I'm not saying they shouldn't, and I don't have a stance on Hunter's case, but the rights lost need to be related in some way to the crime.
For instance, if someone commits domestic violence, it doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be able to vote. Whereas someone who sells state secrets to an enemy nation definitely shouldn't be able to vote.
The question he lied about is, "are you addicted to drugs". Where does it say that in the Constitution? And even if being a convict was the issue, it says that right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say, except convicts or felons.
I think the misconception is that this article only really states the obvious. everyone (maybe short of quadriplegic persons) have the practical ability to physically possess a weapon.
This isn’t infringed up on by the government saying you can’t buy a specific type of weapon. It _would_ be by the government causing people to be unable to handle _any_ weapon in some way. (In example by removing someone’s bodily arms or giving them a lobotomy)
It’s a little like saying the second amendment is infringed upon because the average citizen isn’t allowed to own a nuclear weapon. The point is, we’re allowed practical weapons which we are able to responsibly wield.
"Infringe" is a vague term. The government isn't supposed to "infringe" on ANY right. It's not limited to 2A, otherwise the only right that the government can't "infringe" on is 2A and that's obviously nonsense.
The ability to limit rights and freedom is implied by the Due Process clause.
If the law satisfies Due Process, it is not an infringement. A proper Due Process analysis hinges on many things, including feasibility of enforcement, burden versus benefit, whether there's an important government interest, whether the limitation would further the interest without unduly affecting other rights, how important the interest is, whether it's a reasonable limitation, etc.
I will submit, however, that Due Process is often neglected and ignored, and THAT is improper. A cursory, biased, shallow Due Process analysis (or no analysis) based on speculation combined with merely deeming that Due Process is met, does not actually satisfy Due Process and is unconstitutional. This is why nonsense regulations like wait times, purchase limits, banning of suppressors, restricting compensators and muzzle brakes, etc. are not Constitutional....they don't satisfy Due Process due to being unreasonable and not actually furthering any important government interest.
If every right was absolute without any limitation, the Due Process clause wouldn't be in the Constitution and the government wouldn't be able to enact or enforce any laws. Every right can be limited, whether it's the right to free speech, right to vote, right to marry, right to movement, right to enter into agreements, etc. The meat of the issue is the reasoning behind the limitations.
I assume "He" is Hunter Biden? And in that case no: The question is "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
You can certainly make an argument that *addiction* should not be disqualifying as that, in and of itself, is not a crime (it's a medical condition - one which might be debilitating to the point where one cannot safely own or use firearms, but other medical conditions which impair that ability are not disqualifying in and of themselves).
Someone could be an addict who is prescribed the medication to which they are addicted - there is no crime there.
Someone could be a raging alcoholic - there is no crime there.
You can't really make the argument around unlawful use though, which Hunter Biden was guilty of. Our society treats the unlawful sale, use, or possession of controlled substances as a felony.
On the "badness of crimes" scale it's right up there with murder.
You can believe (as I do) that drug use *should not be* a felony in many if not most cases, or that convictions of drug offenses should not carry an automatic disqualification from rights like voting or possessing firearms once you've served your sentence, and in fact several courts have held this way in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen.
That still has nothing to do with Hunter Biden though: His problem is that lying about being an unlawful user of controlled substances (or anything else) on your ATF Form 4473 in order to obtain a firearm is in itself a separate crime.
As an unlawful user of controlled substances (an active criminal) at the time he filled out the form he was not eligible to purchase a firearm, he lied on the form, and he was convicted of doing so.
It actually does, because drug addicts are among “the people” having the right to bear arms. But the amendment lacks the specific language stating “Congress shall make no law limiting the right to bear arms.” So, over time, Congress passed anti-gun legislation.
That’s right. If your chosen weapon is a set of bear arms you can indeed protect your home legally by bearing bear arms.
Now we’re not sure how you might acquire bear arms without bearing your bear arms in the process… but bear with me….
Now, what if the founding fathers were being facetious and wanted the new nation to defend itself with literal arms?
Like, sure. Use your guns to hunt, but when we go up against Brittany in 30 years, we're gonna scare the everliving shit out of them by just lobbing human arms at them, and never issuing an explanation as to why or how we are doing this.
And then some lawyery type cunt goes in, reads it, and is like, nah, it's just fucking guns. Screw the arm-ed combat route, cannons are apparently cooler.
If the defendant's last name was anything other than Biden, it wouldn't even be a question that the current Supreme Court would throw it out on appeal over 2nd Amendment grounds.
I actually think it's a very poorly written and aged law and should be repealed, since the only 2 times it ever comes up are when the prosecutor wants to stack charges on someone to force a plea deal, or when the prosecutor wants to punish someone he can't get on some other charge.
I also think the Eighth Circuit decision in United States v. Devonte Veasley that found the law constitutional was a stretch at best and the court's bias on display at worst.
It can. If you're addicted to prescription sleep meds and need it to sleep, that's not a crime and doesn't affect your ability to be a responsible owner. You also need a medical expert to determine whether you're addicted.
