.
I mean, even on the gun issue, he THREW IT AWAY IN A GARBAGE CAN. It’s not like he was a responsible gun owner, who just happened to smoke the reefer or something.
Yeah, a crack head waving a gun around tossed it in a dumpster... just normal people violations and stuff. I mean, ANYONE could run into this speedbump.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Wrong link: try LickFatassDonnie'sFlorshiems.com
Oh fuck off and take your meds grandpa.
“Gas station behavior”
Technically it was his brother's widow whom he was fucking that threw it away. I have no knowledge regarding her crack usage, though that's a pretty crackhead thing to do.
He probably threatened to shoot her with it, it was self defense!
So we don’t know about her (Hunter's sister-in-law) crack usage? I thought it was “established science” that Hunter was using her crack, at least semi-regularly?
In some areas that is considered to be an unselfish, helpful act colloquially known as "comfortin' the widder".
Not to mention that 'subject of criminal prosecution' already assumes a pretty nominal outcome. Remember Freddie Gray? Philando Castille? Harith Augustus? All just as, if not more innocent than Hunter. All dead. All specifically for nothing other than carrying a weapon.
Hunter should go to prison for violating a gun law his father endorsed. Arbitrary or not.
If Hunter Biden was looking at prison in any fashion, he'd almost certainly be pardoned. There's nothing limited Biden from doing that. In much the same way, Trump is going to pardon himself if he gets elected.
Giving a very generous plea deal is probably the only way the justice department can even pursue these charges.
Realistically, the only way Hunter isn't going to end up pardoned is if dad strokes out before getting around to it.
If Joey Sponge-brain, Shits-pants pardons Hunter, he can forget about getting re-elected.
There's a reason presidents hand out pardons at the end of their final term, unless there has been some universally agreed-upon grave injustice done, and Hunter was not a subject of that.
Trump will be in the position of knowing he will never have to run for office, again. He can do anything that won't get him impeached and convicted.
If Joey Sponge-brain, Shits-pants pardons Hunter, he can forget about getting re-elected.
Honestly I don't believe that, at this point, for the same reason that Trump being charged with a number of crimes doesn't hurt his candidacy. The criminal justice system has been captured by politics, and that perception is leaking out to the voting public. So ultimately, if you're planning to vote for Trump, you think all the prosecutions of him are politically driven, and likewise, those sympathetic to Biden think all the interest about him and Hunter is politically driven.
I think the impact it would have on voters is minimal, especially when you'd have the media running interference and downplaying everything.
if you’re planning to vote for Trump, you think all the prosecutions of him are politically driven
Now, I do think the prosecutions are politically motivated, but honestly, I don’t even fucking care anymore.
He could be legitimately guilty of the stupid classified documents bullshit, because that crap is nonsensical and convoluted for everyone, and I’d still vote for him. If the choice is “Trump, or Biden again?” I’m picking Trump. I’ll pick DeSantis. I’ll pick Vivek. Christ, I’d probably even pick Pence. (OK, maybe not.) Because we can’t fucking survive another four years of Biden.
Hyperbole much
You'd probably vote for Putin too, huh?
I'm pretty sure he's ineligible.
If Trump is guilty of anything related to classified documents, then so is every other living ex president, plus the idiot currently installed in the White House.
If Trump is elected the first D majority house will immediately Impeach him again, and all 4 years of his term will be non-stop criminal persecutions. Then after he's served his term it will be more years of non-stop persecutions and probably a couple more impeachments. The D's are so intent on finding or creating anything they can convict him on they're completely deranged.
Are you trying to seduce me? 4 years of entirely ineffectual government? Sign me up!
I hate to say it, but that's exactly what came to my mind.
Sure as shit beats Biden and his congress spending us into an inflationary nightmare. Fuck letting the president and both houses of congress be the same party. Especially D.
So true. My thoughts were the same when congress was busily investigating steroids in baseball... at least they aren't screwing up anything important.
Hunter isn’t exactly likable. Except for his fellow pedophiles. Like Shrike.
Democrat Voters would never hear about the pardon. Go look on CNN and see how much coverage there is of Biden's corruption.
Others have gone to jail, so should Hunter. The alternative is for the Federal government to apologize to those who have and compensate them generously. Take the money from the IRS funding.
Reason supports the totalitarian shit bags that push unconstitutional gun control.
