Why a rare gun charge against Hunter Biden could misfire

[Social Media]

 

A gun charge hanging over President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, is rarely filed by prosecutors. Will it stand up in court?

Patrick Darnell Daniels was pulled over by police in April 2022 for driving a truck without a registration plate in Hancock County, Mississippi.

Inside his vehicle officers found marijuana cigarette butts and two loaded firearms.

The 26-year-old was charged under a law that bans users of illegal drugs from owning guns.

• Hunter Biden pleads not guilty to gun charges

A judge denied him bail and ruled him a flight risk, citing a previous contempt of court, a history of substance abuse and a lack of stable residence.

He was convicted and sentenced last October to nearly four years in prison.

 

But in August an appeals court overturned Daniels' conviction. He was freed on 26 September.

Hunter Biden, 53, faces the same charge: possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance. It carries a maximum prison sentence of up to five years. He pleaded not guilty on Tuesday.

South Texas College of Law Professor Dru Stevenson, who has published research on gun charges against drug users, says it's unusual for such cases to make it to court.

"It's just really rare that they would go after someone and prosecute them for this," Prof Stevenson said.

"But this [Hunter Biden] is a high-profile person and there's been members of Congress demanding he be prosecuted."

Of the 7,454 people sentenced for illegal gun possession in 2021, only about 5% of them were charged due to drug use, according to US Sentencing Commission data.

 

FULL STORY

[mania]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You think known drug users should have access to guns? 

 

Interesting position.

In his defense I think it is just the Demobidencans who think that 555 ????

[Tug]

34 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You think known drug users should have access to guns? 

 

Interesting position.

Hummm I looked at my post dident see that statement me thinks you are assuming ehh?actually I’m for stronger gun control.it’s a spurious charge that’s seldom used obviously they are trying to get at the president by attacking his only surviving offspring.

[impulse]

52 minutes ago, Tug said:

Hummm I looked at my post dident see that statement me thinks you are assuming ehh?actually I’m for stronger gun control.it’s a spurious charge that’s seldom used obviously they are trying to get at the president by attacking his only surviving offspring.

Doesn't he have a daughter he used to shower with?

 

[Emdog]

"Judge Jerry Smith ruled: "At no point in the 18th or 19th Century did the government disarm individuals who used drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another."Other cases involving the same prohibition against drug users possessing firearms - 18 USC 922 - have gone in favour of defendants after judges questioned whether the charges were constitutionally valid."

Interviews with 25-30 years experience as fed prosecutors for SDNY say they have never seen those charges made unless the person was already a convicted felon.

And Republican/Trump backers forgot that Trump revoked law aimed at preventing some mentally ill from getting guns (Drug abuse qualifies as a form of mental illness in my book...). The push of NRA and most Republicans is to make gun ownership possible for as many as possible. Some Republicans even want mandatory ownership.

Hunter got a gun. For 11 days. Never fired it. Hard core, eh?

[LosLobo]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

You think known drug users should have access to guns? 

 

Interesting position.

You think the known mentally ill should have access to guns?

 

Trump ended rule to block mentally ill from getting guns - ABC News (go.com)

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

You think the known mentally ill should have access to guns?

 

Trump ended rule to block mentally ill from getting guns - ABC News (go.com)

Nice attempt at deflection.????

 

There are plenty of Trump threads available for your obsession, so let's keep this one on topic.

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

You think the known mentally ill should have access to guns?

 

Trump ended rule to block mentally ill from getting guns - ABC News (go.com)

So, you don't think there may be other reasons to prevent the SSA from entering the names of mental health care recipients into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System?  

 

Things like patient privacy?  Issues like preventing people from seeking mental health care for fear of losing their rights?  How about people seeking an FBI criminal background check to live overseas?

 

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Nice attempt at deflection.

 

There are plenty of Trump threads available for your obsession, so let's keep this one on topic.

I don't know how he does in real estate, but he's proven a genius at getting rent free space in lefties' heads.

 

[LosLobo]

11 minutes ago, impulse said:

So, you don't think there may be other reasons to prevent the SSA from entering the names of mental health care recipients into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System?  

 

Things like patient privacy?  Issues like preventing people from seeking mental health care for fear of losing their rights?  How about people seeking an FBI criminal background check to live overseas?

 

Yes, there were certainly other reasons, like Trump wanting to pander to the gun lobbyists and enrich the manufacturers.

 

Yes, privacy is important!

