Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was he at that point in time? Because it asks if you are, not if you were.
Once an addict always an addict? Sort of like you dont stop being an alcoholic, just because you stopped drinking.
The man lied, it's that simple. That said I don't know that he should be prosecuted for it either. Hunter is a looser and that's the very very best thing that can be said about him. He is the guy that you pray to all the gods that your daughter never brings home.
I have to wonder how all of these people coming to Hunter’s defense would feel about living next-door to a crack addict with a gun? He has been in and out of rehab a half a dozen times over the last 17 years. By all means, give the man a gun so his sister-in-law/girlfriend can throw it in a trashcan across the street from a high school.
I have to wonder how all of these people coming to Hunter’s defense would feel about living next-door to a crack addict with a gun? He has been in and out of rehab a half a dozen times over the last 17 years. By all means, give the man a gun so his sister-in-law/girlfriend can throw it in a trashcan across the street from a high school.
Here's another brilliant comment from another post #36 on this thread:
Quote:
Hunter Biden had been an unlawful user but may not have been anunlawful user at the time he filled out the form.
Words matter.
I guess it means that as long as someone does not use drugs on the day they purchase a firearm they can claim that they are not "an unlawful user of, or addicted to marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" Question 11e. on Form 4473. Yet these Liberals claim to be so well educated.
Well I might have just murdered somebody yesterday but I'm not a murderer today. I wonder how that would stand up in court? That's Liberal logic for you.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 03-25-2021 at 06:42 PM..
I have to wonder how all of these people coming to Hunter’s defense would feel about living next-door to a crack addict with a gun? He has been in and out of rehab a half a dozen times over the last 17 years. By all means, give the man a gun so his sister-in-law/girlfriend can throw it in a trashcan across the street from a high school.
Because come hell or high water they will defend the indefensible when it comes to one of their own.
Is it so painful for left wing nuts to admit that Hunter Biden is an addict? He was court mandated to drug rehab and three hours after being released from a three month stint he was sitting in a hotel room with cocaine.
He lied on the form which asks “Are you a user of, or addicted to…
Once an addict always an addict? Sort of like you dont stop being an alcoholic, just because you stopped drinking.
The man lied, it's that simple. That said I don't know that he should be prosecuted for it either. Hunter is a looser and that's the very very best thing that can be said about him. He is the guy that you pray to all the gods that your daughter never brings home.
Once an addict always an addict? Sort of like you dont stop being an alcoholic, just because you stopped drinking.
The man lied, it's that simple. That said I don't know that he should be prosecuted for it either. Hunter is a looser and that's the very very best thing that can be said about him. He is the guy that you pray to all the gods that your daughter never brings home.
Of course he should be prosecuted. Why should he just because he's Hunter Biden be allowed to get away with it? If for nothing else his old man is out there advocating for laws that would turn law abiding people into criminals for possession of something that they already lawfully own. In spite of the fact that it would be a direct violation of Ex Post Facto statutes that are written into the constitution.
Have you ever taken the time to read some of the legislation that is being proposed regarding so called assault weapons and high capacity feeding devises that Biden supports? Or that he's promised to put Beto "Hell yes we're gonna' take your AR-15's" O'Rourke in charge of gun control policies? Sure you may be able to keep them providing you register them with the federal government, pay hundreds of dollars in fees, and fill out a 14 page form for each weapon and magazine registered. Failure to comply could result in felony charges, fines and imprisonment. How the hell you could register magazines that have no serial numbers is beyond me?
Let his own son rot in prison if he wants that for everyone else that violates laws that are unconstitutional and passed for the sole purpose of political retribution. What better way is there to punish your political enemies than to criminalize their lawful activities and possessions when you have the power to do so? That's what the intended purpose of these proposed laws are all about. It's certainly not about making this a safer country as they will have absolutely no affect on the criminal misuse of firearms. Who the hell are they trying to fool?
Quote:
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
Art 1, § 9
This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Art. 1 § 10.
This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. ---https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.
The prohibition of ex post facto laws was an imperative in colonial America. The Framers of the Constitution understood the importance of such a prohibition, considering the historical tendency of government leaders to abuse power. As Alexander Hamilton observed, "[i]t is easy for men … to be zealous advocates for the rights of the citizens when they are invaded by others, and as soon as they have it in their power, to become the invaders themselves."
The desire to thwart abuses of power also inspired the Framers of the Constitution to prohibit bills of attainder, which are laws that inflict punishment on named individuals or on easily ascertainable members of a group without the benefit of a trial. Both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder deprive those subject to them of due process of law—that is, of notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.---https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ex+Post+Facto+Laws
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 03-25-2021 at 07:25 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
