Hunter Biden and Bruen?

[Japle]

As I understand it, Hunter Biden, whose father never met a gun control law he didn’t love, is pleading, “Not Guilty” to buying a gun while he was a crack addict and lying about it on a Federal form, because he claims outlawing gun purchases by drug addicts is unconstitutional.
Is he right? In their Bruen decision, the Supreme Court ruled that you can’t pass or enforce a gun law unless you can point to a nearly identical law that was in force when the 2nd Amendment was passed or shortly thereafter.
Is the entire ’68 Gun Control Act, including requiring a license to sell guns and prohibiting sale and shipping of firearms across state lines by non-licensed people, unconstitutional?

If it is, oh, the irony!

 

[gc70]

First you have to separate actions under the Second Amendment and those under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

 

[lilguy]

There's that word again, unconstitutional. it gets thrown around in conversations like its Captain Americas shield. Until the last highest court says so, what we think doesn't matter. The thought keeps us revved up and in the fight, which is important but it’s only our opinion, not law.
I live under a state system that
doesn't take that in consideration at a high level when instituting firearms controls.
For over 50 years Ive had fingers waved in my face when I suggest that, just maybe,
alot of this legislation is not contrary to our
founding documents. My state Right to keep and bare arms is subject to police powers. Not a comforting addendum to a
God given “right”.

 

[heyjoe]

The last highest court doesnt strike down a law as unconstitutional, unless someone believes it is unconstitutional and challenges it in federal court, which starts the process.

 

[CapnMac]

While a topic about legality, it is likely to veer even further off course into politics--which is not THR.
There's not a good law to cite, other than 18 USC 922, and dredging up the legislative history of GCA '68 might be germane, it's also likely to be jejune for having been law for fifty years.
This thread is not likely to remain open.

 

[lilguy]

The last highest court doesnt strike down a law as unconstitutional, unless someone believes it is unconstitutional and challenges it in federal court, which starts the process.

I understand that.

 

[hso]

This thread is not likely to remain open.