Hunter Biden sees legal opportunity as Supreme Court decision may aid defense in firearms charge

WASHINGTON, DC: Hunter Biden is expected to renew his argument for the validity of the federal statute that prohibits drug addicts from possessing firearms as he gets ready to appeal his most recent sentence, according to Politico.

Notably, the Supreme Court's decision, which was rendered on Friday, June 21, by an 8-1 vote, clearly lays out the course for such a challenge and even includes wording that would support it.

A blessing in disguise for Hunter Biden

Eric Ruben, a professor at the SMU Dedman School of Law and a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice said, "I think at the end of the day, Hunter Biden may benefit from this."

Notably, United States v Rahimi, a case decided on Friday, concerned a federal gun control legislation provision that prohibits the ownership of weapons by those subject to domestic violence restraining orders. It's a companion clause to the one against drug users, which Biden was found to have broken.

Moreover, following the Rahimi case carefully, Biden's legal team had anticipated the court would invalidate the domestic violence section, which would have meant the end of the drug-users provision. That was not done by the court.

However, Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear in his majority decision that the justices were only approving the confiscation of firearms from those who have already been found to be a threat to others by a judge. That's exactly what transpired with Texas man Zackey Rahimi, whose case made it to the top court.

Roberts wrote, "[W]e reject the Government's contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not 'responsible'. 'Responsible' is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail."

That statement is encouraging for Biden, according to criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan firearms prosecutor Peter Tilem. He said, "If you look at the holding of the court, there has to be a finding by a court that the person is a danger to someone."

Peter Tilem suggests Hunter Biden should challenge constitutionality of drug-users ban

Tilem continued, citing the portion of the US Code that prohibits drug usage, "It seems to me that 922(g)(3), whether someone is a drug user, doesn’t necessarily make them a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner or anyone else."

However, there is a significant disclaimer in Roberts' perspective. He said that 'categories of persons thought by a legislature to present a special danger of misuse' are nonetheless covered by the Second Amendment, which permits gun prohibitions. It is uncertain if drug users would qualify.

Moreover, if Tilem were Biden's attorney, he added, he would push for a constitutional challenge to the prohibition of drug usage.

He said, "This is a little-used statute and I would certainly think that he has a very strong claim."

Notably, before his trial in Wilmington, Delaware, earlier in June, Biden attempted to have the charges dismissed for constitutional reasons.

The trial judge turned down the request, and Biden was found guilty by a jury of three crimes related to his 2018 firearm purchase. The jury concluded that he had lied on paperwork about the purchase of a gun and that he was either addicted to or using crack cocaine at the time of the transaction.