Hunter Biden, the son of the President, is indicted on federal gun charges
The indictment against the president's son comes after a plea agreement on tax and gun charges fell apart in July and amid a probe of his finances by House Republicans.
You're viewing a single thread.
What's with the title change here?
Hunter Biden “provided a written statement on Form 4473 certifying he was not an unlawful user of, and addicted to, any stimulant, narcotic drug, and any other controlled substance, when in fact, as he knew, that statement was false and fictitious,” according to the indictment.
So he lied on a form about not being a drug user.
Good to know that Republicans will be champing at the bit to take more guns away and give this enforcement some teeth.
Let's drug test Congress.
Wait, don’t Republicans want more guns?
Not if your name is Hunter Biden
That'd depend on who's getting those guns. Rules are tricksy business in Republicanland.
Something which, notably, happens on around 1% of all applications, but is prosecuted less than 0.000005% of the time.
From 2008 - 2012 there were 32 million background checks, and 373,900 rejections.
Between FY 2008 and FY 2015, an 8-year period, ATF formally referred 509 NICS denial
cases that included 558 subjects to USAOs for possible prosecution. The USAOs
accepted for consideration of prosecution 254 subjects (or less than 32 subjects per
year) and declined to prosecute 272 subjects.
32 prosecutions a year for an average of 6 million background checks (completed, there is a much larger number for bg checks initiated)
huh? I'm guessing you didn't mean to reply to me.
I was asking why the OP changed the title of the article to add "son of the president". As if it'd somehow make people care more about this total non-story.
I think it is a huge story. Hunter has money, so his attorneys can move the case up the chain. The court may have to rule if it is constitutional or unconstitutional for a government form to restrict gun sales to people. Hunter walks on that charge if deemed unconstitutional, and if deemed constitutional, it could maybe set precedent that the government can legally enforce stricter gun regulations.
E.g. No assault charges in the last x amount of years unless deemed okay by a medical professional. No firearms over a certain caliber, etc.
So for the trump appointee to win, he has to do what is good for the populous, which he can't do. It's against his programming. Who knows though, maybe the clock will be right at that time of day?
I hear you, that would definitely make the case more interesting, if it ever gets to that. That money also means he's way more likely for him to hire lawyers to get him off on some technicality so judges never have to take that on.
