Hunter Biden is a convicted felon.
I don’t mind repeating that mostly because so many people can’t help but say it about Trump. Yes, it’s true, but so is the term’s application toward Hunter Biden.
The truth is, though, that the law he’s convicted of breaking probably shouldn’t exist. That’s especially true following Bruen.
Like Friday’s Cargill decision, Bruen was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who might be the most vilified member of the Supreme Court these days.
And he just might be Hunter’s best hope.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas‘ recent and upcoming decisions could play a surprising role in aiding recently convicted Hunter Biden.
…
Typically, the Supreme Court wraps up its session at the end of June, delivering many important and sometimes life-changing decisions at the end of the month. In the coming days, the Court is expected to decide on U.S. v. Rahimi, a case that could alter how Hunter Biden’s felony gun case is viewed.
The case focuses on whether domestic violence abusers can be barred from owning guns or if that is a violation of the Second Amendment. It reaches the Supreme Court two years after it ruled on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, a case that expanded gun rights.
In Bruen, the Court ruled that both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home and that New York’s requirement for a “special need for self-defense” to obtain a public-carry license is unconstitutional.
Justice Thomas wrote the 6-3 majority opinion, stating, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Zackey Rahimi, who argues that a federal law limiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns is unconstitutional, Hunter Biden would have “a lot of ammunition” when challenging his conviction, Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, told CNN in an article Wednesday.
Another case pending before the Court, U.S. v. Daniels, mirrors Hunter Biden’s crime, as police found marijuana and two guns in his car. Given the petition is pending, it is likely that after ruling on Rahimi, that the Court will send Daniels back to lower courts with the new precedent from Rahimi.
Of course, this was written before Cargill was announced, which means that it’s unlikely the writer had a clue who was going to write that decision. With Thomas having written that one, it’s unlikely he’ll write both Rahimi and Daniels.
But I suppose it’s not out of the realm of possibility he could write at least one of them, and if it’s Daniels, one would expect it to be consistent with Bruen.
If so, that basically opens the door for Hunter Biden to walk free.
At least on these charges.
We know, for example, that while colonial America has laws against walking around with a gun while drunk, there were no prohibitions on people who were habitual users of anything. Had the law barred carrying a gun while high, it would be consistent with the laws of that time, thus passing the history, text, and tradition standard laid out in Bruen.
But that’s not what Hunter was convicted of. His sin was being a drug user when he bought the gun–more accurately, it was him lying about it, but had there been no prohibition, the lying wouldn’t have occurred.
Should Daniels come down in Hunter’s favor, including being written by Thomas, then the Biden family would actually have a positive resolution to their family drama written by a man they despise.
Of course, Thomas could, in theory, write a decision in such a way that it wouldn’t benefit Hunter at all, though I doubt we’d see that without firm legal reasoning as to why that’s the case. Why? Integrity, and contrary to the narrative being spun, all real indications are that Thomas has it.
