Staff Reports
Hunter Biden’s legal team is all fired up, trying to spin a Supreme Court ruling to bail out the President’s troubled son. They’re arguing that the Court’s decision to uphold a ban on gun possession for those under domestic violence orders somehow strengthens Hunter’s Second Amendment rights. The key detail? Hunter was neither under such a court order nor deemed dangerous. That’s quite the leap, even for a Biden.
In a 17-page motion to a Delaware court, Hunter’s attorneys are pushing for his acquittal. They argue that the law he broke clashes with the Second Amendment. They’ve latched onto the recent United States v. Rahimi decision, where the Court ruled that individuals under domestic violence protection orders could be temporarily disarmed. Hunter’s lawyers claim this is relevant since no court ever labeled him a danger, and the firearm ban on addicts isn’t temporary. Apparently, the Biden team believes that being a crack addict isn’t as big of a deal as other criminal disqualifiers for gun ownership.
Hunter Biden seizes on Supreme Court’s recent gun ruling in move for acquittal https://t.co/qIWNlIi36Z pic.twitter.com/UdkiPf3IGc
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) June 27, 2024
Just a recap for anyone who needs it: Hunter was found guilty of three felonies related to his purchase of a gun in October 2018 while hooked on crack cocaine. Federal law explicitly prevents drug users from owning firearms. But Biden’s lawyers, ever the creative bunch, are now applying the Rahimi decision to weasel out of this mess. They argue Hunter’s situation doesn’t match the criteria the Supreme Court outlined when it comes to disarming “dangerous” people. Talk about splitting legal hairs.
Now, it’s important to note that Rahimi’s case dealt with a guy under a domestic violence order, not convicted of any crime but still deemed a threat. Hunter’s team is banking on the fact that their client wasn’t officially considered dangerous, sidestepping the minor detail of his felony drug use. In the end, what’s lane-changing about Hunter’s appeal is that it’s based on the notion he didn’t have official notice and process deeming him a threat – just that pesky addiction and felony charges. Clearly, the Biden legal circus believes different rules apply.
Friday’s Supreme Court ruling confirmed that longstanding firearm laws can prevent individuals who threaten harm from misusing guns. Justice Roberts noted such measures date back to the nation’s founding. Biden’s attorneys are trying to wiggle through this tight space, suggesting that the Supreme Court would frown upon any law broader than the one they upheld in Rahimi’s case. Ah, the joys of legal interpretation.
While academics and law experts might have a field day debating the implications of the Rahimi ruling, let’s be clear: Hunter Biden’s case isn’t just about legal nuances. It’s about accountability, moral responsibility, and whether the President’s son will face the consequences of his actions. Or will Hunter skate by, thanks to clever lawyering and cherry-picked Supreme Court opinions? Stay tuned, America.