 

Hunter Biden sues computer repairman for invasion of privacy over handling of laptop - CBS News

 

[Longwood50]

1 hour ago, Emdog said:

Hunter got a gun. For 11 days. Never fired it. Hard core, eh?

So if a person robbed a bank but never spent any of the money then it is ok. 

What if the person was driving drunk but only for 11 days and then went sober does that exonerate him from prosecution if he was stopped. 

What if a man beats his wife but only for 11 days. 

The fact is the man broke the law.  I find it hypocritical that those who call for stronger gun control laws now often are the same people who are saying Hunter getting a gun was no big deal.  

If you start down the road of who you will or won't prosecute and which laws on the books you will or won't take legal action against, you effectively are saying there are no laws.  If it ok to own a gun while being addicted to a controlled substance then change the law don't say it does not matter and overlook it. That breeds contempt for all the laws. 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Emdog said:

Hunter got a gun. For 11 days. Never fired it. Hard core, eh?

So what? I had a shotgun, but never fired it as never had a home invasion. I had it so that in the event of an attack I had protection. No point waiting for the cops to turn up when they are so far away and the bad guys are breaking down the door.

 

Difference between myself and Hunter is that I was legally able to own it and Hunter was not legally able to posses his

Edited October 4, 2023 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Emdog said:

Hunter got a gun. For 11 days. Never fired it. Hard core, eh?

If the Donald's son also had a drug problem and was banned from owning a gun, but was found to have one in his possession, would you be as forgiving? I doubt it.

[metisdead]

Some troll posts and replies in violation of our Community Standards have been removed.

[candide]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the Donald's son also had a drug problem and was banned from owning a gun, but was found to have one in his possession, would you be as forgiving? I doubt it.

I think no one is interested in him as an outlet, for not being able to find anything on his father.

[placeholder]

On 10/4/2023 at 8:26 AM, mania said:

In his defense I think it is just the Demobidencans who think that 555 ????

Actually, what you claim is the opposite of the truth. It's justices who follow the rulings of the right Supreme Court who think that. It's clear you haven't read the entire article which cites the precedent set by a judge appointed by Reagan. In his comment Judge Smith used the criteria newly established by conservative members of the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of a law

From the article:

Judge Jerry Smith ruled: "At no point in the 18th or 19th Century did the government disarm individuals who used drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another.

Other cases involving the same prohibition against drug users possessing firearms - 18 USC 922 - have gone in favour of defendants after judges questioned whether the charges were constitutionally valid."

Edited October 5, 2023 by placeholder

[heybruce]

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

Actually, what you claim is the opposite of the truth. It's justices who follow the rulings of the right Supreme Court who think that. It's clear you haven't read the entire article which cites the precedent set by a judge appointed by Reagan. In his comment Judge Smith used the criteria newly established by conservative members of the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of a law

From the article:

Judge Jerry Smith ruled: "At no point in the 18th or 19th Century did the government disarm individuals who used drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another.

Other cases involving the same prohibition against drug users possessing firearms - 18 USC 922 - have gone in favour of defendants after judges questioned whether the charges were constitutionally valid."

They should apply the same logic to the types of weapons.  I have no problem with law abiding citizens being allowed to have single-shot flintlock muzzle loaders, although even then I think mandatory safety training is a good idea.  It's allowing near unrestricted access to weapons hundreds of times more lethal that I have a problem with.

[Emdog]

On 10/4/2023 at 12:30 PM, Longwood50 said:

So if a person robbed a bank but never spent any of the money then it is ok. 

What if the person was driving drunk but only for 11 days and then went sober does that exonerate him from prosecution if he was stopped. 

What if a man beats his wife but only for 11 days. 

The fact is the man broke the law.  I find it hypocritical that those who call for stronger gun control laws now often are the same people who are saying Hunter getting a gun was no big deal.  

If you start down the road of who you will or won't prosecute and which laws on the books you will or won't take legal action against, you effectively are saying there are no laws.  If it ok to own a gun while being addicted to a controlled substance then change the law don't say it does not matter and overlook it. That breeds contempt for all the laws. 

You left out the part where those non felons are almost never prosecuted for what Hunter is being charged for. Who was harmed? Yes he broke the law & the usual punishment (if any) is probation.... which was agreed to until it got political

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Emdog said:

You left out the part where those non felons are almost never prosecuted for what Hunter is being charged for. Who was harmed? Yes he broke the law & the usual punishment (if any) is probation.... which was agreed to until it got political

Of course it's political.  They're trying the only charge that cannot be connected to Ol' Joe.  Probably so they can claim they treat both sides equally.  And to deflect attention away from the myriad of crimes that may implicate Joe.