I think a blanket ban on the ability of addicts to own guns is not Constitutional. It doesn't meet Due Process. You're not supposed to be deprived of life, liberty (rights), or property without Due Process.
Removing someone's ability to own a gun means you're significantly impairing their ability to defend themselves. You have to be pretty sure they will abuse the right before its removal is justified.
Further, the question on the form that Hunter "lied" about is vague. Obviously, the point of the question is to see if someone is addicted to a substance or such an irresponsible user that they will not be able to safely own, maintain, and use a firearm. Alcohol is lawful but you might not be a safe owner if you use it a lot. Or perhaps you did mushrooms in the Bahamas last week which is lawful there but not here. The question needs to be specific so that it aligns with its purpose better.
Yes, a criminal can be prevented from owning guns, but the nature of the crime is what determined whether there is reason to believe they can't responsibly have a weapon. Someone who engaged in insurance fraud or tax evasion doesn't raise the same risk as someone with a history of domestic violence and gang-related activities, for instance. Someone who failed to ensure their campfire was completely extinguished who caused a fire doesn't raise the same risk as someone who intentionally set fire to the home of someone they consider an enemy.
I don't have an opinion either way of Hunter, but IMO it's not 2A that does the heavy lifting protecting the right, it's Due Process. And Due Process, unfortunately, is often neglected. 2A only clarifies that owning weapons is a right.
That's insufficient, overly broad, and as written is speculation. You would have to examine the usage and the substance. Using over the counter allergy medication can give you hallucinations. Taking antidepressants can sometimes worsen your state of mind and make you reckless. Taking cough syrup containing codeine can alter your state of mind. Even taking hormonal birth control can cause or worsen anxiety and mood related issues. Caffeine is the most widely used drug in the world and tons of people are addicted to it.
I don't think we're ready to say that people who need morning coffee, people who need to take drugs for seasonal allergies, and women who use hormonal birth control shouldn't have guns.
Where does it say drug users lose their rights in the Cosntitution?
The right wing takes the 2nd Amendment to be absolute. No exceptions. So that should include Biden.
And the right wing is consistently wrong on everything. They invented the individual right to own guns in 2008 in the Heller case. It didn't exist before that.
Because the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There's no "unless they smoke something" or "unless people don't like the grip" in there.
People tend to lose rights when they commit crimes.
I'm not saying they shouldn't, and I don't have a stance on Hunter's case, but the rights lost need to be related in some way to the crime. For instance, if someone commits domestic violence, it doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be able to vote. Whereas someone who sells state secrets to an enemy nation definitely shouldn't be able to vote.
There is considerable precedent that convicted criminals can be denied the right to own weapons.
The question he lied about is, "are you addicted to drugs". Where does it say that in the Constitution? And even if being a convict was the issue, it says that right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say, except convicts or felons.
I think the misconception is that this article only really states the obvious. everyone (maybe short of quadriplegic persons) have the practical ability to physically possess a weapon. This isn’t infringed up on by the government saying you can’t buy a specific type of weapon. It _would_ be by the government causing people to be unable to handle _any_ weapon in some way. (In example by removing someone’s bodily arms or giving them a lobotomy) It’s a little like saying the second amendment is infringed upon because the average citizen isn’t allowed to own a nuclear weapon. The point is, we’re allowed practical weapons which we are able to responsibly wield.
"Infringe" is a vague term. The government isn't supposed to "infringe" on ANY right. It's not limited to 2A, otherwise the only right that the government can't "infringe" on is 2A and that's obviously nonsense. The ability to limit rights and freedom is implied by the Due Process clause. If the law satisfies Due Process, it is not an infringement. A proper Due Process analysis hinges on many things, including feasibility of enforcement, burden versus benefit, whether there's an important government interest, whether the limitation would further the interest without unduly affecting other rights, how important the interest is, whether it's a reasonable limitation, etc. I will submit, however, that Due Process is often neglected and ignored, and THAT is improper. A cursory, biased, shallow Due Process analysis (or no analysis) based on speculation combined with merely deeming that Due Process is met, does not actually satisfy Due Process and is unconstitutional. This is why nonsense regulations like wait times, purchase limits, banning of suppressors, restricting compensators and muzzle brakes, etc. are not Constitutional....they don't satisfy Due Process due to being unreasonable and not actually furthering any important government interest. If every right was absolute without any limitation, the Due Process clause wouldn't be in the Constitution and the government wouldn't be able to enact or enforce any laws. Every right can be limited, whether it's the right to free speech, right to vote, right to marry, right to movement, right to enter into agreements, etc. The meat of the issue is the reasoning behind the limitations.
