• grayman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Hunter is most likely going to walk for good reason. What he was charged with are unconditional laws. If he walks, so will Trump. And that’s assuming you can pin Trump with unlawful use first.

      DOJ knows they are getting crushed with Hunter. Even 2A orgs offered legal help to him. They know the laws can’t be upheld by an honest judge. So why hit Trump with the same charges that they’re losing their shit over with Hunter?

    • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      No, it isn’t. Hunter is being charged with lying about drug use on a gun form. This would be Trump buying a gun with active indictments against him.

      • remotelove@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        It’s a question on a federal background check. For people who live in states where scheduled drugs are legal for recreation, it’s a grey area. The state wouldn’t care, but the feds do.

        It’s basically boils down to “gotcha” requirements. If you get investigated for federal crimes and also own firearms but live in a state where some scheduled drugs are legal that you use, the fed can still just flag any future checks and charge you with lying on any previous background checks.

        I am not a fan of that kind of legal fuckery, especially if a person happens to be charged with a crime they didn’t commit and still get investigated.

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          It’s worth noting that this kind of shit never happens and the only reason Hunter is being charged with it is because that’s all they could make stick

          • Maeve@kbin.socialBanned from community
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            It happens. It’s just not usually news worthy. Low bar, but still.

  • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    While Trump remains the frontrunner in the GOP race for the White House, he has also been indicted in four criminal cases this year, and therefore cannot purchase a gun under the law.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I mean, you don’t want a Trump getting in office and then stopping someone from running for president with a bunch of bogus charges. That’s why there aren’t that many ways to completely disqualify someone. It’s a concept that’s proven to be timely as it’s part of how Putin stays in power.

        … the presumption is that we should all be smart enough to realize the charges are real and not put the felon in the Whitehouse.

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Because stopping him from running would require a constitutional amendment of some sort, OR he be disqualified under the 14th.

    • HewlandRower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      A federal judge in texas ruled last year that preventing people under indictment from purchasing firearms was unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, just FYI. So I don’t think the situation is as cut and dry as it would have been just a couple years ago.

      • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don’t really think it’s super worthwhile to spend a bunch of time discussing if and should about those cases here. The larger point is that he apparently tried to lie about his gun cred by pretending to buy a gun. And that of he had, he would have been committing the same crime they got Hunter with.

        In other news, Bruen is terrible.

  • argo_yamato@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 years ago

    So a spokesman posts on Twitter that he bought a gun and then someone has to delete the post and say it is not true? Sounds like amateur hour for his campaign but I thought he only hired the “best and brightest”.

  • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I can’t wait til he snorts a ton of coke he’s next debate so any one that’s ever done the drug can pretend he was totally sober, again.

    • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Woah woah - as someone who has never done cocaine, is that why he was so nuts (even for him) in the first presidential debate? I’ve been wondering how anyone could have witnessed that and still voted for him, but it never clicked for me that he might be on something.

    • Maeve@kbin.socialBanned from community
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Plot twist: he runs out/spills his supply, they run to the nearest corner and it’s fent laced.

      • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Spends the rest of the debate walking from his podium to the corner. You know just in case he sees any coke in the corner.

  • aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    The law only applies to brown people under indictment who want to purchase firearms, not white orange ones.