Case closed.
https://twitter.com/willscharf/status/1684331594864025602?t=5dwLzpUQReHN6JYmHOf2zQ&s=19
Based on conversations with people who were in the courtroom today, and my experience as a former federal prosecutor, I think I know the full story of what happened with the Hunter Biden plea agreement blow-up this morning.
Bear with me, because this is a little complicated:
Typically, if the Government is offering to a defendant that it will either drop charges or decline to bring new charges in return for the defendant's guilty plea, the plea is structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A). An agreement not to prosecute Hunter for FARA violations or other crimes in return for his pleading guilty to the tax misdemeanors, for example, would usually be a (c)(1)(A) plea. This is open, transparent, subject to judicial approval, etc.
In Hunter's case, according to what folks in the courtroom have told me, Hunter's plea was structured under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), which is usually just a plea in return for a joint sentencing recommendation only, and contained no information on its face about other potential charges, and contained no clear agreement by DOJ to forego prosecution of other charges.
Instead, DOJ and Hunter's lawyers effectively hid that part of the agreement in what was publicly described as a pretrial diversion agreement relating to a § 922(g)(3) gun charge against Hunter for being a drug user in possession of a firearm.
That pretrial diversion agreement as written was actually MUCH broader than just the gun charge. If Hunter were to complete probation, the pretrial diversion agreement prevented DOJ from ever bringing charges against Hunter for any crimes relating to the offense conduct discussed in the plea agreement, which was purposely written to include his foreign influence peddling operations in China and elsewhere.
So they put the facts in the plea agreement, but put their non-prosecution agreement in the pretrial diversion agreement, effectively hiding the full scope of what DOJ was offering and Hunter was obtaining through these proceedings. Hunter's upside from this deal was vast immunity from further prosecution if he finished a couple years of probation, and the public wouldn't be any the wiser because none of this was clearly stated on the face of the plea agreement, as would normally be the case.
Judge Noreika smelled a rat. She understood that the lawyers were trying to paint her into a corner and hide the ball. Instead, she backed DOJ and Hunter's lawyers into a corner by pulling all the details out into the open and then indicating that she wasn't going to approve a deal as broad as what she had discovered.
DOJ, attempting to save face and save its case, then stated on the record that the investigation into Hunter was ongoing and that Hunter remained susceptible to prosecution under FARA. Hunter's lawyers exploded. They clearly believed that FARA was covered under the deal, because as written, the pretrial diversion agreement language was broad enough to cover it. They blew up the deal, Hunter pled not guilty, and that's the current state of play.
And so here we are. Hunter's lawyers and DOJ are going to go off and try to pull together a new set of agreements, likely narrower, to satisfy Judge Noreika. Fortunately, I doubt if FARA or any charges related to Hunter's foreign influence peddling will be included, which leaves open the possibility of further investigations leading to further prosecutions.
I called this last year. A blanket immunity deal in exchange for a ‘conviction’ that really costed off a fine and not much else. Just to shield him from all possible future prosecution.
By all reports, the investigations into Hunter's foreign "business" dealings are still "ongoing". Or maybe the prosecutor in this case is trying to pull a retroactive ass-covering for the DoJ?
Hunter's lawyers seemed to have been under the impression that the deal for probation on the tax plea wiped the entirety of the rest of the slate clean, but even if they had been told that by the prosecutors they dealt with wouldn't conclusively mean that such was ever the case.
Even accepting the premise that lying about substance use on the DROS paperwork shouldn't constitute multiple felonies, the fact that in this case the violator's father has made a lifelong political career based to a significant extent that the fundamental laws which even make the process of purchasing a firearm possible for civilians are at the very least too permissive as they are, and possibly shouldn't exist at all; a position which he (and his ideological allies) can "support" with citation of enough irrelevancies, distortions, and flat-out fabrications to fill the Grand Canyon.
There's definitely little room in the minds of a great many of the supporters of our current "beloved leader" that the mere act of purchasing or handling a firearm is something that should be prohibited to all but the enforcers of State policies and those with close enough ties to the exalted heroes of Government that there's no choice but to revere them above the vaunted "rule of law" (which to borrow a line from Leona Helmsley, is "for the little people")
Is it true that turducken is a new kind of meat?
Ask Mike Laursen.
Oh, and buy a bottle of HO2 to go with it. 😉
I hear White Mike is Tony’s tube steak apprentice.
Is this a meme now. Do I need to go bookmark this mornings Mikism for future reference?
