2A NEWS: HUNTER BIDEN ASSERTS 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SAVE HIMSELF FROM CRIMINAL GUN CHARGES

Published on December 15, 2023
Duration: 10:53

This video analyzes Hunter Biden's motion to dismiss his federal gun charges, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as interpreted by Heller and Bruen. The argument posits that occasional users of controlled substances cannot be constitutionally prohibited from possessing firearms, citing the lack of historical tradition for such a ban and the Third Circuit's 'dangerousness' standard for prohibited persons.

Quick Summary

Hunter Biden's motion to dismiss federal gun charges argues 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, citing Heller and Bruen. The defense contends that historical tradition does not support disarming occasional users of controlled substances and points to the Third Circuit's 'dangerousness' standard.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: Hunter Biden's Motion to Dismiss
  2. 00:43The Indictment: Gun Charge Explained
  3. 01:47Constitutional Argument: Heller & Bruen
  4. 03:00Fifth Circuit Precedent: United States v. Daniels
  5. 04:35Third Circuit Precedent: The Range Case
  6. 05:45Impact on Form 4473 Charges
  7. 06:57Potential Improvements to the Motion
  8. 07:06Judge Noreika's Prior Ruling
  9. 08:43What Happens Next: Government Opposition & SCOTUS Cases
  10. 09:09Related Supreme Court Cases: Daniels, Range, Rahimi
  11. 10:05Conclusion and Future Updates

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary legal argument in Hunter Biden's motion to dismiss his gun charges?

Hunter Biden's motion argues that the federal law prohibiting unlawful users of controlled substances from possessing firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) is unconstitutional. This argument is based on the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Heller and Bruen, asserting there's no historical tradition supporting such a ban on occasional users.

Which court decisions are central to Hunter Biden's Second Amendment defense?

The defense heavily relies on the Supreme Court's decisions in Heller v. District of Columbia and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Additionally, the motion cites the Fifth Circuit's ruling in United States v. Daniels, which found no historical basis for disarming users of controlled substances.

How does the Third Circuit's 'dangerousness' standard apply to Hunter Biden's case?

The Third Circuit, in the Range case, established that a prohibited person under firearm laws must be 'physically violent dangerous.' Hunter Biden's lawyers argue he has not been viewed as physically violent, suggesting he does not meet this constitutional standard for being disarmed.

What is the significance of Judge Maryellen Noreika's previous ruling in Hunter Biden's case?

Judge Noreika previously ruled Delaware's 'ghost gun' ban unconstitutional in Rig v. Jennings, citing a lack of historical tradition. This precedent is relevant because it shows her willingness to strike down firearm restrictions based on Second Amendment analysis, which Hunter Biden's legal team may leverage.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →