Hunter biden joe
(AP Photo/Visar Kryeziu)
Previous Post
Next Post

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is offering its assistance to Hunter Biden in challenging the constitutionality of the three gun laws he was recently convicted of violating.

Back in August of last year, FPC tweeted: “Hey @JoeBiden – If Hunter is looking for gun lawyers to challenge the federal law he’s charged with violating … we know some people. Our references are your DOJ and ATF lawyers but feel free to ask around. [Attorney General Merrick Garland] can fill you in on the details.”

At issue is whether the laws against lying on a background check and banning drug users for purchasing firearms are constitutional under the 2022 Bruen ruling. Under that ruling, courts considering gun control laws must ask two questions: first, whether the law violates the plain text of the Second Amendment. If the answer to that question is yes, the court must ask if such a restriction can be found in the “nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”

After Hunter Biden’s conviction on June 11, for which his lawyers are now seeking a new trial, FPC has reiterated that offer of assistance.

“FPC stands by this offer,” the group said in a recent press release. “As President Joe Biden is aware, FPC has defeated the federal government on multiple occasions over the past two years. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court this year agreed to hear one of FPC’s cases in which it prevailed in the courts below.”

FPC President Joe Combs said laws such as those used to charge and convict Hunter Biden are unjust and unconstitutional.

“Countless lives are destroyed every year under the federal governments unconstitutional and immoral regulations,” Combs said. “We proudly work to eliminate these laws and create a free world. Just as we  have in many other cases, we stand ready to assist Mr. Biden in his challenge of federal gun laws.”

As FPC mentioned in the release, last year the organization filed an amicus brief in United States v. Daniels. The 5th Circuit Court subsequently reversed Mr. Daniels’ conviction and dismissed the indictment on similar charges to those against Hunter, holding that “our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapons, but it doesn’t not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage. Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users.”

Previous Post
Next Post

42 COMMENTS

        • The ATF are today’s Spanish Inquisition.
          From the Monty Python bit,
          “NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.”

  1. Justice Thomas’s dissent in Rahimi pretty much dealt with how the SC can dodge “Bruen”, without somehow violating the Second Amendment.

  2. After Las Vegas “mass shooting”, was Biden right about the greatest threat (i.e. white people) to America?

  3. Since there is no such thing as gun violence. Only violent acts by criminals using guns illegally. This is little more than political hyperbole disguised as caring. If he and the rest of the liberal democrat politicians across the nation truly cared about the violence perpetrated by violent criminals they would lock them up and stop refusing to prosecute them or make deals to keep them from facing the consequences they deserve. If guns cause the crime that injures and kills people and need to be taken from society. Then cars cause the drunk driving that injures and kills people and thus need to be taken from society also. The difference between the 2 is the Constitution protects the right for law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. While no Constitutional Right exists to own or drive a car.

    • Aaaah, but the very left-leaning Hollywood celebrates the automobile, it’s developers, and the freedoms that it brings to us commoners, while both somehow demonizing and supposedly distancing themselves from firearms, yet featuring them in nearly everything they produce.
      And manage to get nearly everything about both cars and guns wrong.

      • Demonizing and distancing themselves from guns? I’d say they are just hypocritical. And “wrong” is just what Hollywood does.

        Guns were glamorized by Hollywood in the 50s, 60s, 70s – consider all of the [Spaghetti] Westerns, TV Shows, etc.

        Give Keanu Reaves a gold star for glamorizing guns again via The Matrix and John Wick.

    • If America locked up all the criminals I’d certainly want shares in the Cement industry.
      It would take a lot of prisons even if you stacked the prisoners like sardines.
      Canned Criminals packed in oil.
      Yummmmm

  4. LET THE COMMUNIST BIDEN SON FIGHT HIS OWN BATTLES. FOR THE FPC TO AID THE SAME TRAITORS AND VERMIN THAT STAND AGAINST OUR LIBERTIES CEMENTS THE FPC NAME IN MY BOOK OF RINOS AND FAKE CONSERVATIVES.

    • First, lay off the CAPS LOCK.
      Second, making everything political is fracturing this country. FPC offering support to a US Citizen who is facing gun charges.

      You know what would be hilarious? If Trump is re-elected and he were to pardon Hunter.

      • I agree with JB, Hunter is guilty as charged and other have gone to jail and prison for the same offense. He was drug addicted at the time as well. Let them represent someone who is innocent.

