One of the most entertaining aspects of Hunter Biden being indicted on three gun-related charges due to his drug use is the reaction of those on the left side of the political spectrum. They’re screaming that given how few people are prosecuted for lying on 4473 forms, the only reason he’s been charged is his prominent father.
Statistics on gun cases like Hunter Biden’s show one thing:
In a normal universe, he would never have been charged if it weren’t for his last name
I explained @CNN w/ @abbydphillip @GloriaBorger @RogerSeverino_ pic.twitter.com/KmkJ2wDej4
— Norm Eisen (norm.eisen on Threads) (@NormEisen) September 15, 2023
Note that the Venn diagram of the people who are making this argument and those who blew a blood vessel when a man whose conviction was overturned for gun possession while under a domestic violence restraining order is almost a perfect circle. Yet the legal principles are virtually the same.
In the domestic violence case, US v. Rahimi, the target is a certified scumbag who’d been involved in at least five prior crimes involving firearms and had beaten the hell out of his girlfriend. Zackey Rahimi was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order which prohibited him from possessing a firearm and had been convicted of violating that order.
When the Fifth Circuit circuit overturned his conviction based on the lack of a history or tradition in this country of voiding the gun rights of people who hadn’t been convicted of a crime, the reaction was as if they’d OK’d human sacrifice, dogs living with cats…you know mass hysteria.
As the always-sane and even-keeled Ian Millhiser at Vox put it . . .
There is also a reason why the government did not disarm domestic abusers in the past: Domestic violence was not deemed a criminal offense for most of American history. When women were denied equal citizenship, the men who wrote and enforced the laws viewed wife-beating as a mere “familial affair” beyond the province of the courts. Legislators and judges alike saw domestic abuse as a natural part of family life, to be dealt with privately and punished only in the most extreme and murderous situations.
In other words, thanks to the Supreme Court and Bruen, because the Founders were OK with wife-beating, wife-beaters can now have guns!
That, of course, was not at all what the Fifth Circuit ruled. While noting that society had all kinds of opportunities to charge, convict and imprison Zackey Rahimi for a laundry list of felonies and other crimes that would have kept him from owning a gun (at least legally), it had chosen — time and time again — to give him a pass.
Since Rahimi hadn’t yet been convicted of a crime, and there’s no history or tradition of disarming people who are similarly innocent until proven guilty in this country, the Court of Appeals ruled the ban on gun possession for people under a domestic violence restraining order is unconstitutional under Bruen.
So the same people who are arguing the Biden indictment is a political hit job because drug use is no biggie and that the feds almost never prosecute on the 4473 lying charge (about 300 times a year, and he was also charged with gun possession while using narcotics), are the same people who are having aneurisms over the Fifth Circuit ruling.
Set aside the fact that lying — for whatever reason — on a federal form is a crime. Hunter’s father’s administration has weaponized the DOJ and ATF in never-before-seen ways against gun manufacturers, sellers, and owners. The Biden DOJ is actively pursuing hundreds of these charges against individuals based on a law that Hunter’s father helped make happen.
That’s right, old Joe himself helped write and pass the Brady bill that criminalized…lying on a 4473 form. How great is that?
But what’s really delicious here is that Hunter’s own attorney is now arguing that the statute — the one his father made a reality — is unconstitutional.
“The only change that has occurred between when they investigated [this alleged crime] and today is that the law changed,” [Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe] Lowell said. “But the law didn’t change in favor of the prosecution. The law changed against it.”
Lowell was, of course, referring to Bruen and the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Rahimi. I’m sure he’s also noted that a federal District Judge in Oklahoma has ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana users is unconstitutional. So we’re about to be treated to Hunter Biden’s attorney arguing against his father’s weaponized Department of Justice that’s prosecuting someone — a known drug user — who hasn’t been convicted of a crime.
Lowell will claim the law is unconstitutional because, as the Fifth Circuit says, someone who hasn’t been convicted of anything — drug use, domestic abuse, influence peddling, whatever — can’t be disarmed, and the law that the younger Biden broke — the one his father wrote — is unconstitutional.
