Hunter Biden Pleads the Second 

tab62 /
tab62 /

While it seems that Democrats refuse to support the constitutional right to gun ownership, Hunter Biden now claims he is protected under the Second Amendment. 

Hunter Biden has contested the gun charges filed against him, challenging the case on various grounds, asserting that it is unconstitutional and politically motivated. His defense attorney argued that the gun case should be dismissed, citing an appeals court’s determination that the law violated the Second Amendment based on new standards set by the Supreme Court.  

Hunter Biden’s defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, also contended that the charges violated the immunity provisions established in a plea deal prosecutors dropped amid criticism from Republicans, who labeled it a “sweetheart deal.” 

Federal prosecutors argue that the plea deal never took effect because it lacked approval from the Probation Office. However, Lowell disputes this, asserting that “no provision” exists for such a requirement. Lowell contends that Hunter should be granted “sweeping immunity” from the gun case and the “recently filed tax charges in California.” 

Lowell also argued that political considerations had tainted the investigation into Hunter since former President Trump appointed Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss to lead the probe. Lowell argued that the case should be dismissed due to Weiss’s elevation to special counsel under Attorney General Merrick Garland. According to Lowell’s filings to the overseeing judge, Garland should have appointed an external candidate as special counsel, as Department of Justice rules mandated such an appointment from outside the government.  

Lowell has accused U.S. Attorney David Weiss of yielding to Republican pressure after the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed nine tax-related charges against Hunter Biden last week. 

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Delaware, led by David Weiss, has been investigating Hunter Biden since 2018 for potential violations of tax and gun laws. Appointed by Donald Trump, Weiss disclosed a plea deal earlier this year, under which Hunter would plead guilty to two federal misdemeanor tax violations and enter a pre-trial diversion program related to a separate felony gun charge. 

Under the plea deal, prosecutors were anticipated to suggest a two-year probationary period for Hunter’s tax violations. The pre-trial diversion program would have led to the dismissal of the gun charge, contingent on Hunter Biden fulfilling specific terms outlined by prosecutors. Without the diversion program, the felony gun charge carries a potential punishment of up to 10 years in prison. 

US District Judge Maryellen Noreika, appointed by Trump, voiced reservations about her role in overseeing the terms of the plea agreement between prosecutors and Hunter Biden’s lawyers. Under the deal, Hunter would have avoided jail time for the current charges and other charges moving forward. 

In October, after the plea deal fell apart, Hunter entered a plea of not guilty to the three charges concerning his illegal firearm possession.  

Hunter’s defense team is challenging the charges based on a SCOTUS ruling in 2022 that set new standards for evaluating gun laws. At the time, President Joe Biden called the decision “deeply disappointing.” In August of this year, a Louisiana-based 5th Circuit decision ruled people shouldn’t lose their right to bear arms due solely to past drug use.  

While the ruling by the 5th Circuit doesn’t have a direct impact on Hunter’s case, a Delaware federal appeals court made a similar decision, ruling that individuals convicted of nonviolent crimes should not be permanently barred from possessing firearms.  

Lowell argued that Hunter’s indictment, accusing him of illegally owning a gun as a drug user and providing false information on a federal firearm form, is unconstitutional in the light of the court rulings. Lowell contended that due to changes in Second Amendment protections, individuals with a history of drug use cannot be automatically denied gun ownership. According to Lowell, questioning Hunter’s controlled substance use is now irrelevant in determining whether he can be denied his Second Amendment right to own a gun. 

Prosecutors have until January 16 to answer a motion to dismiss Hunter’s case based on Lowell’s Second Amendment argument. 

The irony is not lost on conservatives. The Second Amendment has been under constant attack by Democrats, and now it is being eyed as the critical element to protecting Hunter Biden. It would seem that, in the Democrat fantasy world, Second Amendment protections only apply when they are used to get one of their own off the hook.