Attorneys for Hunter Biden Claim Federal Gun Law Enforced Unconstitutionally for Millions of Legal Cannabis Users

Legal representatives acting on behalf of Hunter Biden, who is the son of President Joe Biden, have formally lodged a petition with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. This petition is a formal request for the dismissal of charges brought against their client, specifically charges relating to the possession of a firearm while concurrently using an illicit substance. The crux of the defense’s argument revolves around their assertion that the prosecutors are invoking a statute deemed unconstitutional. They contend that if this statute were to be broadly applied, it could potentially lead to the criminalization of the conduct of countless cannabis users who are fully compliant with state laws.

The defense’s standpoint is firmly rooted in the belief that the charges related to firearms infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of individuals. Moreover, they contend that these charges are indicative of a prosecution that carries political motivations. This particular prosecution pertains to a statute that is seldom enforced, focusing on individuals who are presently using illicit substances. Such individuals are barred from purchasing or possessing firearms under this statute.

In addition to these arguments, the defense has asserted that the prosecutor has implicitly acknowledged the selective nature of this particular prosecution. They cite the prosecutor’s alleged admission that a typical citizen engaging in similar behavior would not typically face legal charges for this offense. This assertion is further substantiated through reference to the policies and statistical data made available by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In summary, the defense’s petition is intended to challenge both the constitutionality of the statute that underpins the firearm charges against Hunter Biden and the selective nature of its enforcement. Their primary objective is to guarantee that the legal proceedings maintain fidelity to the principles of equal protection under the law while also upholding the constitutional rights of the accused.

Hunter Biden: Challenging Gun Charges and Substance Use

The submission made by the defense underscores the extensive scope and purported constitutional issues surrounding Sections 922(g)(3), a legislative provision that casts a wide net encompassing potentially millions, if not tens of millions, of firearm owners who engage in the use of substances controlled under federal law, which may include but is not confined to cannabis. Intriguingly, this statute remains applicable even in cases where these controlled substances are recognized as legal under state law. Despite its far-reaching implications, this statute is rarely invoked in practical legal proceedings. As indicated by data cited in the legal filing, it is estimated that a minimum of 16 million gun owners may have inadvertently contravened the provisions of this statute, rendering them potentially liable to face criminal prosecution for actions analogous to those attributed to Mr. Hunter Biden in his current legal predicament.

It is noteworthy that the charges against Hunter Biden do not originate directly from any cannabis-related transgressions. Instead, they are predicated on his frank admission of being an occasional user of crack cocaine, a substance fundamentally distinct from cannabis. Of particular import is the strategic alignment of Mr. Biden’s legal representation, which has drawn an analogy between his case and the broader discourse on cannabis utilization to buttress their argument that the application of this statute harbors elements of discriminatory practice.

It merits attention that earlier this year, Hunter Biden came perilously close to reaching an agreement that would have forestalled the initiation of legal proceedings concerning the firearm-related charges. Regrettably, these negotiations ultimately fell apart. Preceding this development, his legal counsel had raised the contention that an independent federal court ruling had adjudged the prohibition against firearm ownership for cannabis consumers as constitutionally unsound. Consequently, they posited that the charges levied against Mr. Biden should be dismissed on the basis of this legal precedent.

In essence, the legal strategy pursued by the defense seeks to mount a challenge against the constitutional validity and selective enforcement of Sections 922(g)(3). This is achieved through the emphasis on the sheer magnitude of individuals potentially impacted by this legislative provision, the infrequent utilization of its legal mechanisms, and its association with issues surrounding controlled substances, most notably cannabis. The overarching objective of this legal strategy is to champion a legal process characterized by fairness and equity, one that upholds constitutional tenets and safeguards the rights of the accused.

Rare Prosecutions Under Federal Gun Statute: Cannabis and Firearm Legal Debate

The ongoing legal deliberation continues to pivot around the constitutional dimensions of the case, with the most recent submission accentuating the rarity of prosecutions arising from the federal statute currently under scrutiny.

The motion asserts, “In the years spanning 2008 to 2017, for instance, out of the total 132,464 criminal prosecutions conducted under federal gun statutes, a mere 1.8 percent pertained to Section 922(g)(3).”

It is imperative to acknowledge that providing false information on the application submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) for firearm acquisition constitutes a felony offense. Nevertheless, the legality of the fundamental inquiry concerning substance use has undergone rigorous examination within various federal court jurisdictions, particularly within the context of cannabis.

As recently as the previous month, the Justice Department articulated its stance before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, contending that established historical precedents “comfortably” justify the imposed restriction. The Biden administration posited that individuals who both use cannabis and possess firearms present a unique societal risk, in part due to their purportedly “unlikely” adherence to proper firearm storage protocols.

In a legal brief submitted within this context, attorneys representing the Justice Department advanced the argument that the firearm prohibition targeting cannabis consumers obtains validation through historical analogies drawn from restrictions placed on individuals with mental illnesses and those afflicted by chronic alcohol dependency during the period encompassing the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791.

This ongoing discourse underscores the intricate legal nuances interwoven with the intricate interplay between federal firearm regulations and the multifaceted terrain of substance policy, with a particular focus on cannabis utilization. As this dialogue unfolds, it remains a central focal point of legal analysis and deliberation, encompassing constitutional considerations and matters of public safety with equal gravity.