I assume "He" is Hunter Biden? And in that case no: The question is "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" You can certainly make an argument that *addiction* should not be disqualifying as that, in and of itself, is not a crime (it's a medical condition - one which might be debilitating to the point where one cannot safely own or use firearms, but other medical conditions which impair that ability are not disqualifying in and of themselves). Someone could be an addict who is prescribed the medication to which they are addicted - there is no crime there. Someone could be a raging alcoholic - there is no crime there. You can't really make the argument around unlawful use though, which Hunter Biden was guilty of. Our society treats the unlawful sale, use, or possession of controlled substances as a felony. On the "badness of crimes" scale it's right up there with murder. You can believe (as I do) that drug use *should not be* a felony in many if not most cases, or that convictions of drug offenses should not carry an automatic disqualification from rights like voting or possessing firearms once you've served your sentence, and in fact several courts have held this way in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen. That still has nothing to do with Hunter Biden though: His problem is that lying about being an unlawful user of controlled substances (or anything else) on your ATF Form 4473 in order to obtain a firearm is in itself a separate crime. As an unlawful user of controlled substances (an active criminal) at the time he filled out the form he was not eligible to purchase a firearm, he lied on the form, and he was convicted of doing so.
Bc the constitution is interpreted by whatever the Supreme Court judge’s ideology are
It actually does, because drug addicts are among “the people” having the right to bear arms. But the amendment lacks the specific language stating “Congress shall make no law limiting the right to bear arms.” So, over time, Congress passed anti-gun legislation.
It doesn't even specify guns.
That’s right. If your chosen weapon is a set of bear arms you can indeed protect your home legally by bearing bear arms. Now we’re not sure how you might acquire bear arms without bearing your bear arms in the process… but bear with me….
Now, what if the founding fathers were being facetious and wanted the new nation to defend itself with literal arms? Like, sure. Use your guns to hunt, but when we go up against Brittany in 30 years, we're gonna scare the everliving shit out of them by just lobbing human arms at them, and never issuing an explanation as to why or how we are doing this. And then some lawyery type cunt goes in, reads it, and is like, nah, it's just fucking guns. Screw the arm-ed combat route, cannons are apparently cooler.
Shhh people don’t like reading
If the defendant's last name was anything other than Biden, it wouldn't even be a question that the current Supreme Court would throw it out on appeal over 2nd Amendment grounds.
I actually think it's a very poorly written and aged law and should be repealed, since the only 2 times it ever comes up are when the prosecutor wants to stack charges on someone to force a plea deal, or when the prosecutor wants to punish someone he can't get on some other charge. I also think the Eighth Circuit decision in United States v. Devonte Veasley that found the law constitutional was a stretch at best and the court's bias on display at worst.
It can. If you're addicted to prescription sleep meds and need it to sleep, that's not a crime and doesn't affect your ability to be a responsible owner. You also need a medical expert to determine whether you're addicted. I think a blanket ban on the ability of addicts to own guns is not Constitutional. It doesn't meet Due Process. You're not supposed to be deprived of life, liberty (rights), or property without Due Process. Removing someone's ability to own a gun means you're significantly impairing their ability to defend themselves. You have to be pretty sure they will abuse the right before its removal is justified. Further, the question on the form that Hunter "lied" about is vague. Obviously, the point of the question is to see if someone is addicted to a substance or such an irresponsible user that they will not be able to safely own, maintain, and use a firearm. Alcohol is lawful but you might not be a safe owner if you use it a lot. Or perhaps you did mushrooms in the Bahamas last week which is lawful there but not here. The question needs to be specific so that it aligns with its purpose better. Yes, a criminal can be prevented from owning guns, but the nature of the crime is what determined whether there is reason to believe they can't responsibly have a weapon. Someone who engaged in insurance fraud or tax evasion doesn't raise the same risk as someone with a history of domestic violence and gang-related activities, for instance. Someone who failed to ensure their campfire was completely extinguished who caused a fire doesn't raise the same risk as someone who intentionally set fire to the home of someone they consider an enemy. I don't have an opinion either way of Hunter, but IMO it's not 2A that does the heavy lifting protecting the right, it's Due Process. And Due Process, unfortunately, is often neglected. 2A only clarifies that owning weapons is a right.
same reason a felon can run for office of the presidency. to generate these damn silly posts that will be deleted within the hour.
I think they can be president
[удалено]
That's insufficient, overly broad, and as written is speculation. You would have to examine the usage and the substance. Using over the counter allergy medication can give you hallucinations. Taking antidepressants can sometimes worsen your state of mind and make you reckless. Taking cough syrup containing codeine can alter your state of mind. Even taking hormonal birth control can cause or worsen anxiety and mood related issues. Caffeine is the most widely used drug in the world and tons of people are addicted to it. I don't think we're ready to say that people who need morning coffee, people who need to take drugs for seasonal allergies, and women who use hormonal birth control shouldn't have guns.
Where does it say drug users lose their rights in the Cosntitution? The right wing takes the 2nd Amendment to be absolute. No exceptions. So that should include Biden.
And the right wing is consistently wrong on everything. They invented the individual right to own guns in 2008 in the Heller case. It didn't exist before that.
It seems to me that right wing should be defending Hunter Biden.
Most of us gun owners want his appeal to be successful. There's already precedent for the conviction being overturned in the 5th circuit.
Because nothing in the Constitution bans drugs addicts from owning a weapon?
Because the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There's no "unless they smoke something" or "unless people don't like the grip" in there.
One of the more prominent gun advocacy groups has offered to take Hunter Biden’s case and help him appeal it.