Introducing a new feature – you can now listen to Fox News articles! In a dramatic turn of events, Hunter Biden’s lawyer expressed frustration in court after his deal with the Justice Department fell apart, telling prosecutors to “just rip it up.” However, it seems that the defense team is not willing to abandon one aspect of the deal: the diversion agreement that would prevent charges related to Hunter’s false statement to obtain a gun permit. The defense argues that since both parties initially agreed to the deal before the court proceedings, it is legally binding. The Justice Department, on the other hand, disagrees, stating that the probation officer and the court did not finalize the plea agreement. The court ultimately rejected the agreement due to the broad immunity language in the gun charge section. As a result, the Justice Department has announced its intention to indict Hunter before the end of the month. Hunter, however, insists that the agreement is set in stone and is unwilling to let go. This stance seems to be drawing inspiration not only from his catchphrase but also from the National Rifle Association (NRA). If the court rejects the diversion agreement, Hunter could present an argument that puts the Biden White House in a difficult position.
A possible defense strategy is to challenge the constitutionality of the underlying law. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), individuals who are considered “unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance,” including marijuana, are prohibited from possessing firearms and can face up to 10 years in prison. However, a recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Daniels declared this law to be a violation of the Second Amendment. The case involved a man who was arrested for possessing marijuana and loaded firearms. The Fifth Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen v. New York Rifle & Pistol Association, which established that firearm laws should align with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
President Joe Biden criticized the Bruen decision, considering it a major setback, as he has been a staunch supporter of the existing law. It is interesting to note that Hunter now finds himself on the same side as those seeking to avoid federal charges. Judge Jerry E. Smith, in the appellate opinion, wrote, “Our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage.” This may sound familiar, but will it be enough for Hunter to fully embrace Wayne LaPierre’s views? It wouldn’t be the first time that Hunter has taken a stance that contradicts his father’s. For instance, Joe Biden has long criticized “deadbeat dads,” despite his son’s efforts to evade child support payments for his daughter Navy. Hunter fought against supporting Navy for years, even after a court confirmed his paternity. Joe Biden himself only recently acknowledged Navy’s existence after excluding her from the list of his grandchildren for a long time.
Although President Biden may not be prepared for his son to advocate for broad gun rights, including for drug users, Hunter might make the argument that past cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and Bruen should not categorically exclude those who have broken the law from exercising their gun ownership rights. The looming gun charge against Hunter Biden could prompt him to argue that the law itself is unconstitutional. The government has attempted to cite historical analogies, such as laws that prohibit gun ownership for the mentally ill and dangerous individuals, but the Fifth Circuit rejected these assertions. Hunter might find himself alleging that the government frequently denies rights to individuals by labeling them as “insurrectionists.” This may sound familiar to some.
The government’s historical claims have been rebuffed by the court, with the Fifth Circuit rejecting the idea that Congress could ban gun possession by individuals who consume alcohol. The court specifically mentioned postbellum laws on carrying guns while intoxicated and stated that the Bruen decision cannot be stretched that far. The government also tried to draw parallels with laws against Catholics and others deemed potential insurrectionists, but the court dismissed these comparisons. Hunter could argue that drug users do not fit into this category either. If the court rejects the gun diversion agreement, it could prove to be a significant setback for the Biden family as Hunter takes a stance that aligns with decisions and rights that his father has long opposed. The implications are far-reaching, and the Justice Department would be forced to rely on historical precedent that targeted individuals such as Catholics, including the Bidens, as potential insurrectionists who cannot be trusted with firearms.
Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre could defend these positions by paraphrasing the NRA, stating that the “only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun [case] is a good guy with a gun [case].” To read more about this topic, visit https://www.foxnews.com/opinion. Jonathan Turley, a criminal defense attorney and Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, serves as a contributor to Fox News.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