 

Most righties don't give a rat about this case.  It's a red herring.

 

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

Of course it's political.  They're trying the only charge that cannot be connected to Ol' Joe.  Probably so they can claim they treat both sides equally.  And to deflect attention away from the myriad of crimes that may implicate Joe.

 

Most righties don't give a rat about this case.  It's a red herring.

 

Apart from the fact that despite all the digging, there is no good evidence that implicates Joe Biden in Hunter's activities, your assertion that the only charge the Feds will pursue against Hunter Biden is most likely false. The gun charges were only one of a number of charges that were part of the negotiation.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Apart from the fact that despite all the digging, there is no good evidence that implicates Joe Biden in Hunter's activities, your assertion that the only charge the Feds will pursue against Hunter Biden is most likely false. The gun charges were only one of a number of charges that were part of the negotiation.

Yup.  The rest of the charges are for financial crimes, which the DOJ has slow walked and impeded to the point that the statute of limitations has run out on quite a few.  And (if you believe the whistleblowers), the agents on the ground have been pulled away from even investigating.  I'm patient.  There's still a bunch of subpoenas floating around, and a lot more witnesses to follow.

 

BTW, the one reason that righties may be interested in the Hunter gun case is because Joe has declared that he will not pardon Hunter.  Full stop.  We'll see, if Hunter goes to jail.  But I doubt that's gonna happen.  In fact, I don't even advocate it.

 

[Longwood50]

14 hours ago, Emdog said:

You left out the part where those non felons are almost never prosecuted for what Hunter is being charged for. Who was harmed? Yes he broke the law & the usual punishment (if any) is probation.... which was agreed to until it got political

No I didn't leave it out, I was replying to a post indicating that him having a gun was no big deal.  If it is no big deal then don't ignore the law change it.  The hypocritical nature of those who claim to say "no one is above the law" seem to ignore it when prosecutions happen against someone that shares the same political idiology.  Is it true that most are not prosecuted for what Hunter is accused of doing.  Yes.  Is it true that most are prosecuted for what Hillary did.  Yes.  Martha Stewart went to jail not for insider trading but for lying to the FBI.  Guess who the prosecutor on that case was - James Comey.  You also forgot that people like General Flynn, Michael Cohen would never have had charges brought against them if it was not for their relationship with Trump.  Also, Trump has been targeted by New York specifically for actions that if he was not poltically active would have never been raised.  Case in point.  Trump University was viciously prosecuted but only in New York.  Trump University operated in several states, was investigated in both Texas and Florida and found that the actions of the University did not warrant prosecution. 

Do I think that prosecuting Hunter for the gun violation is trivial, yes.  However just like Al Capone who they got on tax evasion rather than organized crime activities, they are going after a charge they can conclusively prove.  He was far more clever with his over 20 shell companies concealing activity that is more than questionable. 

 

Comer: The Bidens Have Put Themselves First and ...

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability - (.gov)

https://oversight.house.gov › Press Releases

 

 

 

Jul 19, 2566 BE — The Bidens created over 20 shell companies – most of which were created when Joe Biden was Vice President. Bank records so far show the Biden ...

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

  Is it true that most are not prosecuted for what Hunter is accused of doing.  Yes.  Is it true that most are prosecuted for what Hillary did.  Yes

 

You do have a penchant for getting things wrong. Just recently, you repeatedly claimed that Viktor Shokin was a low level prosecutor in Ukraine when, actually, his position in the Ukrainian government was equivalent to that of the Attorney General of the United Sates.

 

As for this:

"Is it true that most are prosecuted for what Hillary did.  Yes."

Once again, false.

 

Past cases suggest Hillary won’t be indicted

"A POLITICO review of dozens of recent federal investigations for mishandling of classified records suggests that it’s highly unlikely — but not impossible.

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form."

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by placeholder

[candide]

Hunter Biden judge agrees to drop old gun count after indictment replaces scuttled plea deal

https://news.yahoo.com/hunter-biden-judge-agrees-drop-173428671.html

[still kicking]

On 10/4/2023 at 10:55 AM, impulse said:

Doesn't he have a daughter he used to shower with?

 

You are sick