CRAZY 2A NEWS: MAJOR BRIEF FILED IN HUNTER BIDEN GUN CASE...

Published on January 23, 2024
Duration: 19:35

This video analyzes the legal arguments in the Hunter Biden firearm possession case, focusing on his challenge to 18 USC 922 G3 under the Second Amendment, as interpreted by Heller and Bruen. The speaker, Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, critiques the government's reliance on historical English laws like the Statute of Northampton and the 1662 Militia Act, arguing they are not analogous to modern prohibitions on drug users possessing firearms. The discussion highlights Judge Noreika's previous rulings and the potential implications of the US v. Rahimi case.

Quick Summary

Hunter Biden's Second Amendment challenge to 18 USC 922 G3 argues that prohibiting habitual drug users from possessing firearms lacks historical precedent, a requirement under the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. The government's reliance on ancient English laws like the Statute of Northampton is criticized as irrelevant to modern interpretations of the right to bear arms.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: Hunter Biden and the Second Amendment
  2. 00:36Host Mark Smith's Credentials
  3. 01:06DOJ Files Brief in Hunter Biden Gun Case
  4. 01:14Judge Noreika's Background
  5. 01:34Hunter Biden's Indictment Details
  6. 01:47Understanding 18 USC 922 G3
  7. 02:38Hunter Biden's Second Amendment Argument
  8. 03:32Burden of Proof Shift Under Heller/Bruen
  9. 04:52Hunter Biden's Motion to Dismiss
  10. 05:28Government's Response and Weak Arguments
  11. 06:45Reliance on Statute of Northampton & 1662 Militia Act
  12. 07:55English Declaration of Rights 1689
  13. 09:14Absurdity of Government's Historical Analogues
  14. 10:03Bruen Footnote on Ambiguity
  15. 10:55Drug/Alcohol Use and Historical Rules
  16. 11:15Implications of US v. Rahimi
  17. 12:13Violent Danger vs. Drug Use
  18. 13:20Drunk with a Gun Analogy
  19. 14:19US v. Daniels and the Fifth Circuit
  20. 14:47Judge Noreika's Favorable Rulings
  21. 15:37Judge Noreika and the Plea Deal
  22. 16:18Special Counsel David Weiss vs. Jack Smith
  23. 19:09Conclusion and Channel Information

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the core legal argument in the Hunter Biden gun case?

Hunter Biden's legal team argues that the federal law prohibiting unlawful drug users from possessing firearms (18 USC 922 G3) violates the Second Amendment. They contend there's no historical precedent from the founding era to justify such a ban on habitual drug users, a key requirement under the Supreme Court's Bruen decision.

What historical laws is the government using to justify 18 USC 922 G3?

The government's brief relies on ancient English laws, specifically the Statute of Northampton from 1328 and the 1662 Militia Act. The speaker argues these laws are not analogous to modern prohibitions on drug users possessing firearms and are irrelevant to interpreting the Second Amendment.

Who is Judge Maryellen Noreika and why is she significant in this case?

Judge Maryellen Noreika is presiding over the Hunter Biden case in Delaware. She previously enjoined Delaware's 'ghost gun' ban, asserting a fundamental Second Amendment right to make firearms. Her past rulings suggest a strong stance on Second Amendment protections, which could influence her decision on the current challenge.

What is the significance of the US v. Daniels case for the Hunter Biden gun case?

The Fifth Circuit's ruling in US v. Daniels found 18 USC 922 G3 unconstitutional as applied to marijuana users. This precedent is relevant to Hunter Biden's case, as it directly addresses the constitutionality of the same statute, and Judge Noreika is likely to consider its rationale.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →