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

« Win in the 9th Circuit | Main | Illustration of California law »

Hunter Biden indictment

Posted by David Hardy · 14 September 2023 01:44 PM

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

Hank Archer | September 14, 2023 3:35 PM | Reply

It would be so sweetly ironic if a major USSC case overturning the whole 4473 procedure were "Biden v. USA"!

Anonymous | September 15, 2023 7:16 AM | Reply

The gun charges nicely insulate dad from Hunter's misdeeds.

Carl from Chicago | September 15, 2023 9:33 AM | Reply

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.

Marcus Poulin | September 15, 2023 5:04 PM | Reply

How Many Thousands of People Have Lied on Form 4473 and Have Never Received a Prosecution?

Anonymous | September 17, 2023 11:21 AM | Reply

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.

Flight-ER-Doc | September 17, 2023 12:30 PM | Reply

So, when does Potatus pardon him?

Marcus Poulin replied to comment from Anonymous | September 17, 2023 4:53 PM | Reply

The Case?

Publius | September 21, 2023 10:40 AM | Reply

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?

Marcus Poulin | September 21, 2023 12:22 PM | Reply

The Lying to Government Agents Law goes back to Lincoln’s Time.

Leave a comment