I'm definitely not voting for Hunter Biden now
That's all maga wanted!
Appeal to the Supreme Court and let them overturn the conviction on the History and Tradition grounds that there's no historical precedent from infringing on the gun rights of people on crack. 5th Circuit already ruled on this matter and acquitted the defendant on similar grounds, in the case USA v. Daniels.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/22-60596/22-60596-2023-08-09.html
For anyone curious. I mean I disagree with these ridiculous overlay broad second amendment interpretations personally, but looks like he has an appeal argument based on how the courts have been treating the second amendment lately. I look forward to the mental gymnastics of the second amendment extremists on this case. Seeing marijuana spelled "marihuana" over and over in the ruling above is also pretty funny.
Just another example of Joe Biden weaponizing the Department of Justice! ...oh wait.
In all seriousness, most people could see this result coming from a mile away. The prosecution had a solid case against him. I expect the justice system to hold everyone accountable for their actions, regardless of who they are. Republicans expecting us to do backflips to defend Hunter Biden as some sort of "gotcha" are completely out of their gourd. He earned this conviction through his own deeds, just like how Trump earned his.
They don't understand that we don't worship Biden like they do Trump. Hell, most of us don't even like him that much.
My sister was the victim of public enemy #1 in my state. She survived but there's cyber stalking laws now because of her. Biden as a Senator sponsored her to speak to Congress. She's the recipient of the Jefferson Award.
My sister doesn't like his politics, she probably didn't vote for him. But there's no question that Joe Biden is a good person. He is
I think he's a good person, but I agree with your sister and don't like his politics.
I will most definitely be voting for him and anyone else who isn't a Republican for the rest of my life, though.
It's kind of a shitty law in the first place, but he was assuredly guilty of it. It's still unusual that they went after him for it when it wasn't connected to any other crime (which is usually when federal prosecutors use this law) and really unusual that the judge threw out the plea bargain.
Surely now the NRA will come out and protest this flagrant violation of Hunter Biden's second amendment rights!
There is a strong argument on constitutional grounds here, it's why it's almost never charged.
You can drink and buy a gun.
Do a little crack?
(Okay, a lot of crack)
Well it's official.
I will not be voting for Hunter Biden in November.
I know multiple people, several of them fine upstanding Republicans that have violated this same law by lying on this same form. Hell, one of them has done it repeatedly in order to straw purchase firearms for his son, a convicted felon.
Wouldn't it be unfortunate if someone reported that kind of thing? Which one should do, since we're talking about a convicted felon possessing firearms.
I guess I’m not voting for Hunter anymore.
I admit I was on the fence. Now definitely not. Couldn't in all good conscience vote for a convicted criminal.
Well, since nominating convicted felons is in vogue now, Hunter Biden 2028?
Only 3 felony charges. Those are rookie numbers.
Clearly Biden rigged this to politically damage Biden
If I cared about this guy, or he was important in anyway, I'd feel something probably.
That this is even news is just odd.
I guess I'd take note if Trump's kids or Kushner were convicted, but then they were in and out of the White House far more frequently than Hunter. Nepotism ran rampant.
Are you telling me that a white rich person was convicted of a gun crime, in America?
Ironically if he wasnt a rich white guy, then he would have either gotten away with it entirely, or would have got a misdemeanour plea deal.
Literally the only reason this became a felony conviction is because his name is Biden.
Welp, I'm convinced. I certainly won't be settling for only the FATHER of a felon. I'm going to get the REAL THING.
Wonder if this opens the gate for cops on steroids to be charged?
I'm genuinely confused as to why I'm supposed to care? Yay, good for you, conservatives! They got trump, so YOU got Hunter Biden! Wow, good job! Anyway....
I get that the law is the law, and the jury has to rule as such (barring nullification), but this is such a stupid law.
None of our other constitutional rights are contingent on not using controlled substances.
I don't give a fuck about any Biden beyond my firm-but-disheartening vote for Joe, but this particular law is bullshit. That question ought to be removed from the federal form.
What upsets me is that it's pretty much never actually enforced except as an add-on for violent criminals.
I used to sell guns, and people would attempt to illegally buy guns from my store all the time and the Feds didn't do shit. I had convicted felons on camera outside the store giving cash to people to go buy guns for them, and law enforcement didn't care.
But THIS they'll prosecute.
Wonder how Don Jr and his daddy filled out their paper work?
Whoop de fucking doo.
Since this was never actually newsworthy, can he go away now?
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.