That’s actually an argument with which many of us are sympathetic. Non-criminals shouldn’t have their civil rights taken away. Court orders can be abused. Just like a red flag confiscation law, a domestic violence restraining orders can be used as weapons in contentious break-ups against exes.
There are reasonable arguments on both sides as to whether someone under a domestic violence order should possess firearms. Just as there are similarly reasonable arguments about drug users, particularly users of marijuana in states where it’s been legalized. And then there’s the matter of the Second Amendment rights of those who have, at any time in their lives, been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
Anyone who read the Bruen decision closely and understood the ruling’s implications no doubt anticipated much of this. It was a (slow-moving) dagger aimed directly at the heart of a huge range of the the gun control laws in this country, including “assault weapons” bans, magazine capacity limits, waiting periods, and many more. As we knew, it would take time for all of those knock-on effects of the ruling to play themselves out.
We’re about to see it play out in the Rahimi case. The Supreme Court, on the last day of its session, granted cert in the DOJ’s appeal of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. That case will be argued in November. So we’re going to see how the Justices square the circle of the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition with the, uh, balanced interests of society in denying gun rights to at least some people who haven’t committed crimes.
You have yourself a good weekend.
All gun control laws are unconstitutional. And since constitutional rights are reviled by the fascist left they of course try every day to shred the BOR.
But because people like miner49er will defend to the death the rights of wealthy, white men to be above the law we are stuck with a quandary. What hunter did should not be a crime. At least in regards to the gun charges. Do we, as honest, freedom loving folk defend hunter against these unlawful charges?
Would miner defend one of us as strongly as he has defended hunter? I think not.
“miner49er will defend to the death the rights of wealthy, white men to be above the law“
Like Donald Trump or Ken Paxton?
Hilarious.
bidens, bloomberg, gates, zuckerberg. It’s ok for you to do but not for others?
Yes, Hilarious.
Ken Paxton is indeed a wealthy white man, who needed 4 cell phones to do his ‘bidness’ as he ditched his security detail for secret meetings.
And the party of family values who claim America is a Christian nation once again endorse an admitted adulterer whose major donor provided his concubine with a job and housing in return for special access to the Attorney General.
If America was truly under biblical law, we would have stoned Ken Paxton to death a few years back, not to mention stoning Donald Trump three times.
I am guessing you didn’t hear the testimony of Ranger David Maxwell, 24 years as a Texas Ranger and awarded membership in the Rangers Hall of Fame, yet his word and judgment means nothing to the party of ‘law and order’.
“Maxwell who was the law enforcement director for the AG’s office, was fired by Paxton after he reported his boss to federal authorities. Paxton also has been accused of taking bribes from Paul.
Maxwell said he met with Paul three times to look into his allegations of a federal conspiracy. Maxwell testified that Paxton was angry with him for not buying into Paul’s version of events. Earlier this year, A federal grand jury indicted the real estate investor on eight counts of making false statements to lenders“
https://www.houstonpress.com/news/former-texas-ranger-says-he-warned-paxton-to-stay-away-from-nate-paul-16441283
And again, miner. You are just trying desperately to justify your defending of wealthy white men.
If you want to stone somebody how about bill clinton? If a 50 something ceo that was a conservative had a sexual relationship with a 20 something intern you would be calling for his head. How come you’re silent when your side does it. Almost like you don’t care about women except to use them as an argument.
MADDMAXX September 17, 2023 At 17:41
Your comment is awaiting moderation
Ken Paxton is indeed a wealthy white man,
When all else fails, deflect, change the subject, point out someone else’s failures without at least acknowledging the basic truths of the ACTUAL subject matter typical… Funny I read that thing three times and nowhere in that entire article did See Paxton OR Trump mentioned even once…
Wow, been awhile, be interesting to know WTF the trigger is in this one…
“You are just trying desperately to justify your defending of wealthy white men“
No, I’m pointing out that Ken Paxton is a wealthy white man in a taxpayer supported political office who used that office to enrich himself and provide a job and housing for his adultery partner, and when called out for his corruption, fired a Texas Ranger Hall of Fame member of impeccable character and service.
