Hunter Biden hopes to overturn his conviction by leveraging a recent Supreme Court ruling that scrutinizes the constitutionality of laws barring certain individuals from gun ownership according to Politico.
Biden is preparing to challenge his 2023 conviction for lying about his drug use while purchasing a handgun by questioning a federal law's constitutionality.
Biden's legal team plans to appeal his conviction, which found him guilty of three felonies for buying a handgun in 2018 while using crack cocaine.
The appeal focuses on the federal law that prohibits drug users from owning guns, a provision resembling the one scrutinized in the recent Supreme Court decision, United States v. Rahimi.
The Supreme Court's ruling, delivered on June 21, 2024, by an 8-1 margin, involved a Texas man (Rahimi) under a domestic violence restraining order. The court upheld that individuals under such judicial orders could be banned from gun ownership, as long as their disarmament was based on specific dangerousness findings.
Chief Justice John Roberts emphatically stated in the ruling that any decision to disarm must hinge on a judicial determination of dangerousness. The government argued that Rahimi could be disarmed solely because he was deemed 'irresponsible,' but Roberts countered, describing the term as vague and indeterminate regarding rule application.
Biden’s legal team monitored the Rahimi case closely. They anticipate that the Supreme Court's language might now bolster their argument against Biden's conviction, given that there was no finding of dangerousness in his case relating to his gun purchase.
Hunter Biden encountered a significant legal hurdle in Wilmington, Delaware, earlier this month when a trial judge rejected his initial constitutional challenge. A jury then convicted him of the felonies related to the 2018 handgun purchase.
Eric Ruben commented on the implications of the Rahimi ruling for Biden, suggesting a potential benefit for him. Another legal expert, Peter Tilem, emphasized that the court requires a clear finding by a court that the individual is a danger to justify firearm prohibition.
Tilem further pointed out the distinction between someone using drugs and posing a credible threat to safety, highlighting the somewhat rare application of statute 922(g)(3) concerning drug users. Tilem believes Biden has a strong claim for appeal.
Further opinions illustrate the ramifications of the ruling. Laura Edwards stated that the court’s willingness to evaluate on a case-by-case basis suggests a significant shift in judicial power concerning gun regulations.
The crux of Biden’s conviction arose from his brief possession of a handgun in 2018, despite his concurrent use of crack cocaine. Importantly, he neither had any prior criminal record nor was there any history of violence associated with him.
Biden faces potential sentencing in October 2024, with the ability to appeal post-sentencing. The timeline aligns with broader Second Amendment cases anticipated by the Supreme Court, following its pivotal decision in 2022 that expanded gun rights.
The Rahimi decision could open the door for future legal challenges to other gun regulations, including those targeting drug users. Hunter Biden's legal team hopes his case might become a critical test for the constitutionality of such provisions.
By questioning the vagueness of terms like 'responsible,' Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling may undermine laws like the one under which Biden was convicted. This offers a basis for Biden’s attorneys to argue that mere drug use without a finding of dangerousness does not justify a categorical ban on gun ownership.
If Biden's appeal succeeds, it may set a legal precedent affecting similar cases nationwide. Legal observers are keen to see if the Supreme Court will revisit and potentially limit federal statutes barring gun ownership among specific groups.
In his pursuit of an appeal, Biden brings to the forefront a significant legal discourse on the balance between regulating gun ownership and protecting constitutional rights. The ongoing dialogue hints at evolving interpretations of the Second Amendment’s reach.
Hunter Biden’s pending appeal against his 2023 conviction for buying a handgun while using drugs draws on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in United States v. Rahimi.
The ruling stresses that disarmament requires judicial findings of dangerousness, a nuance that Biden’s legal team leverages, arguing for a re-evaluation of federal laws prohibiting drug users from gun ownership.
This case potentially sets the stage for impactful legal precedents in the future. Biden, convicted in Wilmington and facing sentencing in October 2024, hopes this new development enhances his position against the gun-control statute. Legal experts and observers closely follow the case, pointing to broader implications for Second Amendment rights.
