In the midst of a gripping federal gun trial, Hunter Biden’s legal team has mounted a formidable defense hinged on constitutional safeguards and a purported lack of evidence, as the case hurtles toward a conclusion. The defense’s latest maneuver includes filing motions for acquittal, vigorously asserting that the prosecution has not only charged a “non-crime” but has also failed to present sufficient evidence to convict the president’s son.
At the heart of the trial is the accusation that Hunter Biden “knowingly made a false and fictitious written statement” to procure a firearm from StarQuest Shooters & Survival Supply when Biden “certified” on an ATF form that he “was not an unlawful user of, and addicted to, any stimulant, narcotic drug, and any other controlled substance.” Special counsel David Weiss has focused on an 11-day period in 2018 during which Biden allegedly possessed the weapon while being an illicit drug user.
However, Biden’s defense has challenged the validity of one of the charges, specifically count 3, which they contend is predicated on a statute that is “no longer criminally enforceable.” Citing a congressional amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) in 2022, the defense points out that Congress did not provide for the enforcement of the statute post-amendment for prior violations of Section 922(g).
Further emphasizing their point, the defense lawyers argue, “If Congress had intended to maintain the enforceability of Section 924(a)(2) as to pre-amendment violations of Section 922(g), it would have followed its past practice of making that clear in its amendments to the statute.”
In addition to the statutory argument, Biden’s legal team has invoked the Second Amendment and related Supreme Court precedent to reinforce their acquittal motions. The recent landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, as explicated by Justice Clarence Thomas and applied by the Fifth Circuit in U.S. v. Daniels, is particularly salient, the defense contends, with respect to the unconstitutionality of prohibiting gun ownership based on a history of intoxicant use.
The defense’s argument further pivots on the lack of direct evidence linking Biden to drug use at the time of the firearm’s acquisition. Contrary to the government’s charges, the defense posits that the prosecution’s evidence fails to demonstrate that Biden was using drugs “at the same time he possessed the gun,” despite admissions of past addiction.
Moreover, the motions challenge the notion that Biden “knowingly” viewed himself as an addict after rehabilitation, arguing, “there is no evidence that when Mr. Biden bought the gun, after having gone through a detoxification and rehabilitation program, he believed that he still suffered from drug addiction or was a present-tense drug user because he had stopped using.”
As the jury deliberations commenced, the prosecution retorted in their closing argument that it was “preposterous” for Biden, a “Yale-educated lawyer,” not to be aware of his drug-addicted state when he purchased the weapon. However, defense attorney Abbe Lowell robustly countered, urging the jury to dismiss what he dubbed the government’s “conjecture and suspicion,” and to consider the absence of direct evidence indicative of Biden’s sobriety during the period in question.
Relevant articles:
– ‘Tellingly absent’: Hunter Biden lawyers embrace Second Amendment, claim lack of evidence in motions for acquittal as federal gun trial speeds toward end , Law & Crime, 06/10/2024
– Hunter Biden gun trial: Day 1 of jury deliberations ends with no verdict, ABC News, 06/10/2024
– Day 6 of Hunter Biden’s federal gun trial, CNN, 06/10/2024
– Hunter Biden gun trial: Day 1 of jury deliberations ends with no verdict, Good Morning America, 06/10/2024
Glad you enjoyed above story, be sure to follow TrendyDigests on Microsoft Start.