Lying on the 4473

[Rye Miles #13621]

You know who…… apparently lied on a 4473 about being addicted to drugs. Hmmm should be an interesting trial. The prosecution has to prove it!

 

(If this is too political I apologize!)

[John Kloehr]

While Hunter might be too political, IMO the question as to if using drugs is a constitutional bar to firearms possession is valid in TEAM SASS.

 

He apparently admitted to use during the relevant time period in his recently published book and this will be brought up in the trial. As to addiction, I think he is claiming he did not consider himself addicted even though he was using. The judge in the pending trial denied his motion to have a particular shrink testify to this as an expert witness. The 4473 form asks about use or addiction.

 

Several filings in recent years, particularly since Bruen have documented old laws allowed temporary removal while intoxicated and then only for doing something stupid with the firearm; the tradition of regulation required any seized firearms would be returned upon a finding of sobriety.

 

While Hunter is clearly not a rocket scientist, he may have enough resources to fund a challenge to his expected (by me) conviction. And he might win on appeal.

[Sedalia Dave]

All I have to say is the trial better not end until after 20 Jan 2025. That way daddy can't pardon him.

[Rye Miles #13621]

1 hour ago, John Kloehr said:

While Hunter might be too political, IMO the question as to if using drugs is a constitutional bar to firearms possession is valid in TEAM SASS.

 

He apparently admitted to use during the relevant time period in his recently published book and this will be brought up in the trial. As to addiction, I think he is claiming he did not consider himself addicted even though he was using. The judge in the pending trial denied his motion to have a particular shrink testify to this as an expert witness. The 4473 form asks about use or addiction.

 

Several filings in recent years, particularly since Bruen have documented old laws allowed temporary removal while intoxicated and then only for doing something stupid with the firearm; the tradition of regulation required any seized firearms would be returned upon a finding of sobriety.

 

While Hunter is clearly not a rocket scientist, he may have enough resources to fund a challenge to his expected (by me) conviction. And he might win on appeal.

Lying on the 4473 is a felony I believe. I hope he gets slammed with one! Hunter was dating his brother’s widow Hallie who took the gun and threw it away in a dumpster!!!!

Should she be charged with something? A school is apparently close by maybe across the street. BTW they got the gun.

[Rye Miles #13621]

This is interesting……

https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenews/few-prosecutions-for-lying-on-atf-gun-purchase-form

[John Kloehr]

This is the Fifth Circuit ruling which found no historical tradition of disarming citizens for use or addiction, only for acts while intoxicated:

 

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-w-d-tex-el-pas-div/2195853.html

 

Quote

 

Connelly also raises a facial challenge to § 922(d)(3). See Mot. Dismiss 3, 10. And Rahimi explained that “if a statute is inconsistent with the Second Amendment's text and historical understanding, then it falls under any circumstances,” and a court must sustain a facial challenge to the law. See Rahimi, 61 F.4th at 453 (citations omitted).

...

Nor does it provide the pre-deprivation process that laws disarming dangerous individuals historically required. Thus, even if Connelly's husband poses enough of a danger to society that the Government can lawfully disarm him, it cannot use § 922(d)(3) as a vehicle for doing so.

...

In sum, § 922(d)(3) does not withstand Second Amendment scrutiny for much the same reasons that § 922(g)(3) does not. The law's broad prohibition on the sale or transfer of firearms to unlawful users of controlled substances burdens the Second Amendment rights of those individuals to nearly the same extent as § 922(g)(3). And, as the Court found when assessing § 922(g)(3), our Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation does not support placing such a burden on the Second Amendment right. Accordingly, Count Two of the Indictment is also dismissed.

 

While Rahimi is binding in the Fifth Circuit (also decided in the same circuit), neither of these cases are binding on the Third Circuit. Hunter will be tried in the Third Circuit.

 

Rahimi and Connelly will certainly be cited by the defense and the Third could adopt the same reasoning as the Fifth. The Third could also decide differently (finding those sections of 922 constitutional) creating a split which could go to the Supreme Court.

[Rye Miles #13621]

The prosecution has to prove he was addicted at the time which is no easy task. This should be an interesting trial. Too bad it’s not on live tv.

[Blackwater 53393]

I haven’t heard whether or not he spent any time in rehab.  If he did, there’s your evidence of addiction!!

 

From what I can gather, he may well STILL be using cocaine!!

[Rye Miles #13621]

31 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

I haven’t heard whether or not he spent any time in rehab.  If he did, there’s your evidence of addiction!!

 

From what I can gather, he may well STILL be using cocaine!!

Im sure he is! Remember the strange little bag of cocaine in the White House?? My Lord!

