I'm vocally pro-2A and opposed to the existence of the ATF. Hunter Biden's gun charges are focused on him allegedly lying on question 11e on the 4473 form that we all have to fill out whenever we purchase a firearm, and that's an ATF form.
Under the letter of the law, Hunter Biden is probably guilty. In fact, he probably incriminated himself with his own words in his own memiors. The question on the form is whether or not the purchaser of the firearm is an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance. Hunter was not only an unlawful user and an addict; but, he also knew damn well that he was both an unlawful user and an addict.
Just being an addict can be a matter of perception. In fact, one could argue that a great many addicts are in active denial of their addictions. In that case, if the person isn't an unlawful user, the mens rea aspect of any charge of checking the wrong box next to that question could be incredibly hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Since Biden was also an unlawful user, the mens rea aspect shouldn't be hard to prove.
Now, that said, even if I did believe that the ATF had a justifiable reason to exist, the nature of the question and the penalties for lying have a lot of problems.
I won't spend too much time dwelling on the fact that the definitions regarding controlled substances are, just like most things at the federal level, archaic. Marijuana is still classified as a controlled substance while alcohol and tobacco aren't.
I'm more concerned about the nature of the enforcement of this rule. Specifically, Hunter Biden being charged seems suspect to me; but, I'll get back around to him.
Realistically, there are probably tens of thousands, if not more, Americans who check the wrong box on this question. A lot of people don't know that the state laws are often different from national laws, and they'll check "no" while being a regular user of marijuana.
This question has no bearing as to whether or not the person was intoxicated while operating the firearm. Every state has laws against firing a gun while under the influence. The question on this form could be used to get somebody thrown in prison for a quarter of a century even if he or she were stone-cold sober while operating the firearm.
In that sense, it seems like a much more perverse version of possession charges. Namely, they're usually there to tack an easy charge on a person who is otherwise innocent of any wrongdoing.
In fact, of the approximately 1,000 Americans a year who ever face the charges that Hunter Biden is facing, the majority of them do have this charge added on top of charges of unlawful use of a firearm or a violent crime. It's exceedingly rare for these charges to be brought in a vacuum.
On that point, it does seem that Hunter Biden's indictment on these charges is entirely political, but for the facts that the ATF and the Biden administration get along pretty well, and a conviction against Hunter is bound to hurt Joe's reelection chances.
So, given the facts that I have, where would I stand if I were a juror?
I think I'd have to go with nullification on this one.
I think that Hunter Biden is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I also don't believe for a second that a guilty verdict would result in him spending the maximum twenty-five years in prison. In fact, I'd be surprised if he were sentenced to jail time.
I believe that everybody should be held accountable to the same standards. I also believe that that needs to go both ways.
If I were on a jury for some random dude facing the same charges with the same evidence against him, I would turn in a not guilty vote. I would have to do the same for a douche like Hunter Biden. For me to say that I find anything right about Hunter Biden going to prison over this gun charge would either be me asserting that the ATF is to have this rule to begin with, or for me to feel that it's right to find somebody guilty because I don't like him or because it'll hurt my political opponents. I don't believe that any of those positions are morally right.
If anything, if the pro-2A people with larger platforms than I have can play this right, Hunter Biden being found not guilty would be helpful. It seems pretty clear that he's guilty. If he gets off, the point that this is a law that could be evoked against countless, normal Americans at any time who may not be so rich and lucky might be a strong enough message to give the gun grabbers some pause.