If a 50 something ceo that was a conservative had a sexual relationship with a 20 something intern you would be calling for his head“
No, as long as she is the age of consent there’s no problem, it’s their personal life and no official corruption is involved.
Compared to Kent Paxton, who used his official position to support his corrupt donor so Ken could continue to carry on his adulterous affair with Ms. Olson.
No official corruption, miner? Really? The most powerful man in the world is having sex with a young intern in his office and that doesn’t qualify as corruption?
Just like hunter biden isn’t an elected official so he has no influence in the oval office, right?
Jeebus, miner. You truly are delusional, aren’t you?
Miner doesn’t believe in innocent until proven guilty…. for non-Democrats. He’s not delusional; he’s evil.
I saw indicted; didn’t see convicted.
Wow, been awhile, be interesting to know WTF the trigger is in this one…
moderation trigger phrase: s0me0ne else
“The most powerful man in the world is having sex with a young intern in his office and that doesn’t qualify as corruption?“
No, no one received any special treatment because of the relationship, no one was fired because of the relationship, the nations interest weren’t harmed because of the personal relationship.
Paxton crossed the line when he stuck his peter in the payroll by accepting donations from the businessman, then using the power of his office to harass the federal Authorities Investigating the businessman for investment fraud.
Sure, husband Clinton was wrong for taking a blow job from a young lady, but that’s between him and his wife.
How do you know, miner? I find it hilarious that you do back flips to stand up for this leering old pervert taking advantage of a young, powerless female and yet you claim to be for women’s rights.
You’re a disgusting troll.
Hilarious that you bring Ken Paxton into this thread, since the RINO’s in Texas admitted under oath, they had ZERO evidence against Paxton and they went to the FBI with “NO EVIDENCE”!!!
It is stunning how you bring “ZERO EVIDENCE CASES” to use for your MARXIST defense!!
Your making your MARXIST handlers GLEEFUL with your willful ignorance!!!!
LOL! Not guilty Paxton was attacked for going against the Bushies! Prescot Bush to be exact.
No. The Paxton impeachment was a political hit by the Phelan machine (a RINO faction that controls the Texas House by allying with the Dems). This is part on an ongoing war between the Phelan machine and conservative GOP politicians (LG Patrick and nominally Paxton).
While there are remnants of the old Bush machine around, they no longer have any juice, and the Bush brand is now radioactive in Texas.
The latest Bush never had a prayer in the AG’s race — while 60% of GOP voters wanted someone other than Paxton, 70% of them voted for Paxton over another Bush. (Had Rep. Gomert not gotten into the race at the last minute (which splintered the “not Paxton and not Bush” vote), former Texas Supreme Court justice Eva Guzman probably would have beaten Bush for a spot in the runoff, and likely would have trounced Paxton.)
“The Paxton impeachment was a political hit“
So you don’t believe that Paxton should suffer any consequences for the fact that his donor was giving his adultery partner a job and housing in return for special access to the attorney general, as testified by multiple credible witnesses?
Do you believe other government officials in taxpayer supported jobs should also have the ability to grant special privileges to their donors who support their illicit activities?
Again, you can charge them with anything. Convicting them with jury pools not composed of Democrat donors is harder.
Miner:
While I agree with many of his political positions, I’m not particularly a fan of Ken Paxton; he’s had a sketchy reputation in legal circles for years. And Paxton was stupid enough to hand his political enemies several loaded guns and an excuse to use them.
But there is little question that the way Dade Phelan orchestrated the unprecedented, hearing-free, last minute impeachment was a political hit job; NOBODY over at the Capitol will tell you otherwise.
LKB, thank you for your reasonable reply, not a single same-sex insult, how refreshing.
But my question still remains:
“So you don’t believe that Paxton should suffer any consequences for the fact that his donor was giving his adultery partner a job and housing in return for special access to the attorney general, as testified by multiple credible witnesses?“
LKB, that’s a little beyond “sketchy”…
Another question, do you really think Paxton should continue to be the chief law-enforcement officer for the state of Texas?
“So you don’t believe that Paxton should suffer any consequences for the fact … ?“
Not a fact. According to someone who posted on this thread:
“No, no one received any special treatment because of the relationship, no one was fired because of the relationship, the nations interest weren’t harmed because of the personal relationship.”
