Subject: Re: Selective prosecution
Why is Hunter different, why should he not be subject to laws that are on the books?

Because the law on the books is apparently in contradiction to the Constitution.


<<" Biden has a reasonable chance ' in the chaotic aftermath of Bruen, and especially given this conservative Supreme Court ' of prevailing in his argument that the addict-in-possession ban violates the Second Amendment.

Last year, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court upended its approach to gun rights, saying that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms permits only those gun restrictions that have a basis in 'history and tradition.' That blinkered interpretation has set off a flurry of challenges to existing gun laws in the lower courts as judges have been forced to scour colonial-era statutes for analogies to modern-day regulations.

In Hunter Biden's case, that means finding historical antecedents for the federal law that prohibits those who use illegal drugs from purchasing or possessing firearms. Biden was indicted Thursday on three felony counts: making two false statements on a gun purchase form that he did not use and was not addicted to controlled substances, and illegally possessing a Colt revolver while he was using narcotics.

'Our response to the charge in court will point out that the United States Department of Justice, which is supposed to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, by bringing its firearm charge, is disregarding the rulings of the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit and is seeking to punish Mr. Biden for exercising a constitutional right these courts have stated he has,'

https://www.washingtonpost.com...