Today's News
- Thread starter 44 AMP
- Start date
The Verminator
Moderator
He will get probation.
He'll be a convicted felon.
He will lose his gun rights, among others.
He will get probation.
He will appeal.
The SCOTUS response will be interesting.........hard to predict.
He'll be a convicted felon.
He will lose his gun rights, among others.
He will get probation.
He will appeal.
The SCOTUS response will be interesting.........hard to predict.
It's possible he'll appeal on the grounds 922(g) is unconstitutional. And that sets up some interesting scenarios.
First off, will the Brady Campaign and one of Bloomberg's organizations write amicus briefs defending the law, even though it's being applied against the son of one of their greatest benefactors?
Second, will it stand up the the Bruen test? To wit:
There are a bunch of state and local laws from the 19th century (and before) that ban ownership by "habitual drunkards" and such.
First off, will the Brady Campaign and one of Bloomberg's organizations write amicus briefs defending the law, even though it's being applied against the son of one of their greatest benefactors?
Second, will it stand up the the Bruen test? To wit:
There are a bunch of state and local laws from the 19th century (and before) that ban ownership by "habitual drunkards" and such.
Swifty Morgan
New member
There will be no pardon, because Joe Biden says so. He never lies.
Personally, I think it was right to indict Hunter, since other people have been indicted for this, but I would be happy if they just fined him $5000 and told him to knock it off. I guarantee you, there are alcoholics and weed smokers on this forum who have lied on Form 4473, other gun owners know about it, and they haven't turned any of them in. I don't think Biden was going to run around jacking people with a .25 automatic to get his next hit of crack.
I don't believe the prohibition on addicts and illegal drug users was intended to net people like Biden, Drew Barrymore, Robert Downey Jr., Chevy Chase, Kitty Dukakis, or Betty Ford. It seems like a clumsy tool that destroys people's civil rights indiscriminately.
Based on Googling, I think he will get a little prison time if his appeal fails. His real problems will come after his other trials, and then if the influence-peddling thing blows open, God help him.
Form 4473 asks applicants to list their weight. I always guess. Should I turn myself in?
Personally, I think it was right to indict Hunter, since other people have been indicted for this, but I would be happy if they just fined him $5000 and told him to knock it off. I guarantee you, there are alcoholics and weed smokers on this forum who have lied on Form 4473, other gun owners know about it, and they haven't turned any of them in. I don't think Biden was going to run around jacking people with a .25 automatic to get his next hit of crack.
I don't believe the prohibition on addicts and illegal drug users was intended to net people like Biden, Drew Barrymore, Robert Downey Jr., Chevy Chase, Kitty Dukakis, or Betty Ford. It seems like a clumsy tool that destroys people's civil rights indiscriminately.
Based on Googling, I think he will get a little prison time if his appeal fails. His real problems will come after his other trials, and then if the influence-peddling thing blows open, God help him.
Form 4473 asks applicants to list their weight. I always guess. Should I turn myself in?
ligonierbill
New member
There is usually some other event that results in prosecution for falsifying the form. A couple years ago, a guy in Columbus got 10 years after he bought a gun for his felon buddy, and said felon used the gun to kill two police officers. In Biden's case, his wife tossed the gun in the trash, and someone found it. No harm done, but a gun in the trash sure draws attention. My take from this is that legislators should think carefully before they define something as a felony. That guy in Columbus did evil, and deserved what he got, and more. Hunter Biden (and I don't like him) was just stupid.
Jim Watson
New member
I somewhat agree, something mild like a fine, very short sentence, even suspended, probation, rehab, is likely and not out of line. He is not Martha Stewart, after all.
BUT
If he should then shoot somebody with his next gun, or run over somebody while high on dope he is known to use, I would consider that a capital crime.
BUT
If he should then shoot somebody with his next gun, or run over somebody while high on dope he is known to use, I would consider that a capital crime.
My thoughts are that existing laws need to be enforced uniformly.
I get very unhappy when it looks like people in the system are using selective enforcement to punish people they don't like, regardless of my personal opinion about the person being prosecuted.
If the law is good, then leave it on the books and enforce it across the board. If it's not going to be enforced, then get it off the books.
Selective enforcement presents too much opportunity for oppression.
So... What's the enforcement effort on 4473 violations, in general?
I get very unhappy when it looks like people in the system are using selective enforcement to punish people they don't like, regardless of my personal opinion about the person being prosecuted.
If the law is good, then leave it on the books and enforce it across the board. If it's not going to be enforced, then get it off the books.
Selective enforcement presents too much opportunity for oppression.
