Selective Swaddling
I had an argument, many years back, with my libertarian sparring partner about celebrities being prosecuted for violations of what we consider unjust laws. A couple of them, actually, if memory serves - some about prominent people being busted with drugs (we both believe in drug legalization) and one about Martha Stewart, who we concluded at the time had the book thrown at her for stuff the average bloke gets a wrist slap.
His position was that any conviction under unjust laws was unjust, and that we should celebrate everyone who "skates." Mine was that the path to remedy is enhanced by the exposure that big names get for being prosecuted unjustly.
This came to mind from witnessing the contrary. Specifically, Hunter Biden's much, MUCH delayed prosecution for lying about his drug use on the paperwork (Form 4473) everyone who buys a gun from a licensed dealer must complete. Specifically, Question F, which reads:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside
Answering "yes" to this disqualifies you from buying a gun. Answering "no" to this if you are a recreational drug user is a felony. It says so right above the signature block:
I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.
By his own admission, Biden was addicted to crack when he bought his gun. Furthermore, cocaine residue was found on the pouch he used to store the gun. While Biden, like all accused, deserves his day in court, the evidence seems slam-dunk. Yet the Biden family apologists are decrying this prosecution as sham-political even as they fling more sham-political crap at Trump.
The latest, and it's worth an aside, is that Trump received piles of foreign money while President, was rebutted by his son as rent payments for a commercial office lease dating back to 2020, and that all profits from that lease were donated to the Treasury. Good luck finding that rebuttal in the breathless coverage of "corruption." Trump may be guilty of some things, but his prosecutors and persecutors do themselves no favors with any but the already-convinced in chasing BS.
Back to Hunter and his gun purchase. The Left continues to want to disarm law-abiding Americans even as most of the nation continues its four decade march in a pro-gun-rights direction, yet when one of its own flouts the existing system and laws, why should any of us back more* restrictions on our gun rights?
Do I think that using recreational drugs should disqualify someone from owning a firearm? Absent other disqualifying behavior, the answer is "no." People who drink alcohol can own guns, and the country is full of people who know how to enjoy both while not intersecting them. But, the law of the land, today, says that lying about drug use on Form 4473 is a felony. If that's unjust, prosecuting prominent people for doing so might be thought of as a reason to discuss that injustice.
Is that going to happen in Hunter Biden's case? Not a chance. I've noted in the past my opposition to the death penalty, but I'd never in a million years use John Wayne Gacy as my ice-breaker. What we can get out of this episode is evidence supporting the Left's disregard for the law when it suits their ends, even in matters, such as guns, where they have staked out a hard-line position.
The narrative is that Hunter is "troubled," and so uniquely so as to warrant a special level of sympathy that extends to overlooking an overt gun felony.
Hogwash. Balderdash. Twaddle. Claptrap. Poppycock. MALARKEY!
If the Left wanted to "put up" in its endless efforts to quash our gun rights, its loudest voices should demand the book be thrown at Biden. That they remain mostly mute on this tells us, once again, that partisanship trumps principle.
If you or I were standing in the dock for this, we'd be looking at a simple conviction followed by jail time, without question. The law is clear and the facts are clear. The same goes for his flagrant tax evasion and failure to register as a foreign agent. The "gun charge" does not stand in isolation - it's related to everything else.
On the pity issue, Hunter is undeserving of pity stemming from his drug addiction, because that drug addiction was fueled/enabled/paid for by the wealth he withheld from the US Treasury which was "earned" surreptitiously serving foreign interests who used him as a go-between to secure favors (and intel) from his father. Sorry, but no, Hunter isn't a common drug addict by any stretch. This is like the kid who kills his parents, then throws himself on the mercy of the court "because he's an orphan".
So let's be clear: the real purpose of prosecuting Hunter is to get him to roll on Pops - the biggest fish. President Biden is now in the inconvenient position of having to defend Hunter - lest Hunter cop a plea and start ratting out the whole fam-damily. A lot of heads in that family are counting on Hunter keeping his mouth shut. And while the president's loyal administrators were aggressive in trying to sweep the whole sordid mess under the rug, Judge Maryellen Noreika called foul just as the whole thing was about to be "disappeared" forever.
Ultimately I don't know what happens to the Biden crime syndicate (I'm assuming the gravy train is stalled out for now) but in the meantime, the schadenfreude is delightful.
“If the Left wanted to "put up" in its endless efforts to quash our gun rights, its loudest voices should demand the book be thrown at Biden. That they remain mostly mute on this tells us, once again, that partisanship trumps principle.”