Paxton was found not guilty in an impeachment trial — therefore, no crime was committed.
No, Nate Paul did receive a benefit from his special relationship with the Attorney General. At Nate Paul’s direction and with the assistant of Nate Paul’s personal attorney, Attorney General Paxton appointed a special counsel to ‘investigate’ the investigation of Nate Paul’s investment fraud.
And this was after the attorney generals Director of law-enforcement had found Nate Paul’s allegations of wrongdoing not credible.
So your position is that Ranger David Maxwell, 24 years as a Texas Ranger and awarded membership in the Rangers Hall of Fame is a liar?
“Maxwell who was the law enforcement director for the AG’s office, was fired by Paxton after he reported his boss to federal authorities. Paxton also has been accused of taking bribes from Paul.
Maxwell said he met with Paul three times to look into his allegations of a federal conspiracy. Maxwell testified that Paxton was angry with him for not buying into Paul’s version of events. Earlier this year, A federal grand jury indicted the real estate investor on eight counts of making false statements to lenders“
https://www.houstonpress.com/news/former-texas-ranger-says-he-warned-paxton-to-stay-away-from-nate-paul-16441283
The impeachment process in the Senate is fundamentally flawed, the jury members are elected by popular vote and thus subjected to the whims of the electorate. That’s why there’s no provision in the constitution for an elective jury to decide criminal trials, they are inherently biased.
No, the process in the Texas legislature was a tribal trial.
“So your position is …”
…that Paxton was found “not guilty.” Period.
“The impeachment process in the Senate is fundamentally flawed …”
Irrelevant. It’s the process that’s in place. You’re just upset that the impeachment didn’t end in a guilty verdict. Just as President Trump was impeached twice and found not guilty both times.
Choke on your own bile.
Miner:
My initial comment was to refute the popular canard that the impeachment was at the behest of the Bushes. It wasn’t, it was a Phelan machine operation (as anyone who knows anything about Texas politics knows, the two are not the same).
As far as what I think of Paxton, let’s just say I voted for Eva Guzman for a reason. But Paxton won the primary and the election, and so I have to deal with the voters exercising their choice differently that I did. Similarly, regardless of how you or I or anyone else view the evidence, the Texas Senate voted not to remove. Deal with that reality.
Will Paxton ultimately have to face the music in criminal court for some of his activities? We’ll see, but I’ll leave that process to the courts.
“You’re just upset that the impeachment didn’t end in a guilty verdict“
If you had a better grasp of the American system of government under the Constitution, you would know Impeachments don’t decide guilt or innocence, just whether or not they should be removed from office.
His guilt will be decided in the forthcoming federal criminal trial.
“If you had a better grasp of the American system of government under the Constitution …”
… then you’d understand the concept of “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” or “trial by a jury of one’s peers.” From your comments, it’s apparent that you lack a grasp of both concepts.
“Impeachments don’t decide guilt or innocence …”
The ASSOCIATED PRESS disagrees:
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was acquitted Saturday of all charges at a historic impeachment trial that divided Republicans over whether to remove a powerful defender of former President Donald Trump after years of scandal and criminal charges.
How could a body vote to remove one of its members if they didn’t find him guilty of a crime?
“His guilt will be decided …”
The correct term, which you accidentally used in the same post, is “his guilt or innocence will be decided.”
But you’ve already judged him guilty. I suggest that you sign up for Hillsdale College’s free course “Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution.”
“The correct term, which you accidentally used in the same post, is “his guilt or innocence will be decided.”
And still, you get it wrong.
There is no court in the land that has ever decided that a defendant was “innocent” as you claim.
“In short, “not guilty” is not the same as “innocent.” Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”.“
“The ASSOCIATED PRESS disagrees:”
Shouting doesn’t make your claim anymore valid, the AP holds no sway in any jurisprudence process so your appeal to the AP is meaningless.
And you are correct, I watched the testimony, looked at the documents posted online that had been entered as evidence and formed the judgment that Paxton is indeed guilty of bribery in office, specifically in his dealings with millionaire elitist Nate Paul.
