https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hunter-biden-gun-charge-unconstitutional_n_65777a3fe4b0fca7ad21ccc8

Among the charges Hunter Biden faces is lying on an official form when he was required to answer whether he was a user of illegal narcotics while buying a gun. As NYSRPA v Bruen was decided last year by the Supreme Court, any restrictions on the 2nd amendment must comport with the historical tradition of firearm regulation as understood when the 2nd amendment was adopted- to which no such law against drug users owning firearms was in effect. And this will be tested this year with US v Rahimi at the Supreme Court, challenging whether 'domestic abusers' can have their 2nd amendment rights infringed when they have never been convicted of a crime, never permitted due process to defend themselves, nor are they serving a lawful imprisonment sentence. Indeed, the only charge that Rahimi was convicted of, was unlawful firearm possession- for owning firearms while having a civil restraining order.

The Hunter Biden case will give one more high profile test of the second amendment. Even if courts were to uphold the legality of barring felon drug users from owning firearms after their sentence is served- it still comes down to an infringement of the 5th amendment. If someone has never been convicted of illegal drug use, then if you're obstructing their second amendment right to keep and bear arms by requiring them to sign a document under binding jeopardy to admit or deny drug use, you're violating the 5th amendment. Hunter Biden couldn't buy a gun without bargaining away his right to due process, either admitting to a crime and giving evidence against himself, or denying it and being held in legal jeopardy for lying on the form, as he is now.

The voting test is a parallel for this. Much like the question of restoring voting rights for felons after release, vs restricting gun rights for felons after release- their 1st and 2nd amendment rights, respectively. So imagine a scenario in which anyone going to vote at a poll on election night must first sign a statement that they are not an illegal drug user, that they are not a fugitive, that they have not downloaded pirated entertainment on torrent sites. After all, felons can't vote. If you admit to something the government charges as a felony, they can charge you with it and remove your right to vote. You might not be a convicted felon as you go to vote, but you're being asked to admit to a felony or lie and deny it and thus commit a felony like Hunter Biden's. Should exercising your right to vote in a federal election force you to testify against yourself?

Sir, this is a Wendy’s, a cesspool subforum on an obscure ancient internet gaming website, not Supreme Court.

Just think if they passed a law where if you have a conceal and carry license you can be randomly drug tested multiple times a year.

This post was edited by said_aouita on Dec 14 2023 04:36am

Or a law where you can't apply for a public defender unless you submit to a drug test and a written allocution of all past crimes. If you are found guilty and said you were innocent, they'll double your sentence for lying! A better example than my first. If anything, the right to keep and bear arms is given a higher protection than the 'privilege' to vote- only protected by equal enforcement under the 14th and interpretation of the body of the constitution. So a parallel would be like if your access to due process itself was restricted by requiring you to forfeit your due process.

Didn't read, but also since I saw old footage of joe biden saying that even a tiny bit of crack cocain should lead to prison, it's not fair now that his son takes the crack. Simple politics.