« Win in the 9th Circuit | Main | Illustration of California law »
Hunter Biden indictment
Right here.
Interesting -- one charge is possession by a prohibited person, a user of unlawful drugs, but the other two are of lying on the 4473. There has been some dispute over whether the drug user prohibited person category is unconstitutional under Bruen, but questions are now also posed (1) is it constitutional to punish false statement under Bruen and (2) would it make any difference if the false statement concerned a prohibited person status that was unconstitutional?
9 Comments | Leave a comment
The gun charges nicely insulate dad from Hunter's misdeeds.
It seems a number of folks aren’t happy with this indictment, offering up all kinds of reasons. I’d like to see Jeffries and Schumer lead the way toward passage of bipartisan bills to repeal, in whole or in part, the GCA68.
How Many Thousands of People Have Lied on Form 4473 and Have Never Received a Prosecution?
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a police officer for lying on a 4473. He took money from his father to purchase a gun with his policeman's discount. It was determined that if he had purchased the gun with his own money and then sold the gun to his father, it would have been legal.
The precedent has been set. Convict him.
So, when does Potatus pardon him?
The Case?
If I were to guess
I would think that the courts would say “lying on the form is still lying.”
What I am curious about, is why lying to the government is a crime. It seems like that should bring up some obvious 1A issues.
Even where perjury in court (I could see a possible exception for that) is concerned…isn’t the purpose of a courtroom hearing to sift through all the statements & physical evidence, then decide what they think is false?
The Lying to Government Agents Law goes back to Lincoln’s Time.
It would be so sweetly ironic if a major USSC case overturning the whole 4473 procedure were "Biden v. USA"!