It needs to be brought up often.
It was so terrible even sarc stopped sucking up to him.
The fact that President Joe Biden stubbornly defends a policy that could put his own son behind bars should not blind us to the injustice that would entail.
But it will be some awesome karma.
The fact that most reason columnists stubbornly voted for Joe Biden should also make for some interesting karma as well.
The argument that an exception to the law should be made (but leave the law in place) so the son of a politcian who supports this type of law does not have to face the consequences is not a good plan for getting rid of it.
I'm not sure I understand...since Hunter didn't commit all those other crimes, what's wrong with saying he won't be prosecuted for that stuff? I mean, he's innocent, so of course he shouldn't be prosecuted!
/sarc
Did Hunter give you a painting or something?
Why only when a Biden is busted do you start to give a damn about the constitution?
For a leftist, the constitution, like all other laws is just a tool to be use to defend themselves or attack. Once no longer fits their narrative, or protects them, they wipe their ass with it.
Such is the way of the sociopathic leftist.
It's worth mentioning that the two tax "misdemeanors" were actually felonies; Reducing the charges to misdemeanors was part of the plea deal.
You know what else was part of the plea deal?
“ Immunity in Perpetuity“
Nice !
We should see impeachment over THAT alone. Biden's Justice Dept OK'd that.
We can impeach all we want. There will be no conviction. More is required.
Not only did they okay it, they tried to hide it because they knew how fucked up it was.
And it blew up in their face. I don’t think the judge was pleased with the prosecutor lying to her face.
Yeah. The entire situation at court today was fascinating. Reworked plea deal after judge figured out the non public agreement. Then hunter throwing it all away as he didnt have lifetime immunity. Wild stuff.
I bet the deal only focused on his penis and the like. I mean, it is all SPB noticed and he is not a hack or anything.
This is the most interesting assumption from Hunters team.
Think about this. DOJ was about to sanction a plea deal where Hunter would get misdemeanor probation on serious tax charges plus pretrial diversion (no time served or criminal record) on the felony gun charge. Hunter would also get complete immunity on all other charges. And he would not have to cooperate with the government’s ongoing investigation. Totally disgraceful. Merrick Garland and David Weiss should be ashamed. And where is Lisa Monaco? Why hasn’t she been called to testify?
He wouldn't have been forced to testify of his business deals involving his dad despite immunity.
How can Garland and/or Biden survive this?
And how can ENB ignore this tomorrow?
You’ll see.
How can Garland and/or Biden survive this?
How can they not, given that nothing else will happen?
That is irritatingly true.
The way to get laws changed is to enforce them against the elite.
Excellent idea! Hang The Don for Treason.
You’re confused grandpa. We’re going to hang YOU for treason.
Huh, apparently Syphillis cases are rising so quickly, that public health officials are debating the need to declare a public health emergency.
Two weeks to flatten the curve?
A new untested MRNA “vaccine “, with total immunity for the pharmaceutical industry, but not the recipients?
But the immunity factor flattened the curve……. of potential lawsuits.
Two weeks to flatten the curve?
Syphilis causes it to curve?
And if it did, is flattened better?
Two weeks to flatten the curve?
(Don't say STD): I'm sure it's all contaminated shaving razors and kitchen utensils that are responsible for the spread and not a community of people who can't stop buttfucking each other long enough to complete a two-week regimen of penicillin.
30 days to straighten the curve?
https://peyronies-disease.xiaflex.com/patient/?utm_source=bentcarrot-vanity-url&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=bent-carrot-tv&utm_id=bent-carrot
There's a theory floating around on the internet that Hunter's lawyers told the DOJ that if they push the gun crimes, they would oppose it on Second Amendment grounds. As they should. Imagine the optics of the President's son fighting one of his father's signature goals. The DOJ must have shit a brick.
It’s a BS theory. Restricting guns around coke heads and other illegal drug users probably is going to pass Strict Scrutiny. Protecting against drug crazed waving guns around is a compelling state interest. It’s fairly narrowly tailored, not affecting non criminals. And Thomas suggested that preventing Prohibited Persons from owning firearms was probably Constitutional.
I dunno. There's "you can't have a firearm on you while you're drunk" and there's "you can't own a firearm if you've had a drink in the last two years". The current state of the law is the latter. I don;'t think that's going to pass Bruen.
Which is why the plea deal is corrupt.
