The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is offering its assistance to Hunter Biden in challenging the constitutionality of the three gun laws he was recently convicted of violating.
Back in August of last year, FPC tweeted: “Hey @JoeBiden – If Hunter is looking for gun lawyers to challenge the federal law he’s charged with violating … we know some people. Our references are your DOJ and ATF lawyers but feel free to ask around. [Attorney General Merrick Garland] can fill you in on the details.”
At issue is whether the laws against lying on a background check and banning drug users for purchasing firearms are constitutional under the 2022 Bruen ruling. Under that ruling, courts considering gun control laws must ask two questions: first, whether the law violates the plain text of the Second Amendment. If the answer to that question is yes, the court must ask if such a restriction can be found in the “nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”
After Hunter Biden’s conviction on June 11, for which his lawyers are now seeking a new trial, FPC has reiterated that offer of assistance.
“FPC stands by this offer,” the group said in a recent press release. “As President Joe Biden is aware, FPC has defeated the federal government on multiple occasions over the past two years. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court this year agreed to hear one of FPC’s cases in which it prevailed in the courts below.”
FPC President Joe Combs said laws such as those used to charge and convict Hunter Biden are unjust and unconstitutional.
“Countless lives are destroyed every year under the federal governments unconstitutional and immoral regulations,” Combs said. “We proudly work to eliminate these laws and create a free world. Just as we have in many other cases, we stand ready to assist Mr. Biden in his challenge of federal gun laws.”
As FPC mentioned in the release, last year the organization filed an amicus brief in United States v. Daniels. The 5th Circuit Court subsequently reversed Mr. Daniels’ conviction and dismissed the indictment on similar charges to those against Hunter, holding that “our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapons, but it doesn’t not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage. Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users.”
Read the full article here