Via Ammoland by David Codrea
“Because persons protected by the Second Amendment can no longer be denied gun ownership due simply to past drug use—a practice inconsistent with this nation’s historical tradition on firearm regulation—any false statement by Mr. Biden concerning his status as having used a controlled substance no longer concerns ‘any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale’ of a firearm,” one of four motions all filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware Monday asserts. “Quite simply, asking about Mr. Biden’s status as a user of a controlled status is constitutionally irrelevant to whether he can be denied his Second Amendment right to gun ownership.”
By relying on the Supreme Court’s text, history, and tradition standard from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, Hunter Biden, in protecting himself, could end up being the unlikely champion of the Second Amendment. That could lead to the judicial unraveling of prior restraints and prohibitions associated with the ATF Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record, the linchpin of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is itself the foundation of the hoped-for “universal background check” system, a necessary precursor to firearm registration.
If Biden’s motion ultimately prevails, other categories of prohibited persons become vulnerable to challenge, as well as records required to be kept by Federal Firearms Licensees, which themselves have no historical counterpart. The possibilities for reclaiming rights seem boundless.
Biden’s legal team filed three other motions.
One motion claims the indictment should be dismissed because Biden’s diversion agreement with the prosecution conferred immunity.
Whether the Justice Department even had the legal authority to offer that deal is a question this column has raised and is actively pursuing via a complaint. Specifically, “consent to permanent entry” into the National Instant Background Check System appears to create a new classification of “prohibited person.” But unless a citizen falls into one of the categories established by Congressionally enacted law, no one in the Executive branch has the delegated authority to create new conditions and classifications.
Another motion maintains, “Special counsel [Jack] Weiss was unlawfully appointed, and this prosecution violates the appropriations clause.”
A final motion charges “selective and vindictive prosecution and breach of separation of powers” as reasons to dismiss. AmmoLand previously reported on Biden’s allegations and the prosecution’s response to them.
If the motion to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds is successful, the other motions would appear to be moot points.
And if it does, gun owner rights advocates will find it deliciously ironic, that in protecting himself from his own misbehavior, Biden ends up being the catalyst to derail his father’s – and the Democrat party’s – citizen disarmament agenda.
Read the article in its entirety at ammoland.com.