There were several live streaming options that anyone with Internet could’ve watched, and I found the testimony of Texas Ranger Hall of Fame member David Maxwell especially compelling, after 24 years as a Texas Ranger he had the training and experience to clearly articulate the situation he found himself in. There is a reason a man with his impeccable credentials would go to the FBI in order to report criminal activities in the Texas state attorney generals office.
Truly, do you have any idea of the caliber of the staff of the Attorney General’s office who knew what was going on, knew it was a crime and intentionally reported it to the FBI?
These weren’t rabid Democrats, these were rocksolid conservatives who just so happen to be some of the rare Republicans who actually have a sense of ethical decency.
One of the staff members was Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel Ryan Vassar, here’s a few details about his reputation and credibility:
Ryan Vassar worked for Paxton for five years, rising to be the agency’s chief legal officer before he was fired in November 2020.
When Paxton personally promoted him to deputy attorney general for legal counsel at age 35, Vassar was the youngest person Paxton had appointed to the position, which involved supervising 60 lawyers and 30 professional staff across five divisions.
Prior to the attorney general’s office, Vassar had worked for other top Texas Republicans, including former Gov. Rick Perry as a fellow in the office of general counsel and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett as a law clerk.
In the whistleblower lawsuit, Vassar alleged that Paxton pressured him to make decisions on public records requests that would have helped Paul gain information about an FBI investigation of his businesses. Vassar argued that under decades of precedent, information about ongoing law enforcement investigations should remain confidential. He also told Paxton that ordering the information to be made public could compromise the attorney general’s ability to withhold information about its own pending investigations.”
That’s why corrupt Attorney General Paxton fired him, because he wouldn’t play ball in the Nate Paul bribery scheme.
But you don’t care, because members of the Trump cult don’t care about ‘law and order’ when it’s a member of their own party.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/16/ken-paxton-impeachment-whistleblowers/#:~:text=2%2C%20Penley%20and%20Maxwell%20were,later%20that%20day%20were%20fired.
“How could a body vote to remove one of its members if they didn’t find him guilty of a crime?“
I think it’s clear you received your degree in constitutional law from Trump University, the Texas Supreme Court says you are wrong:
“The Texas Supreme Court defined impeachment broadly in a 1924 case, Ferguson v. Maddox. The court stated, “‘Impeachment,’ at the time of the adoption of the (Texas) Constitution, was an established and well-understood procedure in English and American parliamentary law… It was designed, primarily, to reach those in high places guilty of official delinquencies or maladministration… the wrongs justifying impeachment need not be statutory offenses or common-law offenses…”
https://texapedia.info/txlege/impeachment/
And that Hillsdale bullshit is just a scam to take advantage of the delusional Christian nationalists, it’s almost as bad as Trump University.
“The ASSOCIATED PRESS disagrees:”
“Shouting doesn’t make your claim anymore valid, the AP holds no sway in any jurisprudence process so your appeal to the AP is meaningless.”
Excuse me for cutting-and-pasting the first lines of the article where Ap was capitalized. You didn’t dispute that my point regarding an impeachment being a trial was correct.
“And you are correct, I watched the testimony …”
You’re a lawyer? That’s news to me.
“Texas Ranger Hall of Fame member David Maxwell especially compelling, after 24 years as a Texas Ranger …”
Appeal to authority. Say, was he a Texas Ranger?
“But you don’t care, because members of the Trump cult don’t care about ‘law and order’ when it’s a member of their own party.”
Wrong on both counts — I’m not a “member of the Trump cult,” which is a supposed insult that you trot out to label those who speak against you, and I’m not a Republican, another baseless accusation that you often spit out as an epithet.
You, however, are Liar69er — you demonstrate that you don’t care about “law and order” unless your side “wins.” You’re on record as saying that any number of those with whom you disagree politically, are guilty of crimes before a trial is held. You’re the one who doesn’t believe in the basic tenets of our legal system when you pronounce sentence on someone who is “innocent (yes, I used that word again) until proven guilty in a court of law,” and you are all on board with denying them due process and the presumption of innocence.
“And you are correct, I watched the testimony …”
You’re a lawyer? That’s news to me.”
