Hunter Biden has been re-indicted on federal gun charges. There are two
counts related to falsifying information on the federal application
with regard to drug use, and a third count related to possessing the
gun while a drug user.

https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-gun-charge-investigation-e5c8ded90ea8c22d2e2e7cb09804b747

Defense says the plea deal remains in effect and Hunter is abiding by
it. The prosecution says that the deal was never in effect as the judge
rejected it.

I'm confused as to whether he'll be re-indicted on criminal tax law
violations or if that's subject to a plea deal. The judge just said
there couldn't be a blanket plea deal on all those unrelated criminal
charges.

This is no surprise.

The article doesn't make sense. It mentions that a federal appeal court
found that certain gun laws are unconstitutional in light of New York
State Rifle Association v Bruen. Is that about drug use and drug
possession while possessing a gun or something else? Bruen appears to
have nothing to do with drug use and possession restrictions.

Do you happen to know what the appelate court case was?

I'm not Clarence Thomas, but he was wrong to base his decision in Bruen
on the 2nd Amendment rather than the 14th. That was a clear cut due
process violation. All similar laws, no matter what the topic, should be
unconstitutional, without regard to 2nd Amendment rights. That should
have been a decision with broader application.

On 9/14/23 2:07 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>Hunter Biden has been re-indicted on federal gun charges. There are two
>counts related to falsifying information on the federal application
>with regard to drug use, and a third count related to possessing the
>gun while a drug user.
>
>https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-gun-charge-investigation-e5c8ded90ea8c22d2e2e7cb09804b747
>
>Defense says the plea deal remains in effect and Hunter is abiding by
>it. The prosecution says that the deal was never in effect as the judge
>rejected it.
>
>I'm confused as to whether he'll be re-indicted on criminal tax law
>violations or if that's subject to a plea deal. The judge just said
>there couldn't be a blanket plea deal on all those unrelated criminal
>charges.
>
>This is no surprise.
>
>The article doesn't make sense. It mentions that a federal appeal court
>found that certain gun laws are unconstitutional in light of New York
>State Rifle Association v Bruen. Is that about drug use and drug
>possession while possessing a gun or something else? Bruen appears to
>have nothing to do with drug use and possession restrictions.
>
>Do you happen to know what the appelate court case was?
>
>I'm not Clarence Thomas, but he was wrong to base his decision in Bruen
>on the 2nd Amendment rather than the 14th. That was a clear cut due
>process violation. All similar laws, no matter what the topic, should be
>unconstitutional, without regard to 2nd Amendment rights. That should
>have been a decision with broader application.

It's hilarious kids are getting shot and killed in schools and they're
worried about Hunter Biden having a gun. They pegged them hypocrisy meter
so hard it just blew up. Really stupidly hypocritical and idiotic and s***
like that.

--
This space for rent.

On 9/14/2023 5:47 PM, Trotsky wrote:
> On 9/14/23 2:07 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Hunter Biden has been re-indicted on federal gun charges. There are two
>> counts related to falsifying information on the federal application
>> with regard to drug use, and a third count related to possessing the
>> gun while a drug user.
>>
>> https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-gun-charge-investigation-e5c8ded90ea8c22d2e2e7cb09804b747
>>
>> Defense says the plea deal remains in effect and Hunter is abiding by
>> it. The prosecution says that the deal was never in effect as the judge
>> rejected it.
>>
>> I'm confused as to whether he'll be re-indicted on criminal tax law
>> violations or if that's subject to a plea deal. The judge just said
>> there couldn't be a blanket plea deal on all those unrelated criminal
>> charges.
>>
>> This is no surprise.
>>
>> The article doesn't make sense. It mentions that a federal appeal court
>> found that certain gun laws are unconstitutional in light of New York
>> State Rifle Association v Bruen. Is that about drug use and drug
>> possession while possessing a gun or something else? Bruen appears to
>> have nothing to do with drug use and possession restrictions.
>>
>> Do you happen to know what the appelate court case was?
>>
>> I'm not Clarence Thomas, but he was wrong to base his decision in Bruen
>> on the 2nd Amendment rather than the 14th. That was a clear cut due
>> process violation. All similar laws, no matter what the topic, should be
>> unconstitutional, without regard to 2nd Amendment rights. That should
>> have been a decision with broader application.
>
>
> It's hilarious kids are getting shot and killed in schools and they're
> worried about Hunter Biden having a gun. They pegged them hypocrisy meter
> so hard it just blew up. Really stupidly hypocritical and idiotic and s***
> like that.

Must the NRA defend *this* Hunter? Heads will explode...

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Hunter Biden has been re-indicted on federal gun charges. There are two
>counts related to falsifying information on the federal application
>with regard to drug use, and a third count related to possessing the
>gun while a drug user.

>https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-gun-charge-investigation-e5c8ded90ea8c22d2e2e7cb09804b747

The prosecution has dropped the gun possession charge.

Ok, once again, AP has provided a flaky and confusing article, still
referencing a three-count indictment. I think there are two counts
remaining?

https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-gun-charge-dismiss-prosecutor-indictment-e175a915f76f5ef4f14783be4afc93a6

>. . .