I am on record being Team Hunter on this. Get him for the nepobaby graft and influence peddling.
Great. And as soon as Hunter is cooling his heels in federal prison, for being guilty of the current walk, we can go ahead and repeal it.
It is emblematic that the ONLY thing God's Own Prohibortionists and Grabbers of Pussy can come up with is that Hunter, since Jersey Shore 1988, has spat in the face of Kleptocracy deadly force prohibitionism and gotten away with it. The REAL Republican heroes are Lt Calley, G Gordon Liddy, E Howard Hunt, George Waffen Bush and Donald Lewser Trump. Rotsa ruck wit dat...
Hunter’s crimes are many and egregious so he shouldn’t go to prison for an arbitrary gun charge,(which many blacks are in are prison for right now) but he should go to prison for influence peddling, bribery, racketeering, narcotic possession, prostitution (john) and more than likely child molestation.
Daddy should go to prison right with him, maybe mommy too.
Hunter's mother died in 1972.
Step-mother should go.
Right after we hang trump for treason.
You knew he meant “Dr.” Jill. You’re not clever.
What about all those add on "while in possession of a firearm" charges. Taking bribes while in possession. Pimping hoes while in possession. In possession while in possession.
Virtually every law, that doesn't require an individual to face due process, that infringes on the keeping and bearing of arms is unconstitutional.
Conviction of a felony is a process, that is due, before felons are denied that right.
Simply taking an unapproved drug is not.
State and federal governments are equally restricted.
It is in the fucking Second Amendment.
Anything I write would be redundant. No for the gun charges...yes for the corruption and being the point man for the corrupt VP.
The thing that bothers me most is that Hunter didn't even need a gun for defense. He had shitloads of money and a father that is one of the most powerful men in the world. His father supported, if he didn't actually vote for, the law at question. Hunter knew the law, knew he was lying on the form and then proceeded to take selfies holding the gun while strung out on crack. Without question, the deadly weapon was a prop and a toy to him.
Hunter Biden is the kind of man used as justification for these laws. Sullum thinks that this is the case to be made to take back the 2nd Amendment from the Joe Bidens? Michael Hihn would have a field day ranting in ALL CAPS about how dipshits playing with guns violate his right to not be accidentally killed by said dipshit.
This article may be of sound principle, but it makes the Libertarian party look like fools. It feels like sabotage.
It is item # 4,678,981 of evidence that in practice libertarianism is a shield for leftists.
I still think that theory way overestimates the influence of libertarians. And also ignores that libertarians disagree with each other about everything. As someone fairly committed to the whole libertarian thing, I get annoyed when people talk about it as if Reason writers are totally representative.
Libertarians wrote the 1972 platform, and disagree with anarco-looter infiltraitors--the likes of Rottbutt--on all their suggestions for improving the platform (like legalized murder and child molesting). Needless to say. GOP infiltrators are likewise 5th-column saboteurs, and the best way out is to reset to the original platform.
It is not a theory. It is straight observation.
Whether the practice has greater or lesser impact is not an assertion i made.
It is undisputable the a "flagship" libertarian publication is entirely (if not totally) representative of libertarianism.
Dislike it all you want, you are still not changing it one whit.
Libertarianism, in principle, talks a good game. In practice it is a stalking horse for Marxists.
By design.
No. Reason has no basis to claim to represent libertarianism and you simply declaring it so is absurd. You can call them the "flagship" all you want, it doesn't make it true.
If libertarianism is a stalking horse for Marxists, then so is the US Constitution, which demands that no one be censored or excluded from the political debate on the basis of what they say or believe.
Nah, institutional libertarianism has become a shield for leftists, because they've largely taken it over. Doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of real libertarians still around who haven't been turned into skin suits for lefties to wear.
That is consistent with the history of Marxism. Infiltrate legitimate parties and take them over or burn them down.
Who knew the GOP had been infiltrated by Marxists!
Anyone that’s been paying attention to what the establishment has been doing for less than 5 seconds.
Slayer -- Libertarian Skin Suit
They have not "taken it over."
They built it.
Leftists built the political philosophy that most thoroughly and completely rejects leftism? I think that's absurd, but even if true, so what? The political philosophy still is what it is and it rejects entirely the premise of leftism.
Well, duh, he got the gun so he could pose with it for selfies while doing drugs and banging hookers.