    • JB: “FPC President Joe Combs said laws such as those used to charge and convict Hunter Biden are unjust and unconstitutional.

      “Countless lives are destroyed every year under the federal governments unconstitutional and immoral regulations,” Combs said. “We proudly work to eliminate these laws and create a free world. Just as we have in many other cases, we stand ready to assist Mr. Biden in his challenge of federal gun laws.”

      The FPC’s support is in reference to the law(s) that created the 4473. If these laws are deemed unconstitutional as a result of Hunter’s case, then it is a win for POTG in that the ATF form 4473 will be trashed, thus a win for all of us. Hunter should be held accountable regardless because at the time of the purchase he lied on the form 4473.

      FPC is in no way praising Hunter Biden. Read what FPC President Joe Combs said.
      Note: “laws such as those used to charge and convict Hunter Biden are unjust and unconstitutional.”
      ““We proudly work to eliminate these laws and create a free world”

      No where is it stated that FPC supports Hunter Biden’s politics, lifestyle etc or that they think he should walk away unscathed. Taken in context FPCs offers are hilarious, and it should be no surprise that their offers have not been accepted.

    • Oh goodness gracious …. one persons ‘offense’ does not mean another did not commit an ‘offense’.

      Hunter lied on the form, period. That was a violation of law, period. The case was about Hunter, not the gun shop – the offense by another does not mean Hunter didn’t lie. If the DOJ wants to bring a case against the gun shop owner that’s a different case, the DOJ hasn’t bought such a case and the gun shop owner is not on trial. What the gun shop did on the form is not relevant to the case, nor is it relevant to if Hunter committed his offense or not. No one coerced Hunter into buying the gun, the shop did not coerce Hunter into buying the gun, the intent of Hunter was to buy the gun plain and simple and he lied to do it no matter what the shop did or did not do correctly.

      The shop did screw up, they assumed Hunter was a resident. But no matter the screw up by the shop Hunter still had the responsibility to not lie but he did anyway, period.

      Like father like son – both Joe and Hunter are liars, period.

    • “The shop violated federal law“

      Evidence tampering, the 4473 should be ruled inadmissible as the chain of custody has been violated.

      The shop admits they altered the evidence for whatever reason they may want to claim, it’s still evidence tampering and the form, as the fruit of the tainted tree, should be thrown out.

  5. So if it’s constitutionally okay for a druggy to purchase a firearm while under the influence, why isn’t okay to sell a firearm to an individual from out of state?

    • Actually, it is – just not a handgun.
      The real question that I have is if Hunter was DDed from a US service branch for drug use, why isn’t that in his folder, and why didn’t NIBC flag the approval ?
      … probably the “Biden” exception

      • Hunter Biden’s DD form 213 will tell the tale.
        His discharge was labelled “Administrative Discharge”, but that does not appear to be the complete description for Administrative Discharges are also labelled:
        Honorable; General, Under Honorable Conditions (General Discharge); or Other Than Honorable (OTH).
        The mere mention of “Administrative Discharge” does not fully describe the discharge.

          • Hi Sam, I took “DDed” to mean dishonorably discharged which is contrary to my research relative to Hunter Biden. The one strange thing about Hunter”s “Administrative Discharge” is that time served is supposed to be 6+ years before qualifying for an “Administrative Discharge” and Hunter had not met that threshold according to what I have read. A dishonorable discharge and Administrative Discharge are not equal.
            I was discharged in 1965 and many things have changed since then. Accept my apologies if I have miss understood your comment.

            • No problaymo. I did not quite follow the opening words, which appeared to me to be a confusion between an actual DD, vs the DD form 214 record of service.

              All’s well.

              Cheers

  6. I really do enjoy FPC’s consistent stance and intellectual honesty here. This is one of the main metrics of being adult, or in this case an organization run by self-actualized adults, IMO.

  7. I have just indicated to FPC that if they spend one cent protecting Hunter Biden I will no longer join or contribute to their organization. Hunter perjured himself on his application and many others have gone to jail for what he did and a lot quicker. Let them defend someone worthy of a defense as he was a current drug user at the time of his crimes.

    • “I have just indicated to FPC that if they spend one cent protecting Hunter Biden I will no longer join or contribute to their organization.”

      Do I understand correctly, that anyone convicted of a crime that entails violation of the constitution is unworthy of having their constitutionally protected right defended? Commit a crime, lose any justification for defending ones natural, civil and rights?

      When government overreaches, the character of the individual at risk is irrelevant.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here