That was the plea deal.
Well, to be honest, I am only an expert on the tax part, but other experts say that the gun part is almost never prosecuted due to it being rather doubtful as to its constitutionality.
Hunter admitted he was wrong on the taxes, and paid up. That is all you need to stay out of prison. (There are exceptions for those that got others to not file their taxes, such as leaders of tax protest movements)
That’s what i thought, too. It wasn’t a matter of lying or cheating on his taxes, it was not filing at all and not paying at all, as far as I’m aware. And he has since filed and paid all taxes and fees and penalties. So, that should be the end of that. Yet the above linked article says he’s still facing probable charges on the tax matter.
It’s all very perplexing. When the Republicans were whining and crying that the federal prosecutor was being forced to go easy on Hunter, that same trump-appointed prosecutor said he was free to make his own decisions on charges and he did what he felt the actions warranted. Now all of a sudden he’s throwing the book at him. Did something material change, or is he being influenced by the criticism? Or, to be fair, is Hunter refusing to accept a reasonable plea? That could be a possibility, as well.
With the statute of limitations approaching, it makes sense to indict on all charges. Plea deals can still be made. Obviously, we’re not privy to what’s happening behind the scenes, maybe Hunter is refusing to be reasonable, or maybe it’s the government. I would expect a deal eventually, not too different from what they tried before.
It is clearly unethical GOP pressure, and a trump appointed judge.
I am not a fan of either Hunter or Joe Biden, but these gun charges are rediculous. Every person who buys a gun in a cannabis legal state, who has smoked pot, is liable for the same offence. Admitting to drug use, even if it is legal where you are, is a disqualification for purchasing a gun. Cocaine, cannabis, doesn’t matter, they are both treated the same by the Federal government.
I bought a gun on line and it had to be shipped to a FFL (Federal Firearms Licenced dealer) before I could pick it up. They just pointed out to me that if I answered yes to the question of using drugs, that they would not be allowed to transfer the gun to me.
Everyone who has ever smoked pot has to lie on this form. Everyone who has ever used any illegal drug lies on this form.
Cannabis is not legal anywhere in the US. Using an illegal drug means you may not purchase a gun, yes.
No. The question is whether you are currently a user, or currently addicted. If you lie on the form you commit a federal offence. It may not often be prosecuted, but it is still a federal offense.
Can’t wait for that to be applied equally to EVERYONE, prominent Republicans included. Their heads will explode.
Cite?
There’s a very good argument to be made that it’s unconstitutional as applied here, where no other illegal conduct occurred.
They are criminalizing his status as a drug addict. You can’t do that.
The use, sale, and possession of cannabis containing over 0.3% THCby dry weight in the United States, despite laws in many states permitting it under various circumstances, is illegal under federal law.[5] As a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, cannabis containing over 0.3% THC by dry weight (legal term marijuana) is considered to have “no accepted medical use” and a high potential for abuse and physical or psychological dependence.[6] Cannabis use is illegal for any reason, with the exception of FDA-approved research programs.[7]
Technically, according to the IRS agents he blew off stuff that was over the statute of limitations or something along those lines.
The 4473 question is if you are a user. It doesn’t say “ever used”, it doesn’t say habitual user, just user. There is not a big case law on this, but if you have stopped using, you are no longer a user.
From what I read, if you have a medical marijuana card, or marijuana on your person, a court could decide you were a user.
Non-habitual users, by being non-habitual, are likely to experience periodic marijuana withdrawal symptoms, and the first symptom on some lists is irritability. This reasonably explains the uneven association between pot and traffic accidents.
If your want a gun, wait a month since your last marijuana use before filling out the 4473, and don’t use agsin, and you will be legally safe. Also, morally safe, as you don’t want to have a gun when irritable.
The 4473 question is reasonable to me.
When…or if…the impeachment inquiry gets going, all the content of the house committee is already posted. 10% for the big guy and all. I did not see any 20 million or in fact any follow the money type of data in there. We have seen most of this on Fox on NY Post. But there is is, in official Congress site.
If you have stopped using for the last 12 months.
Does abuse of alcohol fall under this question? I would expect there are plenty of alcoholics that check that box…
here - hold my beer …
Intentionally not filling is (morally) worse than mis-filling, right?
I thought the smart way to cheat on your taxes was not to file. Either way you’re counting on not getting audited, but if you do then there’s no clear evidence of deception.
Or maybe this is a common misconception?
The one time I don’t put in a link . . .
It doesn’t mention a time period:
As can be seen from my last post, I am not a fan of marijuana (even though some people I admire, like the late Louis Armstrong, used it a lot). And I’m not a fan of guns. And I’m certainly not a fan of people who recently used marijuana buying a gun on impulse. So if the Hunter precedent results in prospective gun owners having to make a long-term choice between guns and marijuana, I think this is good.
The thing that I don’t get about the plea deal breaking up is how on earth the Biden camp would think that the prosecutors would have agreed to the Biden’s version of what it said.
Near as I can tell the Bidens were claiming that the immunity granted went beyond the gun and tax charges, and would extend to any prosecution by the feds for anything the Hunter Biden had previously done. So if they found later that Hunter had broken into his father’s office stole some sensitive documents and sold them to the Chinese they couldn’t prosecute him. Why on earth would any sane prosecutor agree to that?
Hunter should have just accepted the governments version of the deal and been done with it.
What « Bidens » are you referring to? Only Hunter is involved.