Better take: Hundreds of gun owners shouldn't be in prison for the same offense that earned the president's son a slap on the wrist.
Sullum letting everyone know where his concern lies.
And never shows the same concerns over what Trump is getting charged with, often novel interpretations of law whereas Hunters is a clear violation.
"Second, "prohibited persons" like Biden are rarely prosecuted even when they unsuccessfully try to buy guns. In fiscal year 2017, according to a 2018 report from the Government Accountability Office, federal background checks "resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions." The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) "referred about 12,700" of those cases for "further investigation" by its field offices. Yet as of June 2018, the Justice Department had prosecuted just 12 of those cases, which represents about 0.01 percent of the blocked transactions and 0.09 percent of the cases investigated by the ATF."
The figures cited aren't exactly current, but 12 is not "hundreds" (unless you've got more complete figures than Reason had).
So rarely to you is over 12000 in one year? How many of those denied lied on the forms and simply weren’t denied, ie expunged records?
How many were being investigated actively for other felonies as well?
And what "offense" was that? (Looters hate specificity)
Ticky-tacky laws are what makes The Machine run, and exceptions are a feature not a bug.
Hunter Biden Shouldn't Go to Prison for Violating an Arbitrary Gun Law
Right. He should go away because of Equal Protection, right?
Let him argue the constitutionality of it from behind bars. Where the rest of us would be.
Ah, another race-to-the-bottom-tu-quoque looter! Take a number...
The monkey ruffles the duvet in chartreuse.
Make the political class play by the same rules they make for everyone else = "race to the bottom"?
Which questions should not obscure the point that unjust and unconstitutional laws should be repealed or nullified, not ignored when wealthy, powerful playboys violate them. Plea deals are a tool of uncontrolled prosecutorial misconduct and are abused in both directions - in favor of the elite class and against the outsiders.
There's plenty of things he should go to prison for but won't.
Sure, he shouldn't. And the way that should happen is that the judge should decide it is unconstitutional and throw out the charge. Failing that, he should be treated as anyone else would.
I don't really give a shit what happens to Hunter as long as it doesn't allow the whole thing to be swept under the rug. Seems like there's some real, serious corruption here that should be exposed.
Corruption? They don't care! They don't have to - they're the government!
I'm not holding my breath, but it seems less and less likely (in my mind) that Joe is going to come out of this unscathed.
He's about to be thrown under the bus by desperate Democrats flailing around looking for ANYONE competent and not yet demented to run against Trump next time. It would be difficult for anyone to tell if he becomes scathed by all this and he would be the last person to realize it. Joe has been a dirty machine politician from one of the most corrupt political machine regions in the world, let alone America, for over fifty years. The Republicans are finally taking a page out of the Democrats' playbook (attack them with whatever dirt you can dig up whether it's true or not and turnabout is fair play, what goes around, comes around).
yeah!
Let's be clear: For dozens upon dozens of legal firearm owners, some of whom Reason itself has even highlighted, going to prison for violating arbitrary gun laws would be preferable to the summary executions they received. For dozens and dozens more, again some of whom Reason itself has even highlighted, going to prison for a day, a week, a month, or even a year would be preferable to the decades-long sentences they received. And all of this, for the plebs in question, is without the additional/other issues with emoluments, tax evasion, prostitution, nepotism, extortion, etc., etc.
In total, the defense of Hunter Biden on these precepts guts 'shall not be infringed', 'secure in persons and effects', 'equal protection', 'cruel and unusual punishment', as well as unnamed protections relegated to the states or the people in the name of a de rigueur hereditary succession.
Sorry, but that was anything but clear. I would summarize this article as: "Hoist by his own father's petard; what goes around comes around; watching Hunter and Joe squirm at least a little is sweet revenge against every Democrat who ever mouthed the slogan, 'common sense gun regulations;' and arrogance and hubris have classic consequences, Jack!"
Joe squirm at least a little is sweet revenge against every Democrat who ever mouthed the slogan
And how do you think it feels to Philando Castille's survivors? Or Daniel Shaver's survivors? Or Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas' survivors? Or any one of the hundreds of other, supposedly, less clear "good shoots", "mistaken identity", "wrong addresses", and "botched executions" that Reason criticizes?
This is like Ron Bailey standing in defense of the "science" behind greenhouse gases that even kindergartners should understand while the rest of the magazine stands around going "What is a woman?" and "Ballistics evidence is junk science!"
