Hunter Biden Says 2nd Amendment Should Make Felony Convictions Go Away

Photo Courtesy of: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, has his legal counsel using the 2nd Amendment to try and negate his three felony convictions.

If it was not made clear already, we actually agree that the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms form (4473) that got Biden in trouble should not exist. The ATF itself should not exist but we will save that discussion for another time.

It is ironic that the son of one of the most anti-2nd Amendment President’s in U.S. history is now trying to use the 2A for his get out of jail card. Karma maybe?

Help us reach 1,000 followers on Rumble!

For those who do not know, Biden was convicted by a Delaware jury in June because he was a crack addict who lied on the ATF form when purchasing a firearm which requires you to agree that you are not using illegal drugs, which Biden clearly was.

Interestingly, Biden’s legal counsel is using the recent Bruen and Rahimi cases to say that his conviction will ultimately be found unconstitutional because of the 2nd Amendment. And it would be fascinating if Biden’s conviction was ultimately overturned on those grounds.

The argument using Rahimi is that the Supreme Court indicated that someone who is “dangerous” should have their guns taken away. Biden was not convicted for committing any acts of violence but for being on drugs. Not that we believe you should use illegal drugs, but there was not a victim in Biden’s case, therefore exposing a big issue with the law that gun owners have argued for years.

How many Americans currently use marijuana, which is still illegal in all 50 states under federal law, and how many would be in prison because of how they filled out that question on the same form?

Their other argument being used by Biden’s defense team is that there are no historical laws that someone who was using any kind of substance was banned from owning a gun.

Again, we agree with Biden’s defense and hope that it will ultimately prevail in the end, but it seems unlikely.

The government is arguing that Biden’s defense is weak and irrelevant. They are saying that Biden was dangerous because of his crack cocaine addiction and that he left the gun in an unlocked vehicle.

Part of the government’s rebuttal to Biden’s defense was about his criminal endeavors, saying in part,

For example, the defendant admitted in his memoir that his frequent use of crack cocaine led him to ‘darkest corners of every community,’ and he ‘bec[a]me dependent not only on a criminal subculture to access what [he] need[ed] but the lowest rung of that subculture—the one with the highest probability of violence and depravity.’”


Who do you side with in this case?

Let us know in the comments below.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *