A Legal Scrutiny of The Hunter Biden Controversial Gun Charges

In the political arena, allegations and contentious scandals often come uninvited. This truth is no stranger to Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President, Joe Biden.

The legal course around his alleged involvement in illicit gun activities has generated aggressive headlines, with many predicting a subsequent trial. However, an in-depth and impartial analysis of these legal proceedings indicates the contrary.

The Hunter Biden Controversy A Matter of Justice and Legality

Hunter Biden has been engulfed in controversy over his purported violation of gun laws. Speculations took a dramatic turn when he was accused of lying on a federal firearms form during a gun purchase in 2018.

According to his critics, Hunter’s actions fall under the jurisdiction of federal law, fueling assumptions of impending criminal proceedings. However, thorough investigation may reveal that this sensationalized controversy lacks the substance predicted by many.

The Truth about Federal Firearm Forms

The accusers chiefly argue that Hunter lied on the Federal Form 4473, a document required for the judicial control of firearms in the United States.

The form asks the applicant if they are an “unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substances.”

Hunter was accused of falsifying his answer to this question. Contrary to popular belief, this is a very complex matter. Irwin, an expert in gun law, states that the question is subjective and can be interpreted differently by individuals, thus making it challenging to litigate.

The Case of Intent

Federal law, under 18 U.S.C. 922 (a)(6), stipulates that one must “knowingly” make any false oral or written statement to be criminally liable.

The operative term here is “knowingly,” indicating deliberate deceit. Given the vagueness of “unlawful user” or “addicted to,” it is difficult and practically impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunter knowingly lied. Hence, the claim that he committed perjury is not supported by sufficient evidence.

Precedence and Selective Prosecution

Harry Dawson emphasizes that historically, false statements on Form 4473 are seldom prosecuted unless connected to more substantial crimes.

On dozens of occasions, such charges have been dropped due to the difficulty of determining intentional deceit.

Thus, it is implausible to assume Hunter Biden’s case would be an exception. Doing so might suggest subjective bias or selective prosecution.

My Take

The alleged charges against Hunter Biden have been amplified under the spotlight, drawing mass political assumptions.

However, entering the realm of law and justice, there is an unmistakable requirement for objectivity, proof, and precedent. In light of these factors, the overblown claim of a trial against Hunter Biden for the gun charges appears to reveal more about political maneuvering than legal substance.

Whether you like or not, the nuances of language and the burden of proof coupled with historical precedence indisputably show that these charges do not guarantee a forthcoming trial, if any at all.