Clearer now, or is it 100%, naked, hardcore 2D partisan politics all the way down to you?
Sorry, still "no."
Reason waits for nearly a week to cover the whistleblower testimony that alleges Joe took bribes, but this gets covered immediately? Get fucked Reason, especially you Sullum!
Also, any lefty that says what Hunter did is no big deal should never talk about "common sense" gun control again, hypocritical shitheads!
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Hunter Biden should join the following celebrities who were sent to prison for not paying Federal Income Taxes: Chuck Berry; Pete Rose; Mike "the Situation" Sorrentino; JA Rule; Wesley Snipes; Hedi Fleiss; Richard Hatch; Darryl Strawberry; Leona Hemsley; Teresa & Joe Giudice; Todd & Julie Chrisley; Martha Stewart; Lauryn Hill and Anne Lee Miller.
Except that Martha Stewart was not sent to prison for not paying Federal income tax; she was convicted of "lying to federal investigators, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and conspiracy to obstruct" during an investigation of insider trading which, by the way she was never charged with. She was charged with telling investigators that she did not commit insider trading and they claimed that that was lie even though they never charged her with insider trading. Can you say "Catch Twenty-two?"
Whutabout Frankie Lake? Terry Druggan? Al Capone? Frank Nitti? Henry J Oldani?
Regarding Reason's condemnation of the firearms law that HB violated: Would have been nice if that condemnation had happened before HB was charged.
Not sure if Sullum has, but I think Reason is actually being consistent on that note. If memory serves, they've addressed this a couple times before but mostly in regards to weed.
That said, I still say this is a pile of partisan garbage covering for a corrupt democrat administration
Hunter broke the law by false statement on the application to purchase. The question I have for Reason is: Is it "arbitrary" to require people to be truthful on federal firearms forms?
Reason articles have clearly and unequivocally condemned banning persons who legally possessed "illegal" drugs from owning or possessing firearms.
Somehow, a crackhead running around with a gun seems to have heightened potential for random violence.
Irrelevant. Second Amendment. You seem to have a heightened potential for silly sloganeering.
No problem with drunk people carrying then?
Well, if a drunk person is waving a firearm around, firing off random shots I would have a problem with that. I would have a problem with depriving a person of their second amendment right to own and carry weapons based on their having alcohol in their homes.
The law Biden violated is an ignorant, ill-advised law but it's still a law. As long as Black rapppers go to prison for violating it, so should politically connected wealthy whites.
And Jyooz, and don't forget boojwah capitalists!
As long as Black rapppers go to prison for violating it, so should politically connected wealthy whites.
Again, some black rappers get shot on sight for suspicion of violating it. Even for just the pretense of equality before the law, politically-connected wealthy whites should at least spend a night, if not a month, in prison... the only mitigation, systemically, being that everyone involved in the law should be working to get the law repealed before trial/sentencing.
If your father personally signed a law creating or increasing the penalties of a specific violation of the law, you should damn well be prosecuted as hard as possible for your violation of that law, unless you can show the video of either your opposition to your father's election (before he was elected) or your denunciation of that law (prior to, or nearly contemporaneous with, your father's signing it).
And then, if the law's indeed unconstitutional, your defense attorneys can make that argument in court, saving the rest of the country from your father's violation of everyone's rights.
This is exactly why the case should go to trial. Maybe, just maybe if the presidential son is charged with daft gun crimes and successfully defends himself and gets those same daft laws declared unconstitutional, it's a giant win. The sweetheart deal helps him and him only while everyone else is screwed and tattooed for the very same reason. It would also be interesting because it presumably wouldn't be like US v. Miller which was decided after Miller's death when he couldn't exactly put up much of a defense.
No person should face Federal prosecution for violating arbitrary and capricious laws but many thousands do every year. "Prosecutorial discretion" has become a sick code word for "our allies get deluxe treatment".
If Hunter is hoisted on the Biden families own sanctimonious petard I'll call it Karma and move on.
Too bad the Grabbers of Pussy and God's Own Prohibitionists telegraphed their moves to women voters... Booo Hoooo Hoooo Cry Me a River, looters.
How wonderfully droll and sexist of you Hankie.
Crackheads should be allowed to buy guns, but the crime is lying to the federal government.
How many people have been convicted of that and not any actual crime? Martha Stewart is the obvious one, but it seems several Trump cronies ran into that as well. Also something that should not be a crime, but it seems it should be fairly applied.