Now you are just spouting gibberish, nowhere in my statement have I claimed to be an attorney.
The testimony was live streamed on many platforms, I’m sorry you chose to remain uninformed.
“Appeal to authority. Say, was he a Texas Ranger?“
Clearly you do not understand the appeal to authority fallacy, I correctly pointed out his training and years of experience gave him the ability to clearly articulate the situation.
And you are being disingenuous to suggest that it is wrong to form a conclusion about the possibility of criminal behavior on the part of any particular individual, we make judgments every day based on what we see and hear, to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Tell me, you believe Hunter Biden is innocent, right? He hasn’t been found guilty in a court of law, so he is innocent.
And I have never advocated that any person should be incarcerated without a fair trial, unlike most on this list who are willing to put their political enemies immediately in prison or worse. It wasn’t Democrats and liberals who erected the gallows at the United States Capitol on January 6.
Oh yeah, you just blew by the part where I proved you were completely full of shit regarding the need for a criminal conviction to justify impeachment.
Did you feel a little sting as your pride left you? It’s not every day you get proven wrong by the Texas Supreme Court, enjoy it.
MajorLiar,
Your “comments” on this issue are evidence that sentience is not required to operate a keyboard. NO, you effing, mouthbreathing moron, that is NOT what either “guilty” or “not guilty” verdicts mean.
If you had the brains to pour piss out of a boot, you would understand a BASIC concept called “standard of proof” (since you are objectively retarded, let me ‘splain it for you – it differs, depending on the charge, and forum, but the GENERAL standard is that (i) for most civil (or even most administrative) claims, the standard of proof is a ‘preponderance of the evidence’, and (ii) for ALL criminal charges (and some others, in very special circumstances), the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”).
ALL that a “guilty” or “not guilty” (or “liable” or “not liable)) verdict means is that . . . the party instigating the legal action has not me the applicable ‘burden of proof’ for the charge, in that forum. Glad to offer you a glimpse at an actual education (that knowledge would have cost you four months, and multiple thousands of dollars, at a law school . . . if you managed to find, and get admitted to, one that still actually TAUGHT LAW).
Seriously, does someone breathe for you?????? You aren’t just too stupid to insult, you are too stupid to acuate lungs. Autonomic anatomical activity will only carry someone so far. Your “comments” have gone so far beyond that point that I cannot classify you on the scale of “sentience” – you appear to be non-sentient, yet you can still manage to post babbling idiocy. It is a conundrum.
“Set aside the fact that lying — for whatever reason — on a federal form is a crime.”
Fine, convict him for the crime of lying on a federal form and lock his ass up.
When released, his gun rights should be restored, *unless* he was convicted for a crime of physical violence, or the threat of violence.
As I’ve said for many years in TTAG, if we ever won huge on gun rights (and on ‘Bruen’, we did!), they will do everything they can to make the most trivial things crimes that will deny you the right to be armed.
“Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime) an actual fascist once said.
Tax evasion (or similar non-violent crimes) should not be a crime that denies you the right to be armed…
Totally OT, but hilarious as hell :
“Chicago Mayor Johnson Moves Toward City-Run Grocery Stores”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/chicago-mayor-johnson-moves-toward-city-run-grocery-stores
I so much want them to do this, the laughs will never end. They won’t prosecute the shoplifters that will clean out the shelves, because that would be racist.
Will they charge you higher prices if you’re “Shopping while white”? 🙂
When last I lived in WV the state owned and ran the liqour stores.
Pennsylvania is the same way…
Had a few restaurants, grocery stores, and other shops that did various tiered pricing with straight whites being the highest rates charged. Every time for whatever excuse given the business closed within a year to 18 months when they ran out of donations and/or grant money. I just use them in conversation to figure out which prospective employees can recognize the scam and can articulate it as such without being offensive.
“Inclusive and unifying” NOT. It’s amazing, isn’t it?
The online posts after closing are mid level comedy gold. Favorite was a collapsed ceiling tile got dust into the food prep area and we could not afford to restore it to produce food fit for human consumption.
Gavin Newsom Throws Tantrum After Judges Block His Bill That Uses 2A to Violate 1st Amendment.
