Hunter Biden's Plea to Dismiss Felony Gun Charges
Hunter Biden seeks dismissal of felony gun charges, arguing Second Amendment rights; challenges indictment filed by special counsel Weiss
Hunter Biden is seeking to have his three-count felony gun indictment dismissed by a judge. The indictment was brought forth earlier this year by special counsel David Weiss. President Joe Biden's son is contesting the charges, citing violations of his Second Amendment rights and alleging that prosecutors are going back on a previous agreement not to charge him with gun-related offenses.
On February 4, 2023, U.S. President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden were seen disembarking from Air Force One at Hancock Field Air National Guard Base in Syracuse, New York, U.S. The image was captured by REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz.
Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters
Hunter Bidens latest indictment brings an uncomfortable ordeal to the forefront for his father
Hunter Biden's gun indictment originated from his purchase of a revolver in October 2018, which he possessed for less than two weeks. He is accused of falsely declaring on a federal form that he was not using or addicted to illegal drugs, despite being addicted to crack cocaine at the time. He is also facing charges for illegally possessing the gun. Apart from the gun case in Delaware, Hunter Biden is also confronting federal tax charges in California. The indictments were sought by Weiss last week following the collapse of a plea deal over the summer.
Hunter Biden's legal team has been contending for several months that a portion of their previous agreement with prosecutors remains in effect, despite the deal being terminated. They argue that this provision should prevent Weiss from pursuing gun charges. The agreements involved a "plea agreement" in which Hunter Biden would admit guilt to two tax misdemeanors, and a "diversion agreement" in which Weiss would forgo a gun charge after two years if Hunter Biden maintained sobriety and stayed out of trouble.
The tax plea deal fell apart after facing scrutiny in July and never became effective. Both parties signed the gun deal before the plea hearing, but the court probation officer's signature was missing. Now, US District Judge Maryellen Noreika will determine if it is legally binding.
In a court filing on Monday, Hunter Biden's lawyers stated, "Neither the Court nor anyone else is a party to the (Diversion) Agreement. The Agreement only requires approval and execution by the parties to take effect, and that has taken place."
Hunter Biden's legal team believes that the "sweeping immunity" in the agreement should have prevented Weiss from bringing the recently filed tax charges in California. They also argue that legal problems with the appointment of the special counsel prevent the case from moving forward. Similar arguments were raised in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into then-President Donald Trump and were ultimately rejected.
Second Amendment case
The viability of the gun possession charge is already in question. A federal appeals court previously struck down the law, which says illegal drug users cant own firearms.
That August ruling only impacts Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, but it undermines the validity of the statute and may set the stage for the Supreme Court to strike it down across the country.
US President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, arrives to appear in a federal court on gun charges in Wilmington, Delaware, on October 3.
Mike Seagar/Reuters/File
Explanation behind Hunter Biden's legal issues
The appeals court in New Orleans made a unanimous decision based on a significant Supreme Court case from June 2022, which broadened the scope of the Second Amendment.
Hunter Biden's lawyers argued in a court filing on Monday that individuals covered by the Second Amendment should not be prohibited from owning firearms just because of past drug use. They claimed that this practice goes against the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the nation. Additionally, they asserted that it is inevitable for the Supreme Court to invalidate the law and that the false-statement charges are also inappropriate as they are based on the same theory.
