|
Post by johngalt on Jun 12, 2024 10:58:09 GMT -5
Reading through all of these comments the plan is working as designed. The deception is working. 🤫
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 12, 2024 11:09:18 GMT -5
The only appeal I can see would be one using Bruen and historical method. Now if there was an old law/rule in place barring a habitual drunkard from having a weapon that would not work. So it would be on constitutional grounds. Otherwise as it is written on 4473 form, and by definitions in us code He did not follow it, it is a simple yes/no, on/off, question.
As much as biden has a hard on for infringing gun rights and trying to push background checks on everything, changing rules on frame and receiver, engaged in business, and braces to make previous law abiding citizens felons overnight, then the atf knock and talk tactics for multiple sales, all of which legal by the way. It would be a turn around for one of the writers/proponents of original assault weapons ban to support a constitutional appeal.
Easier for him to lie about it and pardon his fuckup son.
The main issue on appeal in terms of procedure will be the rejected plea deal. Most of the time, prosecutors are free to withdraw deals and judges are free to reject deals at will. On rare occasion, a plea deal can be binding at a certain point and deviating from it would be considered malicious prosecution. In this instance, I think the Feds are fine and the old plea deal would not be enforceable, if what I have read in media about it is accurate.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 12, 2024 11:15:20 GMT -5
The only appeal I can see would be one using Bruen and historical method. Now if there was an old law/rule in place barring a habitual drunkard from having a weapon that would not work. So it would be on constitutional grounds. Otherwise as it is written on 4473 form, and by definitions in us code He did not follow it, it is a simple yes/no, on/off, question.
As much as biden has a hard on for infringing gun rights and trying to push background checks on everything, changing rules on frame and receiver, engaged in business, and braces to make previous law abiding citizens felons overnight, then the atf knock and talk tactics for multiple sales, all of which legal by the way. It would be a turn around for one of the writers/proponents of original assault weapons ban to support a constitutional appeal.
Easier for him to lie about it and pardon his fuckup son.
There is already a case based on the second amendment involving drug users. The fifth circuit said the form is unconstitutional and it is headed to SCOTUS if they decide to hear it. If not the 5th circuit ruling stands. If SCOTUS takes the case and rules the form unconstitutional, I think it would nullify Hunter's conviction without any appeal, but Bullfrog may correct me on that. I would think that if the provision is unconstitutional, it would nullify his conviction. I don’t think its likely to be held to be unconstitutional. Even pro-2nd Amendment Justices are loath to interfere with rules that limit ownership of firearms for certain categories, such as felons. They will likely hold that a drug addict is more akin to a felon. It shouldn’t be self-incrimination to fill out the form honestly. Its not illegal to have drugs in your system. Its illegal to possess drugs. The law punishes the possession before it goes into a person’s body. To admit to being a drug addict is not admitting to possessing drugs on any particular occasion. I would think that the only way self-incrimination is implicated is if a person is caught with drugs and the form is used as evidence of knowledge of the presence of the drugs. The solution to that is to just exclude the form as evidence in a drug possession case.
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jun 12, 2024 11:21:10 GMT -5
In hunters case, was he every actually found guilty of being a drug user? Doesnt this also violate "innocent until proven guilty"? Maybe I didnt follow the trial but did it determine him to be actually guilty of being a drug user?
|
|
|
Post by mapper on Jun 12, 2024 11:30:46 GMT -5
Now with the rescheduling of Marijuana from class 3 to class 1, how does that affect 4473 form in that respect? Use a medical Marijuana as the guideline.
This is one thing that I disagree on with Nikki freid being the one to administer medical Marijuana cards along with ccw permits,
While medical Marijuana would be a benefit, it won't come at the expense of 2nd amendment.
So would Marijuana need to be declassified completely? It's a honest question I'd like to know.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 12, 2024 11:40:38 GMT -5
There is already a case based on the second amendment involving drug users. The fifth circuit said the form is unconstitutional and it is headed to SCOTUS if they decide to hear it. If not the 5th circuit ruling stands. If SCOTUS takes the case and rules the form unconstitutional, I think it would nullify Hunter's conviction without any appeal, but Bullfrog may correct me on that. I would think that if the provision is unconstitutional, it would nullify his conviction. I don’t think its likely to be held to be unconstitutional. Even pro-2nd Amendment Justices are loath to interfere with rules that limit ownership of firearms for certain categories, such as felons. They will likely hold that a drug addict is more akin to a felon. It shouldn’t be self-incrimination to fill out the form honestly. Its not illegal to have drugs in your system. Its illegal to possess drugs. The law punishes the possession before it goes into a person’s body. To admit to being a drug addict is not admitting to possessing drugs on any particular occasion. I would think that the only way self-incrimination is implicated is if a person is caught with drugs and the form is used as evidence of knowledge of the presence of the drugs. The solution to that is to just exclude the form as evidence in a drug possession case. The fifth circuit said: In the 2023 decision United States v. Daniels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that Section 922(g)(3) unconstitutionally deprived a defendant of his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
It made that ruling based on this Supreme Court decision earlier the same year: The Court also announced a test that courts are to use to assess whether challenged laws violate the Second Amendment. Under that test, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects it. Accordingly, to justify a regulation of that conduct, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court explained that, under this historically focused test, the government need only put forward “a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.”
SCOTUS would have to change their opinion one way or the other. There are two other cases before SCOTUS based on that same 2022 ruling. One is regarding non violent felons owning guns and the other is domestic violence restraining orders. The court will make some major decisions one way or another. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11104#:~:text=In%20the%202023%20decision%20United,arms%20under%20the%20Second%20Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by mapper on Jun 12, 2024 11:42:02 GMT -5
Now with the rescheduling of Marijuana from class 3 to class 1, how does that affect 4473 form in that respect? Use a medical Marijuana as the guideline. Not a unlawful user. This is one thing that I disagree on with Nikki freid being the one to administer medical Marijuana cards along with ccw permits, While medical Marijuana would be a benefit, it won't come at the expense of 2nd amendment. So would Marijuana need to be declassified completely? It's a honest question I'd like to know. Thanks for the court case info cad, I was unaware of that one. I was sort of following the misdemeanor violence one, but I think there could have been a better case to base it on than that one.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 12, 2024 11:46:11 GMT -5
In hunters case, was he every actually found guilty of being a drug user? Doesnt this also violate "innocent until proven guilty"? Maybe I didnt follow the trial but did it determine him to be actually guilty of being a drug user? I would expect that one of the elements of the charges is that the Defendant was a drug addict at the time. That, or the element would be that he knowingly lied about not being one. Which would be the same finding by implication. You can’t believe he lied on the form without believing he’s a drug addict.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 12, 2024 11:48:53 GMT -5
I would think that if the provision is unconstitutional, it would nullify his conviction. I don’t think its likely to be held to be unconstitutional. Even pro-2nd Amendment Justices are loath to interfere with rules that limit ownership of firearms for certain categories, such as felons. They will likely hold that a drug addict is more akin to a felon. It shouldn’t be self-incrimination to fill out the form honestly. Its not illegal to have drugs in your system. Its illegal to possess drugs. The law punishes the possession before it goes into a person’s body. To admit to being a drug addict is not admitting to possessing drugs on any particular occasion. I would think that the only way self-incrimination is implicated is if a person is caught with drugs and the form is used as evidence of knowledge of the presence of the drugs. The solution to that is to just exclude the form as evidence in a drug possession case. The fifth circuit said: In the 2023 decision United States v. Daniels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that Section 922(g)(3) unconstitutionally deprived a defendant of his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
It made that ruling based on this Supreme Court decision earlier the same year: The Court also announced a test that courts are to use to assess whether challenged laws violate the Second Amendment. Under that test, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects it. Accordingly, to justify a regulation of that conduct, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court explained that, under this historically focused test, the government need only put forward “a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.”
SCOTUS would have to change their opinion one way or the other. There are two other cases before SCOTUS based on that same 2022 ruling. One is regarding non violent felons owning guns and the other is domestic violence restraining orders. The court will make some major decisions one way or another. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11104#:~:text=In%20the%202023%20decision%20United,arms%20under%20the%20Second%20Amendment. I think they’ll find just that, that prohibiting drug addicts from having firearms has historical precedence. They’ve already said in a lot of dicta that their incorporation of the Second Amendment won’t disturb prohibitions on felons having firearms and similar categorical provisions.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 12, 2024 11:50:15 GMT -5
In hunters case, was he every actually found guilty of being a drug user? Doesnt this also violate "innocent until proven guilty"? Maybe I didnt follow the trial but did it determine him to be actually guilty of being a drug user? I would expect that one of the elements of the charges is that the Defendant was a drug addict at the time. That, or the element would be that he knowingly lied about not being one. Which would be the same finding by implication. You can’t believe he lied on the form without believing he’s a drug addict. The one thing I found interesting was his defense argument I heard. Their argument was Hunter did not know he was an addict or user at the time he filled you the form. Therefore he was innocent even if he was an addict and user. Not sure why they thought that would work.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 12, 2024 11:56:10 GMT -5
The fifth circuit said: In the 2023 decision United States v. Daniels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that Section 922(g)(3) unconstitutionally deprived a defendant of his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
It made that ruling based on this Supreme Court decision earlier the same year: The Court also announced a test that courts are to use to assess whether challenged laws violate the Second Amendment. Under that test, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects it. Accordingly, to justify a regulation of that conduct, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court explained that, under this historically focused test, the government need only put forward “a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.”
SCOTUS would have to change their opinion one way or the other. There are two other cases before SCOTUS based on that same 2022 ruling. One is regarding non violent felons owning guns and the other is domestic violence restraining orders. The court will make some major decisions one way or another. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11104#:~:text=In%20the%202023%20decision%20United,arms%20under%20the%20Second%20Amendment. I think they’ll find just that, that prohibiting drug addicts from having firearms has historical precedence. They’ve already said in a lot of dicta that their incorporation of the Second Amendment won’t disturb prohibitions on felons having firearms and similar categorical provisions. You don't think SCOTUS might make a distinction between violent and non violent felons? Even Trump might try to use that argument since he is now a Felon in who owns and possesses a gun. He could argue he is a non violent felon and his 2nd amendment rights are being violated by not allowing him to own a weapon. Either that or he gives up his weapons while he awaits his appeals.
|
|
|
Post by mapper on Jun 12, 2024 11:59:16 GMT -5
From us code on page 1 Could be groundwork to challenge this. Normally one does not think in terms of 1 to 5 years as definition of "current"
As far as non violent felons I don't see that. Misdemeanor I think has a higher chance. Based on crime classifications misdemeanor is 364 days or less sentence, felon a year or more. Same thought process relates to fed classification of drugs and scheduling.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 12, 2024 12:09:45 GMT -5
I would expect that one of the elements of the charges is that the Defendant was a drug addict at the time. That, or the element would be that he knowingly lied about not being one. Which would be the same finding by implication. You can’t believe he lied on the form without believing he’s a drug addict. The one thing I found interesting was his defense argument I heard. Their argument was Hunter did not know he was an addict or user at the time he filled you the form. Therefore he was innocent even if he was an addict and user. Not sure why they thought that would work. If they thought the jury was on their side, all they have to do is provide a legal reasoning, no matter how lame, to have someone hold to a NG verdict. There’s multiple presentation prongs to proving or defending a criminal case. I was taught it was like Shaka’s horns of the buffalo battle tactic. You have the raw evidence charging towards the enemy’s front line, but you have a moral compass on the sides that’s either working for you or against you. My mentor was a history buff and that was how he burned it into my mind. But a simpler way to put it is that if a jury feels the a conviction isn’t justified morally, they look for a reason to walk the Defendant. All the defense has to do on their end is give them an excuse. Thus the reason otherwise eye-rolling defenses are presented. When the government has a case that’s overwhelming evidence-wise, but the Defendant may be sympathetic, the prosecutor has to harp on following the law you as a juror swore to uphold as given by the judge. Often that works. But a stubborn jury may vote for jury nullification instead. “Follow the law even if you don’t like it” may have worked here. See this interview with a couple of Biden jurors: www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/06/11/hunter-biden-prosecution-jury-waste-of-taxpayer-dollars/74064113007/
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 12, 2024 12:13:25 GMT -5
And thus the reason Trump’s team may have wanted attorneys on the jury, but it may have backfired. Its highly likely that Trump’s jury instructions were wrong and will cause the conviction to be overturned. Trump’s team may have hoped the attorneys would offer their commentary on the bad instructions or any other legally questionable thing in the trial. But instead, the attorneys may have said “yeah these instructions are questionable. But we’re bound to follow them anyhow. If they’re wrong, the appellate courts will have to fix it.”
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Jun 12, 2024 12:28:38 GMT -5
Reading through all of these comments the plan is working as designed. The deception is working. 🤫 Some folks never catch on....
|
|