Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« 6th Circuit strikes down ATF "bump-stock" determination | Main | DC forensics lab under investigation »

Hunter Biden's gun

Posted by David Hardy · 26 March 2021 12:17 PM

A rather strange sequence of events. It's illegal for a person who is "an unlawful user of or addicted to any Controlled Substance" to obtain or possess a firearm, and a buyer from a dealer must certify he is not such. To be fair, it would have been hard to prosecute, since the requirement is phrased in the present tense, and Biden could have argued he didn't have his nose full of coke the day he bought it. But, also to be fair, our ruling class should be held to tighter standards than we subjects. I know, that's not how the world works.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Flight-ER-Doc | March 26, 2021 12:28 PM | Reply

Not only that, but the USSS was attempting to break quite a few laws, and likely entrap the FFL: Taking the records from the FFL? Only the ATF can do that. And what would they do with the 4473? Would they have dropped a dime on the dealer, over the now missing 4473?

ARL | March 26, 2021 1:20 PM | Reply

Flight-ER-Doc, are we even sure that the people who visited the ATF were USSS and not someone posing as them? I'm not putting it past the USSS to do something as illegal and dumb as that, but they have denied it was USSS agents. If some political entity decided to get some fake badges and try to fool the FFL into giving up the 4473, then I wouldn't be surprised with that either.

Mr. Hardy, I assume your argument that Hunter Biden wouldn't literally have had coke in his nose at that moment was hyperbole and that any judge would laugh that argument out of court. I'm also pretty sure if someone smoked MJ 20 years ago but nothing since then, then they don't qualify as an "unlawful user". But there has to be some case law as to where the line is between those two extremes, and defines what counts as an "unlawful user". Does anyone know what that is?

Flight-ER-Doc | March 26, 2021 2:53 PM | Reply

No not sure. Were I to have any dealings with law enforcement, I'd get a photo of their creds.. Then maybe talk to them.

The US DoJ has swaddled itself with such respect of late that to do anything else would be suicidal.

Michael Murray | March 27, 2021 11:11 AM | Reply

Laws for thee but not for me.
Gee, that's a shocker.

Eldon W Dickens | March 27, 2021 10:48 PM | Reply

Ah, the bizarre world of U.S. jurisprudence. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan allows journalists to lie – twice: once when they defame in print and the second time in court when they claim they honestly believed what they wrote. Then there’s Frazer v. Cupp. which says that police can lie in interrogations, then use the resulting confession or answers as honest and reliable evidence in court. Then there is Allen v. United States, the 1984 Utah case, that enforced a non-existent sovereign immunity for government employees.
But, if an ordinary citizen suffers accusatory interrogation and under this threat replies with defensive evasions, that citizen’s goose is cooked. It means time in prison for fibbing and obfulscation. And almost all states have a crime called something like “Giving False Information to a Police Officer,” which if no other charge will stick, that one likely will. And a citizen wishing to exercise there Second Amendment rights has to make what is a sworn statement on the application form, which is there to enable the gun control enforcers to prosecute him or her if anything there in is at variance with their interpretation of it and the law.
And the police and prosecutors are sworn officers of the law and officers of the court.

Richard | April 3, 2021 6:07 AM | Reply

Hunter Biden told the cops that Hallie dumped the gun because she was afraid that he would commit suicide due to his drug and alcohol use. I construe this as an admission that he was using at the time and therefore lied on the 4473. I would be willing to admit error were there an investigation that indicated otherwise but that won't happen.

Leave a comment