I thought the law wasn’t preventing someone from buying a gun who was a felon, I thought the law was that you couldn’t purchase a gun if you were a user of illegal drugs. And Hunter falsely claimed on a form when purchasing a gun that he wasn’t using drugs.
You’re correct. I was making a different point. As for using drugs but not-a-felon, I dunno… it still seems unconstitutional to my ears to prevent a free person from keeping and bearing arms.
I’ve read in several articles that this is rarely prosecuted, generally only when the gun is subsequently used for some illegal purpose (as an added charge), so I suppose his attorneys could craft a colorable argument that this was at least highly selective prosecution.
I just checked some more to see how the authorities found out about the situation.
Not all details seem currently public. But part of it is that the gun was thrown in a dumpster and then returned by an older man who regularly rummages through the grocery’s store’s trash. That seems to me both extremely and unusually bad luck on Hunter’s part and likely to raise law enforcement questions regardless of politics. Also unusual, but not indicative of a political prosecution, is that the alleged perpetrator published a book in which he talks about addiction,
It may be that if his father wasn’t famous, his book would never have been accepted by a publisher, and evidence against him would thus be too fragmentary for prosecution to be indicated. So while his situation shows that children of politicians should be especially careful to obey the law, I do not see a good case for it being an unacceptable political prosecution.
It does seem a bit restrictive to me too, but I can see a plausible argument that it is a public safety issue as well. And @Stratocaster pointed out that it is rarely prosecuted unless it leads to a different crime, which seems like a more sensible kind of way to enforce such a law.
Also, most first offenders similarly situated are offered a program of diversion: Enter a plea, go forth and be a good boy on probation and we’ll dismiss the charges after a couple of years.
That’s what the prosecutor initially offered.
Then the prosecutors tried to put the judge in an untenable position of determining if Hunter Biden was in compliance with the terms of probation.
Which is not her job, and understandably, she declined to put her imprimatur on the agreement.
At which point the whole thing fell apart, and… here we are.
Cite.
It’s rarely prosecuted because it doesn’t come to police attention. In this case (same link as in my last post):
One thing here does reasonably lead to the next.
As for only prosecuting if it leads to a different crime, I am thinking that different crime would be a more serious crime, correct? Is the idea that if a jury acquits the perpetrator of the serious crime, it might only convict on the hardly ever prosecuted crime? If so, something doesn’t sound fair there. You shouldn’t be effectively punished only because of the crime you were acquitted of.
The penalty for lying on the gun purchase form should be mild. Probation or community service sounds about right to me for a single gun first offense. But only prosecuting in presence of other allegations does not strike me as fair.
P.S. There is an issue here that Hunter might get disbarred even if the penalty is otherwise minimal. I do not like depriving people of their livelihood. However, a lawyer should have known better, realized that there was an issue, and sought legal advice before completing the application. Even if Hunter is properly acquitted, he did do something he should not have.
P.P.S. Yes, a mild punishment plea bargain fell apart. What can I say when I am against plea bargains? He may be innocent due to factors I am not seeing.
The NYT disagrees.
Yeah, I was going to ask for a cite on this because this has been discussed for quite a while (here and on the boards) and this contradicts everything I’ve previously heard about it.
The police are not going to find out about it unless there is another crime.
In this case, I think the other crime or crimes included illegal gun disposal in violation of Delaware state law:
§ 1448B. Background checks for sales of firearms — Unlicensed persons
As to whether violating state gun disposal requirements is more serious than violating the federal gun form law, it is a judgment call. In a way, the illegal disposal is worse, but, then, the person who allegedly did it, Hallie Biden, is not a lawyer. And she would never have gotten into this mess if it wasn’t for Hunter’s misdeed (assuming his guilt will be proven). So I’m more sympathetic to her than him.
I doubt you could find legal precedent for a scenario just like this, so statements that this would not be prosecuted normally flummox me a bit. The chain of events is unique.
addicts rarely believe they are addicts when asked. It is only during/after rehab that they come to realize what addiction is.
Can we even be sure he ‘read’ the form or that the sales guy didn’t just say "check here, here and here - enjoy the new toy!’ (I realize that is pure speculation and the sales guy would never admit it, or face losing his license).
Read it one more time. Most people accused of this crime—people actually accused, whom the authorities by definition are aware of—are not indicted unless there’s another more serious underlying crime. IOW, within the cohort of those accused of the crime (which includes Hunter), the majority indicted committed a worse underlying crime (a subset that does not include Hunter).
If there are throngs of unaccused people walking the streets who have committed this transgression, we can safely assume the authorities are none the wiser. That also has nothing to do with the point made.
So I guess that the prosecution is using Hunter Biden laptop stuff as evidence. I suppose this means that the court has admitted the laptop into evidence?
Weren’t there chain of custody concerns with this computer?
There was a more serious crime, as far as I am concerned. If the dumpster diver was less law abiding, there is an excellent chance the gun would have been sold to criminals. The fact that they didn’t prosecute that is probably because of lack of criminal intent on Ms. Biden’s part.
The New York Times article doesn’t get into the weeds of what happens when one crime is federal and another state.
Also, Hunter is a lawyer. I think he should be held to a higher standard. Whether they normally are, I don’t know. But I think it is a lot more plausible to expect lawyers to fill out forms correctly than the general public. (Probably also true of licensed real estate brokers, like you know who.)
This isn’t that tough. The underlying crime would need to have been committed by Hunter. Dumping the gun, by Ms. Biden, may be a crime. It is not a crime that underlies Hunter’s alleged wrongful act. Come on, now.
This seems to be an argument against having that checkbox on the form. I agree with the checkbox, but discussing that would go beyond the thread.
One way around that would be for law enforcement and various DA offices to go after this specific crime with a vengance. Arrest and prosecute every single gun owner who has had so much as a puff on a joint once. A cannabis seed in their pants cuff. An oxycontin pill that was not in a prescription bottle.
Let’s see how that pans out.
OK, so the famous laptop is admissible evidence?
Like many checkboxes on many forms - you don’t get the ‘thing’ unless you check the boxes. The seller gets to say “I asked” - the buyer may not even read/comprehend - or they might lie outright - or they might disagree with the notion.
There is little doubt that Mr. Biden had issues in the timeframe - but whether or not HE thought he was an addict at the time he checked the box will be hard to prove. Not whether or not he WAS - but whether or not he ‘lied’ about it.
The box didn’t ask “have you used in the past x days” or something more concrete.
Well - I went and read the actual form (linked above) - it just specifies “unlawful use OR addicted” (and then lists a few examples/categories).
I suppose it will come down to if they can prove he was ‘still using’ that particular day or if Mr. Biden thought he as ‘no longer using’ - having used before - haveing used after - but that doesn’t speak to whether or not he was using “then” (or if he thought himself as no longer using).
Like I said - addicts are funny people when it comes to this stuff.
FTR - I am a “zero strikes” kinda person when it comes to some of this stuff - and most likely Mr. Biden should be “prosecuted” for this in the technical aspect - but PROVING it is another matter
The Times did not say that the other crime was always one that underlies the defendants alleged wrongful act.
In this case, another crime alleged is tax law violation. The original plea bargain, that fell apart, covered both tax and gun violations. That may be a unusual combination, but these are a unique set of alleged facts.
My default opinion in a criminal trial is that American penalties are too high, and I hope it will turn out that the defendant is innocent. Maybe Hunter Biden is being held to a higher standard than normal, but it is fair for lawyers to be held to a high standard, son of the President or otherwise.