« 6th Circuit strikes down ATF "bump-stock" determination | Main | DC forensics lab under investigation »
Hunter Biden's gun
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, 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?
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.
Laws for thee but not for me.
Gee, that's a shocker.
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.
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.
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?