NewYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
On Friday, Hunter Biden may have missed the greatest Hail Mary pass in history. When Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach threw his famous winning touchdown pass to wide receiver Drew Pearson in 1975, he later explained that “I closed my eyes and said a Hail Mary.” For Hunter, a pass to the Supreme Court nearly 50 years later missed just as spectacularly.
Hunter and his legal team hoped the Court would strike down federal gun laws in this case. United States v. Rahimi, Hunter was recently convicted by a unanimous jury in Delaware of making false statements on a gun form and possessing a gun as a drug addict. He is arguing against the position of his father’s administration and adopting the same argument as the National Rifle Association (NRA) in challenging the constitutionality of the law.
Supreme Court Recently, an 8-1 vote held that the law is indeed constitutional and that a court can temporarily deprive citizens of the right to bear arms to protect others. The only dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas.
Supreme Court upholds federal gun ban for people under domestic violence restraining orders
The case concerns a drug dealer named Jackie Rahimi, who was under a restraining order in 2019 after an altercation with his girlfriend (referred to as CM), with whom he had a child. Rahimi allegedly knocked CM down, dragged her into the car and then (as CM was fleeing) opened fire on CM or a passerby. He was also accused of threatening to shoot her if she went to the police.
Hunter Biden is arguing against the position of his father’s administration and adopting a similar logic as the National Rifle Association (NRA) in challenging the constitutionality of the law. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
Texas Trial Courts It found that Rahimi had not only engaged in “family violence,” but that additional violence was “likely to occur again in the future.” According to the order, Rahimi’s gun license was suspended for two years and he was barred from contacting the CM for that period. Depending on any imprisonment, his gun rights will be suspended for one or two years after his release date, according to the order.
However, Rahimi’s work was still not done. He later violated the order by contacting the CM and communicating with her via social media. Months later, Rahimi threatened a different woman with a gun and was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Finally, a police officer later identified him as a suspect in at least five additional shooting incidents.
Supreme Court Judges posing for an official photo at the Supreme Court. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)
It was not exactly the poster child for lawful gun owners, and the Court did not view the suspension of their gun rights as an unconstitutional deprivation. Since the Court first recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), it has held that it is not an absolute right. There are actually no absolute rights in the Constitution.
I’m the cake artist who won in the Supreme Court. Find out why I’m still in court
The Court found that federal law imposes reasonable temporary limits on this right. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. He wrote that “if a person is found by a court to be a threat to the physical safety of another person, he or she may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
The main thing is the temporal qualification. The Court is simply saying that the court can make reasonable decisions based on such a record to protect others from allegedly violent defendants.
FILE – The US Supreme Court is seen in Washington on November 15, 2023. (AP Photo/Maryam Zuhaib, File)
While the majority found that such temporary limits were consistent with historical practices, Judge Thomas in this case stated that it was “temporary limits that were consistent with historical practices.” Bruen The decision that strengthened protections under the Second Amendment after Heller objected that the Court could not cite “a single landmark regulation” to justify federal legislation. Bruen had emphasised such historical practices in interpreting protection under second Amendment,
This brings us back to Hunter. While the outcome in Washington was not as bad as the unanimous decision in Delaware, it sealed his fate on appeal. U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika oversaw a fair and textbook trial, leaving him little room for appeal.
Biden’s legal team has been relying on the Hail Mary pass ever since a special counsel was appointed. It almost worked. Special counsel David Weiss seemed to work hard to avoid any felony charges against the president’s son.
Justice Department Not only did it allow the statute of limitations on major crimes to apply, but it also sought to finalize an obscene plea agreement for Hunter with no jail time. At the hearing to accept the plea, Judge Noreika decided to ask the prosecutor a few cursory questions, particularly about the broad immunity provision covering any and all crimes committed by Hunter. The prosecutor admitted that he had never seen such a generous agreement for a defendant.
For more Fox News opinion, click here
The argument failed, and Biden’s team seemed unwilling to accept anything less than a one-and-done victory. They told prosecutors in court, “Just tear it up.”
Biden’s legal team made a mistake in taking the case to trial with a jury nullification strategy. Some of us wrote that Hunter should plead guilty to avoid a prison sentence. Instead, they hoped to get a conviction. Delaware Jury People in Bidentown could never blame Biden. They were wrong.
That left the last pass with the Supreme Court, which appeared to fall into the stadium seats. In reality, it was never a strong throw. After all, Hunter was convicted of lying on the gun form, something the Court could never forgive.
Now all that’s left for Hunter is Sentencing guidelines that strongly favor prison sentences and a judge who has imposed such a prison term in previous cases.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Other groups of people may be even more upset by this decision. Many in the media and Congress. Once again, the Court has shattered the false narrative that it is a hopelessly divided court along ideological lines. This month the Court has continued to issue unanimous or near-unanimous rulings, including in cases like Rahimi’s that involve controversial constitutional claims.
Instead, the Court provided a reasonable, balanced accommodation for public safety under the Second Amendment. It is unclear who is more disappointed: Hunter or the Court’s critics.