He even wrote a book about his addiction and I believe the timeframe of his addiction coincides with the date of the 4473 LIE! I guess we'll see..............

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

reading in the news this am , looks like the fix is in with the jury , 

1 juror is ex sec service . and another is the wife of a SS agent 

 

 more from the corrupt DOJ 

[Sedalia Dave]

14 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

The prosecution has to prove he was addicted at the time which is no easy task. This should be an interesting trial. Too bad it’s not on live tv.

 

The question asks if you are "an unlawful user of or addicted to".  No need to prove addiction. Just have to prove use of.  

[Rye Miles #13621]

13 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

The question asks if you are "an unlawful user of or addicted to".  No need to prove addiction. Just have to prove use of.  

It’s seldom used to convict someone according to this :

https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenews/few-prosecutions-for-lying-on-atf-gun-purchase-form

 

Makes you wonder why the question is even on there!

[Gateway Kid SASS# 70038 Life]

1 hour ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

It’s seldom used to convict someone according to this :

https://www.ncja.org/crimeandjusticenews/few-prosecutions-for-lying-on-atf-gun-purchase-form

 

Makes you wonder why the question is even on there!

Unless you are on a liberal’s $h!t list it is just like the “enhanced” sentencing available to prosecutors under federal law for previously convicted felons using a firearm in commission of another crime (up to an additional five years in federal prison) that is so rarely used it has no purpose whatsoever. 
Regards

    
Gateway Kid

[Dilli GaHoot Galoot]

And the 5th Circuit has ruled (correctly IMHO) that the question is unconstitutional and shouldn't even be on the 4473

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/drug-user-cannot-be-barred-owning-guns-us-court-rules-2023-08-10/

 

 

[Eyesa Horg]

If nothing else, maybe some of the anti crap will be eliminated. You know nothing will happen to him as Daddy Sleepy will pardon him.

[Texas Jack Black]

Either way his dad will pardon him. Right after the election

 

 

[Rye Miles #13621]

He was just found Guilty on 3 charges!!!

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

well I am shocked , 

 

  ya figure the pardon , is waiting on the Tax cases ?

 

  Chickasaw Bill 

[Rye Miles #13621]

8 minutes ago, Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001 said:

well I am shocked , 

 

  ya figure the pardon , is waiting on the Tax cases ?

 

  Chickasaw Bill 

That’s my guess. He probably won’t do any jail time for this but the tax case maybe!

[Shepherd Book]

We'll see what happens, but I'm sure not holding my breath until he's in jail....  SB

[Texas Jack Black]

3 hours ago, Shepherd Book said:

We'll see what happens, but I'm sure not holding my breath until he's in jail....  SB

 If Biden wins he will pardon him and will do the same if he loses. IMHO

 

This is a win win for Hunter

[John Kloehr]

7 hours ago, Shepherd Book said:

We'll see what happens, but I'm sure not holding my breath until he's in jail....  SB

Expect appeals.

 

Certainly appeals on anything from any pre-trial motion, how the trial was conducted, venue, the usual. Juror #10 is talking to the press, will see what comes of reporting.

 

I am hoping for a challenge to the constitutionality of the questions presented on the form. Historically, one could be drunk or otherwise have impacted judgement, but not lose rights longer than it took to return to sobriety. Even then, not for having potentially impacted judgement but only for actually doing something with the weapons.

 

Here is the initial charging indictment from the Grand Jury:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/671293691/Biden-Indictment-Redacted-Gov-uscourts-ded-82797-40-0

 

i know many are cheering the conviction, 'cuz Biden. Supreme Court cases come at the edges. If these questions on the 4473 are unconstitutional (I think they are), then I hope Hunter wins. I hope this for all our rights under  the 2nd. If Joe pardons him, this goes away; for this reason, I hope Joe is good on his word and does not pardon his son.

[Dilli GaHoot Galoot]

Ignoring the who and just focusing on the 'what' this should be overturned on appeal based on Bruen's history and tradition standard

The entire 4473 should be tossed as well

[Ranger Dan]

Not a lawyer, but I don't believe he can appeal on 2A grounds since his lawyers did not argue any 2A violation in the trial?

Lawyers ???

[John Kloehr]

20 hours ago, Ranger Dan said:

Not a lawyer, but I don't believe he can appeal on 2A grounds since his lawyers did not argue any 2A violation in the trial?

Lawyers ???

See:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.61.0_1.pdf

[Ranger Dan]

3 hours ago, John Kloehr said:

See:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.61.0_1.pdf

Obviously, that didn't get any press coverage. Would be interesting if it was included in the appeal, and even more interesting if he won... I would be LMAO!