Challenges to Firearm Restrictions for Cannabis Users: A Legal Analysis

The federal government has consistently maintained that historical analogies provide substantial justification for the imposition of restrictions on the gun rights of individuals who use cannabis. Nevertheless, a series of distinct rulings from federal courts have cast doubts upon the constitutionality of the ban related to cannabis use, prompting the Department of Justice (DOJ) to initiate appeals in ongoing legal cases.

In a parallel legal case heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in October, the Justice Department reiterated analogous arguments. This specific case centers on the Second Amendment rights of medical cannabis patients residing in Florida.

Attorneys involved in these legal proceedings have also made reference to a significant ruling handed down in August in the case of Daniels v. United States, which was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This ruling declared the prohibition on firearm ownership by individuals who use cannabis as unconstitutional, regardless of whether the cannabis consumption is for medical or non-medical purposes.

The DOJ had previously voiced its opposition to the Daniels v. United States ruling, asserting that it was “incorrectly decided.” The department’s legal representative reaffirmed the government’s stance, underscoring the presence of uncertainties regarding the foundational underpinnings of the appeals court’s decision.

Furthermore, in February, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma issued a ruling that determined the prohibition on firearm possession by cannabis users to be unconstitutional. The presiding judge in the case expressed reservations about the federal government’s rationale for upholding the law.

Similarly, in April, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas rendered a decision asserting that the ban on firearm possession by cannabis users violated constitutional principles. This legal principle was extended to encompass the sale and transfer of firearms, as confirmed by the court.

In August, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) addressed concerns arising from a newly enacted law in Arkansas that allowed medical cannabis patients to obtain concealed carry gun licenses. The ATF conveyed its apprehensions, indicating that the state law presented an “unacceptable risk” and had the potential to jeopardize the federally approved alternative policy governing firearm licensing in Arkansas.

Following the enactment of a cannabis legalization bill into law in Minnesota in May, the ATF issued a reminder reiterating that individuals who use cannabis are prohibited from possessing and purchasing firearms and ammunition. This prohibition remains in effect “until” federal cannabis prohibition is lifted. This ongoing legal discourse underscores the intricate interplay between federal firearm regulations and the ever-evolving terrain of substance policy, with a specific focus on safeguarding the rights of cannabis consumers. As these legal proceedings persist, they continue to serve as a central subject of analysis, scrutiny, and discourse, encompassing constitutional interpretations and concerns regarding public safety.

Gun Rights and Cannabis Policy: A Complex Interplay

In 2020, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a significant advisory specifically directed at the state of Michigan. This advisory mandated that firearms vendors within the state must adhere to federal background check procedures for all prospective gun buyers who do not possess a federal firearms license. The motivation behind this advisory stemmed from concerns related to Michigan’s cannabis laws, which inadvertently, it was believed, facilitated the acquisition of firearms by individuals categorized as “habitual cannabis users.” These individuals, under federal law, would typically be disqualified from firearm ownership.

It is imperative to underscore that, according to the prevailing statute, individuals who engage in the use of cannabis are subject to legal restrictions that prohibit them from owning firearms. However, recent attention has been drawn to a somewhat overlooked FBI memorandum dated 2019, which has resurfaced. This memorandum delineates a prevailing stance of the federal government that does not deem it a legal violation for medical cannabis caregivers and cultivators to be in possession of firearms. This disclosure introduces an additional stratum of intricacy into the ongoing discussion regarding the convergence of cannabis usage and firearm ownership.

In the current legislative session, Republican members of Congress have introduced two bills that squarely address the confluence of gun rights and cannabis policy. Representative Brian Mast (R-FL), who holds the position of co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, presented legislation in May with the primary aim of safeguarding the Second Amendment rights of individuals who use cannabis in states where its use is legal. This proposed legislation seeks to grant these individuals the ability to purchase and possess firearms, effectively mitigating the existing federal restrictions that would otherwise bar such ownership.

Significantly, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has publicly expressed his commitment to attaching this legislation to a bipartisan cannabis banking bill that recently received committee approval. This combined legislative effort now awaits further action on the Senate floor, signifying the evolving dynamics and increasing attention surrounding the rights of cannabis users in relation to firearm ownership.

Simultaneously, Representative Mast has also lent his support as a co-sponsor to a separate bill introduced by Representative Alex Mooney (R-WV) during the same legislative session. This bill adopts a more narrowly focused approach, specifically permitting medical cannabis patients to purchase and possess firearms, addressing a subset of the broader issue.

Furthermore, in July, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) articulated his belief that the justice system effectively managed the prosecution of President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. Nevertheless, he raised a noteworthy point regarding what he perceived as a double standard prevalent in the United States. This double standard, as Senator Booker argued, allowed presidents and members of Congress to openly acknowledge past cannabis use without facing repercussions, all the while subjecting thousands of less privileged individuals to punitive cannabis laws. Senator Booker’s observation underscores the ongoing debate surrounding cannabis policies and highlights the pressing need for equitable and just treatment under the law.

As the legislative and legal developments in this domain continue to evolve, the intricate interplay between federal firearm regulations and the ever-evolving landscape of substance policy, with particular emphasis on cannabis, remains a focal point of intense scrutiny and debate. The rights of cannabis users, medical caregivers, and growers concerning firearm ownership are pivotal issues that necessitate meticulous consideration within the ongoing policy discourse. These deliberations extend beyond the realm of legal intricacies and encapsulate broader inquiries into fairness, equity, and social justice.