So... What's the enforcement effort on 4473 violations, in general?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
JohnKSa said:
We have the answer to that from the Big Guy himself: "We don't have time for that."
My response is: "If you don't have time to enforce a law, why is it a law? Repeal it."
FFL licensing, (along with a host of other things) came from the 1968 Federal law. Does anyone know if the original forms (4473) included the drug question, or was that added to the form later, and if so, when??
I find it more than a bit ironic that the folks who were fine with that for over half a century are now, today, making noise about how the entire issue of drug use shouldn't be on the form. Now that the son of one of their biggest supporters has been caught and convicted under that clause, NOW they think it might be unconstitutional???
Remind us, again, exactly WHY Martha Stewart went to prison.
wasn't it because she lied to investigators?? or something like that?
I find it more than a bit ironic that the folks who were fine with that for over half a century are now, today, making noise about how the entire issue of drug use shouldn't be on the form. Now that the son of one of their biggest supporters has been caught and convicted under that clause, NOW they think it might be unconstitutional???
Remind us, again, exactly WHY Martha Stewart went to prison.
wasn't it because she lied to investigators?? or something like that?
Hunter Biden became a defendant and saw trial because his friends in government put the authenticity of the evidence supporting the charges at issue.
It may be true that few 4473 applicants are prosecuted, but that isn't an apt description of Hunter Biden. He is an attorney who wrote about his violation in his book which was published before the statute on that offense ran.
Indeed.
I'd love for HB's appeal to be the case that invalidates 4473 questions the answers to which would be incriminating. Heller, McDonald, Bruen, Biden.
It may be true that few 4473 applicants are prosecuted, but that isn't an apt description of Hunter Biden. He is an attorney who wrote about his violation in his book which was published before the statute on that offense ran.
Aguila Blanca said:
Indeed.
I'd love for HB's appeal to be the case that invalidates 4473 questions the answers to which would be incriminating. Heller, McDonald, Bruen, Biden.
Last edited:
JohnKSa aske (rhetorically):
There is an out of date (2018) GAO report on that at:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf
The initial summary statement is that
It is an interesting report and worth reading, if only for reassurance that there actually are some fairly objective, honest reports coming from GAO.
I am firmly in agreement with the idea that selective enforcement is a gateway to corruption, and that if a law is not going to be enforced, it should be repealed - but I do not believe for an instant that such a course is practical or possible.
Maybe a bill should be introduced that requires any law that has been in effect for some arbitrary period, and has seen spotty enforcement, be reviewed and repealed unless it has overwhelming support in Congress. And I should get a free double espresso every couple of hours - same chances.
There is an out of date (2018) GAO report on that at:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf
The initial summary statement is that
It is an interesting report and worth reading, if only for reassurance that there actually are some fairly objective, honest reports coming from GAO.
I am firmly in agreement with the idea that selective enforcement is a gateway to corruption, and that if a law is not going to be enforced, it should be repealed - but I do not believe for an instant that such a course is practical or possible.
Maybe a bill should be introduced that requires any law that has been in effect for some arbitrary period, and has seen spotty enforcement, be reviewed and repealed unless it has overwhelming support in Congress. And I should get a free double espresso every couple of hours - same chances.
The Verminator
Moderator
That plus insider trading and securities fraud.
The Verminator
Moderator
No idea the actual numbers currently but to give you an idea of the general pattern, back during the Clinton era, one year they bragged about how many thousands of denials they had done because of people lying on the 4473.
They were telling the truth, there had been thousands of denials that year. Actual number of prosecutions for lying on the 4473 that year was 44.
Consider that, along with Biden (as VP) some years later, stating "we don't have time for that" when asked why so few people face Federal prosecution for lying on the form.
Hunter Biden wasn't prosecuted just because he's Joe Biden's son, nor just because he's famous and wealthy, but because he publicly stated what he did, and when, and while he was an addict. And since the statute of limitations had not run out on his crime, the govt accepted his "confession" as constituting enough evidence to charge, try and eventually, convict him.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and rich influential family is not guaranteed to prevent that.
They were telling the truth, there had been thousands of denials that year. Actual number of prosecutions for lying on the 4473 that year was 44.
Consider that, along with Biden (as VP) some years later, stating "we don't have time for that" when asked why so few people face Federal prosecution for lying on the form.
Hunter Biden wasn't prosecuted just because he's Joe Biden's son, nor just because he's famous and wealthy, but because he publicly stated what he did, and when, and while he was an addict. And since the statute of limitations had not run out on his crime, the govt accepted his "confession" as constituting enough evidence to charge, try and eventually, convict him.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes and rich influential family is not guaranteed to prevent that.