OTOH Mrs. Biden should absolutely be charged for dumping the gun where anyone could get it.
Jacob, you could have summated your fatuous article headline by saying, "Hunter Biden shouldn't go to prison on an arbitrary gun law because Shall Not Be Infringed"
Your article could have simply stated that any and every gun law on the books is a violation of the 2A and are arbitrary and capricious on their own merits. Every. Single. Gun. Law.
The 2A is quite clear on this and why that isn't followed, I'll never understand the perpetual human need to nitpick something to death and add bullshit into the wound they create. The 2A is simply elegant in its wording and construction. It doesn't require interpretation or argument. It simply is. No other law is required. None.
I for one detest the entire Biden Crime Syndicate, but on this, Hunter Biden committed no crime against the unconstitutional laws against the 2A. Every one of them. Including the ones you cited. They shouldn't even exist.
Fully agree, NO ONE should be charged with the process "offense" of the 4473 form "violation" he deliberatly did. But, since we all want to free HIM from consequences of that move, release and clear the record of everyone ELSE ever charged with that. that means restore the gun rights of EVERYONE ever charged with pssession, sale, distribution, use etc of those drugs. We don't do that for alcoholm do we? Why then with the "drugs"? (and no I do NOT use any of them. I've even thrown away the doc's prescription for post-surgery fentanyl. Never went to pick it up, and I hand;ed the pain just fine. )
HOWEVER, it is well known and documented tht good ol' Hunter DID dispose of a handgun in a VERY irresponsible and illegal manner, tossing it into a dumpster net a schoolyaard. It has not yet been located. WHO ended up with it? We don't know.
If I were to take my handgun and leave it somewhere like that where "just anybody" could get hold of it, I SHOULD be charged with the crime it is. Some schoolkid or gangbanger finds it (maybe he watched me chuck it in there and I never was aware of his presence?) gets his hands on it I have unknowingly but wilfully equipped him to commit mayhem somewhere.
Two very different actions, one SHOULD bring harsh resuts, the other is a big ft nothingburger without even any ketchup on it. Throw it away.
Also DO nail him for his part in the Burisma scandal and fraud. He and his equally rotten sugar Daddy should stand trial for that side by side.
Hunter Biden should be in jail for various reasons and crimes, but not because he does drugs or because he had a gun.
As typical, you are entirely wrong, Jacob. We can have a discussion whether or not a law is a good law, and whether it needs to be changed. But currently, we do have a law in place. The law needs to be enforced as written, 100% of the time. If we just arbitrarily begin ignoring laws because we do not like them, we would be Democrats.
Or we might be principled individualists who believes that every person is responsible for his own actions and that acting as an agent for the state is no excuse for immoral behavior.
Sure. Let's keep pretending that why people care about Hunter Biden is his various minor criminal idiocies, not the fact that he was working with his father, Vice President at the time, to sell high level political access to foreign countries.
Prosecuting Hunter for buying a handgun by lying on Form 4473 is essential. One reason is that Daddy Joe has been pushing for this proven inadequate background check to be extended to every firearms transfer for over a decade, and not prosecuting his boy would be rank hypocrisy. Another is that being convicted of a felony involving lying to the government should be a crime of moral turpitude that would finally strip him of his law licence, as it did Bill Clinton's, even if he doesn't serve a minute in prison. (Bill Clinton made a deal to avoid prosecution for obstruction of justice, but the Ark. Bar suspended his law license for five years anyway.)
The obvious example of someone being prosecuted for, and convicted of tax crimes, is Paul Manafort. But he was paid by Ukrainian politicians, you will argue, while Hunter was paid by a Ukrainian politician. Manafort also was convicted of failure to declare his foreign bank accounts, and he did not register under FARA. I'm pretty certain crackhead Hunter failed to dot every i and cross every t as well
The gun charge, which was NEVER charged against Hunter, isn't even the tip of the iceberg. If you think it is, you are WILLFULLY IGNORANT.
Make money online from home extra cash more than 18000 to 21000 Dollars. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received 26000 Dollars in this month by just working online from home in my part time. every person easily do this job by.
.
.
HERE====)>> UK WORK WEB
I earn 200 dollars per hour working from home on an online job. I never thought I could accomplish it, but my best friend makes $10,000 per month doing this profession and that I learn more about it.
Here's how she did it............... https://Www.Coins71.Com