Opinion: For those who value the Second Amendment, Hunter Biden's case holds significance.
Some time ago, when I was just a young boy - around 7 or 8 years old, my grandpa decided it was time to teach his grandkids about the value of hunting, a cherished southern tradition that emphasized the right to own and use firearms. I recall him sharing stories of how, in his day, a firearm was the only means for Black men to protect themselves and their families against racists who sought to educate Blacks with a lesson they'd never forget. He'd say, "They knew we had guns and how to use them, so they didn't bother us."
This memory has always stayed with me, reminding me that firearms, regardless of their size or capacity, are not weapons of war solely, but also a means to protect oneself and even the playing field against any racist or bigot who believed they had the power to violate the rights and freedoms of those they saw as inferior.
When I grew up, I delved into competitive shooting - a pastime I adore - and I still go hunting with my closet friends, keeping the customs my grandpa imparted to me alive. I've now co-established a firearms production firm that produces high-quality educational and entertaining material on firearm operations, ownership, and increasing my understanding of gun culture. My partner John and I have had the chance to collaborate with some of the biggest firearms manufacturers and gun rights advocacy groups in the country.
The firearms community has recently been welcoming more women and people of color, who are among the fastest-growing segments of gun owners in the United States. My love and understanding of this community, the Second Amendment, and firearms are what prompt me to oppose Biden's ruling against Hunter Biden, whom I believe is subjected to a Second Amendment infringement.
I passionately object to Biden's continual undermining of the Second Amendment and the enforcement of the Firearms Bureau under his administration. As an ardent defender of the Second Amendment and its relevance to all Americans, including the president's son, I'm concerned about his actions.
Biden talked to the Everytown for Gun Safety conference not long after Hunter got convicted of three charges related to possession of a firearm, effectively making him a felon. The juxtaposition of images was unmissable. While President Biden was talking about enhancing background checks for prospective weapon buyers, two of Hunter's felony convictions were related to lying about his drug use on the ATF's Form 4473, which a licensee uses to conduct a background check.
Wouldn't it be ironic?
Nonetheless, Hunter should have never needed to reveal his drug use on that form. The Supreme Court in the US should rule on his case, which involves a gun constraint I consider illegal.
An identical case was overturned in 2023 by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel reversed the sentence of Patrick Darnell Daniels, Jr., who was imprisoned for four years for a gun-related crime. When the police officer stopped Daniels for a parking infraction, he spotted two marijuana tips and two loaded firearms in the vehicle. Daniels' drug of choice (marijuana) contrasts with Hunter Biden's (abused crack cocaine), but the law targeted them for the same reason: They were in possession of a firearm while "recently" being "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance."
The overturned conviction of Daniels was explained by the 5th Circuit. They stated that although laws have regulated guns and intoxicating substances throughout American history, disarming anyone following them was not a tradition. "No point in the 18th or 19th century did the government disarm people who used drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another."
The court also added that historical precedents supporting some limits on owning a firearm while under the influence didn't "justify disarming a sober citizen based solely on his past drug usage." Moreover, cultural traditions focused on disarming dangerous individuals didn't "support this restriction on nonviolent drug users."
This was evident in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which tested limitations on obtaining concealed carry permits. In a 6-3 ruling in favor of gun rights, conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stated that "to validate a gun regulation, the government needs to demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
The inability of the federal government to satisfy this requirement in Daniels' case led to the 5th Circuit reversing his sentence. With the Bruen decision as a guide, I strongly believe that the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals will do the same if Hunter Biden appeals.
I can't help but think about the number of Black men who've gone through scenarios similar to Daniels' - pulled over for small traffic offenses, nabbed with controlled substances, and eventually charged with felonies following the discovery of a gun. A lot of these men are either behind bars or are stuck being felons, unable to work or vote due to the barriers they face in being good citizens.
The ironic part is that it might be Hunter Biden's situation that goes before the Supreme Court, having an influence on this country's gun laws - particularly for individuals with drug history. Should the court decide in his favor, those men could potentially have their cases revisited and illegal statuses overturned.
Although the President seems bent on misusing the Second Amendment and violating our sacred right to bear arms, it's possible that, in this particular case, the Second Amendment might bring about a positive change - though it may not be in the way he expects. His son's possible change in status could be the very thing that allows other felons to have their cases reheard.
Read also:
Despite the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden's case, many individuals share opposing opinions on the implications for gun rights. They argue that applying a firearm constraint based on past drug use sets a precarious precedent that could disproportionately impact certain communities.
This situation has sparked discussions among gun rights advocates about the potential misapplication of Second Amendment restrictions, particularly when it comes to individuals with drug histories.