Not a fan of red flag laws.
Different countries but unfortunately husbands being accused of domestic abuse is a very common tactic in divorce cases in Australia. The really scum bag lawyers also accuse you of being a sex tourist pedophile even if you have never been overseas. That gets the federal police involved and often your bank accounts frozen.
Just the accusation of violence means you can’t see your children and have to pay gun shop to store your firearms until after court case. At $30 to $60 a month per gun that adds up quickly. You can also store with friends if they have enough spare space in their safe but that can be a lot of hassle.
It’s quite common in the USA RCC. Or an ex who lies about you while she’s committing adultery. And you don’t know that until a few years after it happens. All I can say about gunz is have a secret stash of gunz & ammo🙄
BREAKING: RFK Jr. assassination attempt?
but…. even though the guy in video above had his doubts, he probably does not have complete story yet.. Robert Kennedy Jr ‘assassination scare’ as ‘heavily-armed man’ breaches security > https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/entertainment-celebrity/robert-kennedy-jr-assassination-scare-as-heavily-armed-man-breaches-security/ar-AA1gOGBN
there are some kinda odd things about it though, enough to raise some initial doubts like the guy in the video says. so may have been a sort of false flag type thing. need more info.
Lose 2A Rights Over A Misdemeanor?!
Three possible outcomes:
One: Bribem Jr is convicted and as a result ATF goes on the warpath going after EVERY person who ever forgot to dot an I or misspelled a word on a 4473…
Two: Bribem Jr stands trial and is acquitted which will open a line of defense based on that precedence, or brings about a complete overhaul of the 4473…
Three: Judge finds some simple reason to toss the case, Bribem goes on his merry way and the rest of us are back to square one…
Of course, there is a fourth possibility, Bribem Jr cops a plea to a lesser charge and Bribem Sr exonerates or pardons him making it a totally moot point…
No matter what they do they need to get it done while Bribem Sr is still in the Whitehouse so daddy can clear his good name… In the end none of this matters unless Bribem Jr beats this in court, he will never see a minute in jail… Wonder who is paying for his lawyers?
This is a good analysis of what is *really* going on with the HB indictment:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2023/09/15/ex-clerk-for-neil-gorsuch-dont-be-fooled-by-these-hunter-biden-indictments-n2628462
To exercise your constitutional right you may need to lie when filling out your giverment permission document.
If you are caught lieing while requesting permission from the giverment to exercise a constitutional right you will be incarcerated.
Freedom
Just my opinion here. Unless someone is convicted of a violent crime the person should have their rights automatically restored upon completion of whatever sentence and possible fines/reimbursements/restitutions the court has ordered. For violent crime there may be an extended period of prohibition of firearms possession or ownership. If, the person convicted manages to not reoffend for a period of 2 to 5 years after release/completion of sentence, they should also have their rights fully restored.
On the case of Hunter Biden, since lying on the form4473 is a felony charge, and he has admitted to being a habitual drug user at the time, he should face the charges. A bit ironic if he does get convicted and sees a few years in prison on a law his father helped get passed.
Yeah that would be ironic.
What is sad though is having to lie on a giverment permission document to exercise a constitutional right.
“Domestic violence was not deemed a criminal offense for most of American history.” REALLY?? Assault, Battery, Murder where/are not criminal offenses?
“Domestic violence” is as moronic as the other prog totems such as “Hate crime”
LKB:
“refute the popular canard that the impeachment was at the behest of the Bushes. It wasn’t, it was a Phelan machine operation“
Both of those premises are incorrect, the genesis of the impeachment occurred when Attorney General Paxton approached the legislature for $3.3 million of taxpayer funds to pay off his settlement with the whistleblowers.
No one in the legislature had considered impeachment, it had never been discussed, until Paxton himself went to the legislature begging for money to cover his ass because of his wrongdoing.
Lamprey, take your rambling argument to the actual attorneys that I was quoting:
“In short, “not guilty” is not the same as “innocent.” Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”.“
https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20%22not%20guilty%22,but%20rather%20%E2%80%9Cnot%20guilty%E2%80%9D.