Hunter Biden’s trial for lying on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473 has kicked off in Delaware. The trial has split the Second Amendment community. Some gun owners hope he gets criminally convicted and sent to prison, while others believe that the 4473 is unconstitutional and that no matter what your opinion of the man on trial is, we shouldn’t root for unconstitutional laws.
Hunter Biden marked that he was not a user of illegal drugs on the ATF Form 4473 when he purchased his Colt Cobra revolver. At the time, Biden was using crack cocaine and various other drugs. It is against the law to lie on the form, and after a judge rejected a plea deal, he was charged and faces possible prison time if convicted.
President Joe Biden, who happens to be the most anti-gun President in the country’s history, is Hunter’s father. Many see the trial of the elder Biden’s son as poetic justice because the President wants to strip Americans of their gun rights, and the Justice Department has charged people for this same crime who were not the son of the President of the United States. But should we hope for a conviction?
Some say we should root for Hunter Biden to be convicted because other Americans in the past have been sent to prison for the same perceived “crime.” If the younger Biden gets off with a slap on the wrist, it will show a two-tiered legal system. One for the rich and powerful and one for the rest of us. But should we put aside our disdain for gun laws just this one time to see Hunter Biden go to prison? I say no.
No matter what you think of the Biden family, we must put our personal feelings aside and support the Second Amendment rights of all people, including those that we do not like. If we only apply human rights to those we agree with, then those rights will hold no real power. We must not be hypocritical.
We must take a no-compromise stance on our gun rights. Our rights are not optional, and we can’t strip someone of those rights just because they are a terrible person.
Someone once said, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it with my life.” Although the statement applies to the First Amendment, we, as gun owners, must apply the same sentiment to the Second Amendment. We should want equal justice under the law, but not at the cost of hoping that a man gets found guilty of violating an unjust law.
You may not like what I’m about to say, but Hunter Biden is innocent. It is not illegal to be a crack head while owning a gun. The form 4473 itself is unconstitutional. Prove a law existed in the days just after 1791 that mandated the storage, ownership, or otherwise transfer of…
— Iraqveteran8888 (@Iraqveteran8888) June 3, 2024
Show me a law from 1791 that:
A. Says any drug is illegal
B. Says you have to get permission from the Government to own a gun and/or explosives…even warships
C. Says a person cannot own a gun if they use any drug, liquor, beer, etc— Iraqveteran8888 (@Iraqveteran8888) June 3, 2024
Many might disagree with my stance, but others do agree with me. One person with the same view I have is Eric Blandford, who is on the popular YouTube channel Iraqveteran8888. Blandford believes that everyone has the right to bear arms no matter who they are, even if they have had shady dealings with foreign countries, hired prostitutes, or used drugs.
“No matter what you think of Hunter or his dad, the law is unconstitutional,” Blandford told AmmoLand News. “This isn’t about Biden. It is about our natural rights.”
We have an opportunity to show the country that we are true believers in gun rights, not just for the people on our side of the political spectrum but for all people. Gun rights, like other human rights, should not be a political issue, even though the right to bear arms has been marred by politics. We should strive to show that we genuinely believe in what we say and extend the same freedoms to those on the other side of the fence.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
That would never happen. He will be found innocent or get an itsy bitsy wrist slap, while not a single rule, regulation or law connected to his case will change one bit…. Because the federal government is corrupt to the core, and violates the Constitution that created the gov and allows it a few specific powers (which politicians and bureaucrats criminally expanded)
Let one POS criminal go free who will likely go free anyway, and restore my gun rights? Hell yeah, deal me in!!!!
That is the only way he should avoid jail, by the judge declaring the law unconstitutional. But what will really happen is he will get off, yet others who did the same will be jailed this year, and next, and on and on. The unconstitutional law must finally be applied equally to connected democrat scum, and must continue to apply equally to them until we get this and all gun laws thrown out by SCOTUS finally doing their job.
His dad spent 40 years in the Senate promoting gun control.
Wouldn’t it b a first class hoot if Hunter gets off because GCA68 doesn’t pass Bruen?
Good thing he wasn’t caught in possession of a cannon.
I get what you’re saying. And as a Constitutionalist I agree.
What I’m TIRED of is their side goes extreme on everything, and then when they finally get caught in the web of their own BS, they cry ‘can’t we all just come together? – why are you trying to divide this country?’
Sick of it. Reap what you sow
OK, the operative concept here is ‘adjudicated.’ If you are a casual drug user and fill out the Form 4473 you are under no obligation to self-incriminate. But Hunter is a different story. Hunter was administratively discharged from the Navy because he was determined to be a fraudulent enlistment (commissioning) due to preservice drug addiction. That is your adjudication of the facts of the matter. A flag officer had to sign off on that discharge and that discharge suffices as adjudication. That is the difference. The idea that casual users of pot have to declare themselves to be ‘drug abusers’… Read more »