Connect with us

Featured

Biden Defense Team Goes After His Straw Buyer

washington-dc-usa-02282024-hunter-biden

In a significant development in Hunter Biden’s legal proceedings, defense attorney Abbe Lowell hinted at a crucial aspect of the defense strategy in a Delaware federal court on Friday. The case revolves around Biden’s completion of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) form 4473, where he allegedly checked a box stating he was not using or addicted to drugs at the time of purchasing a firearm.

Central to the government’s case is Hunter Biden’s statement on the ATF form 4473, which he filled out during a gun purchase. There are two versions of this form in question: an emailed version dated October 26, 2018, which U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika has admitted into evidence, and a physical version filled out at a gun store.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that a gun store employee, Gordon Cleveland, assisted Biden in filling out the physical form. This revelation adds a layer of complexity to the case, as Cleveland is expected to testify, likely affirming that Biden filled out and signed the form.

Questioning the Form’s Integrity

Defense attorney Lowell emphasized the need to scrutinize who exactly completed the form, suggesting potential tampering or irregularities. Lowell pointed out that Cleveland accepted an ID he shouldn’t have, and gun store owner Ron Palmieri allegedly altered the form. This line of questioning aims to cast doubt on the integrity of the form and the circumstances under which it was completed.

Judge Noreika, in response to Lowell’s arguments, inquired whether there was evidence that Biden did not check the box himself. Lowell maintained that the details of who completed specific parts of the form are “subject to examination.”

Potential Witness Testimonies

The judge indicated that the physical form’s admissibility as evidence would be determined later, but she acknowledged the possibility of examining the credibility of the gun store employees involved. This includes questioning the integrity and actions of Cleveland and Palmieri during the transaction.

The trial is scheduled to begin with jury selection on June 3, and both sides anticipate it will continue until mid-June, potentially extending into the following week. As the court date approaches, the focus will likely intensify on the specifics of the form-filling process and the credibility of those involved.

This case not only delves into the specific actions and statements of Hunter Biden but also highlights broader issues regarding firearm purchase regulations and the integrity of the processes involved. The outcome could have significant implications for the interpretation and enforcement of federal gun laws, particularly concerning the responsibilities of both buyers and sellers in the firearm acquisition process.

As the trial progresses, it will be crucial to monitor how these arguments unfold and what evidence is presented to support the claims of both the defense and the prosecution. The credibility of the witnesses and the integrity of the evidence will play pivotal roles in determining the case’s outcome.

Does Hunter Biden belong in prison? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

(Visited 17 times, 1 visits today)

Featured

Gun Grabber Sotomayor Admits to Crying Over Cases 

washington-july-13-us-supreme-court

In a startling revelation, Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor admitted to being overwhelmed by her emotions in her chambers following some of the court’s decisions. During a talk at Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute, where she was receiving an award, Sotomayor, 69, disclosed that she has been brought to tears by the outcomes of certain cases.

“There are days that I’ve come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried,” Sotomayor confessed. This admission raises serious questions about her emotional stability and her fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court.

Sotomayor refrained from specifying which cases had driven her to tears, but her record of emotional vulnerability is troubling, especially given her track record of opposing Second Amendment rights. For instance, the landmark 2022 Dobbs abortion decision and the striking down of New York’s restrictive concealed carry law were major conservative victories that might have contributed to her emotional distress.

Her evident despair about potential future decisions suggests more conservative victories could be on the horizon, including rulings on former President Donald Trump’s immunity case, two abortion cases, and the use of a federal obstruction statute to charge January 6 rioters.

“There are moments when I’m deeply, deeply sad,” Sotomayor continued. “There are moments when, yes, even I feel desperation.” Such statements from a Supreme Court Justice are alarming, given the importance of impartiality and emotional fortitude in the role.

Justice Sotomayor, nominated by former President Barack Obama in 2008, has consistently demonstrated a strong anti-gun stance. Her opposition to the Second Amendment was evident in her disapproval of the Court’s decision to strike down New York’s prior concealed carry law. This law required individuals to prove “proper cause” before being issued a license, a clear infringement on the constitutional right to bear arms.

Her recent comments were made during a discussion with Martha Minow, a former dean of Harvard Law School and human rights scholar. The talk highlighted the ideological shift of the Supreme Court following former President Trump’s appointment of three conservative justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Sotomayor, the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court and one of the three Democrat-appointed judges alongside Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, urged a focus on future generations. However, her emotional outbursts and steadfast opposition to gun rights raise concerns about her ability to uphold the Constitution impartially.

The Court’s rightward shift has been underscored by unanimous decisions that align with conservative principles, including a recent ruling that the 14th Amendment does not allow states to strip presidential candidates from the ballot. This decision rejected Colorado’s attempt to keep former President Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot.

Justice Sotomayor’s fragile emotional state and her clear bias against Second Amendment rights have prompted calls for her retirement. Pundits and academics argue that President Biden, supported by a Democrat-controlled Senate, should appoint a replacement before the next presidential election.

Sotomayor, born in the same year as the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, grew up in a housing project in the Bronx and was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes at age 8. Despite her personal challenges and significant achievements, her current emotional instability and consistent opposition to constitutional gun rights make her a contentious figure on the Supreme Court.

As America continues to grapple with issues of gun rights and judicial impartiality, Justice Sotomayor’s revelations highlight the need for a steady and constitutionally faithful judiciary. Her emotional vulnerability and anti-Second Amendment stance call into question her ability to serve effectively on the Supreme Court, suggesting it may be time for new leadership that better reflects the foundational principles of the nation.

Is Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor fit for service on the Supreme Court? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

Featured

Texas Republican Takes Stand Against Biden Regime’s Gun Grabbing

texas-capital

In a bold move to protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights, Texas Republican Rep. Roger Williams is introducing a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives targeting President Biden’s actions related to gun control. As chairman of the House Small Business Committee, Williams aims to highlight unwavering support for the Second Amendment, emphasizing its guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” His resolution is a direct response to what he views as the Biden administration’s consistent efforts to undermine this fundamental right.

The resolution arrives in the context of a new interim final rule (IFR) by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). This rule, set to take effect immediately, amends the DOC’s licensing policy for exports of guns, ammunition, and related components. Williams argues that these measures, ostensibly designed to prevent firearms from contributing to regional instability and criminal activities, ultimately infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

Rep. Williams highlights the administration’s approach as part of a broader strategy to criminalize gun ownership. The resolution points out that anti-gun activists have long sought to bypass legislative processes by leveraging the judiciary to impose stricter gun control measures. This tactic, according to Williams, is now being utilized to exploit narrow exceptions in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Enacted in 2005, the PLCAA protects gun manufacturers from civil liability when their products are misused by others. Williams contends that the recent actions by the Biden administration are an attempt to subvert this protection and impose undue restrictions on the firearms industry.

The resolution criticizes the BIS’s restrictions on firearm exports as an unnecessary limitation of the Second Amendment. It underscores that these measures have been implemented without providing adequate justification and argues that they are part of a broader campaign to erode gun rights. Williams’ stance is clear: the Biden administration’s policies are an overreach that threatens the constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

Williams’s resolution also addresses President Biden’s use of executive orders to expand restrictions on the lawful purchase and possession of firearms. It condemns these actions as unconstitutional oversteps that disregard both Congress’s authority and the will of the American people. By highlighting the number of restrictive rules issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in recent years, the resolution paints a picture of an administration hostile to the Second Amendment.

If passed, the resolution would formally declare the House of Representatives’ reaffirmation of support for the Second Amendment and its condemnation of President Biden’s gun control agenda. It would also oppose the Biden administration’s perceived abuse of executive authority to restrict citizens’ fundamental rights and disapprove of the BIS’s and ATF’s recent policy changes.

The resolution has received support from such stalwart Second Amendment defense organizations as the National Rifle Association (NRA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). These organizations have praised Williams for his steadfast defense of the Second Amendment, viewing the resolution as a necessary stand against an administration they believe is hostile to gun rights.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch thanked Williams for his resolution, stating that the Biden administration has repeatedly overstepped its authority to undermine the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for NSSF, echoed this sentiment, highlighting that the U.S. Constitution’s protection of inalienable rights remains as crucial today as when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

Williams’s measure has also received co-sponsorship from several Republican representatives, including Andy Biggs, Byron Donalds, Diana Harshbarger, Richard Hudson, Randy Weber, and Lauren Boebert. These co-sponsors join Williams in asserting that the right to keep and bear arms is an essential liberty that must be defended against any attempt to erode it.

In a political climate where gun rights are continually debated, Williams’s resolution serves as a robust affirmation of the Second Amendment. It sends a clear message: the right to keep and bear arms is not negotiable, and any attempt to undermine it will be met with staunch opposition. This resolution represents a critical stand for the protection of American freedoms and the continued defense of constitutional rights.

What do you think of the latest attempt by the Biden Regime to deprive you of your Constitutional rights? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

Featured

Gun Grabbers Urge SCOTUS To Hear Mexican Lawsuit Blaming Gun Manufacturers for Cartels

washington-dc-usa-november-3-2020

A coalition of 27 leading Republican prosecutors has filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court, urging it to take up a case initiated by the Mexican government. The case seeks to hold American gun manufacturers accountable for gun violence carried out by cartels in Mexico. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, along with his GOP colleagues, aims to prevent what they see as “a foreign sovereign’s use of American courts to effectively limit the rights of American citizens.”

The case originated from a 2021 lawsuit filed by the Mexican government, which alleges that U.S. gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson and Ruger should be liable for cartel-related violence because they were aware their firearms were being trafficked into Mexico. Although a federal judge in Massachusetts dismissed the lawsuit last year, Mexico successfully appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with backing from California and other Democrat-led states.

This development has raised significant concerns among Second Amendment supporters. As Knudsen and his peers argue, the lawsuit represents a backdoor attempt by anti-gun activists to undermine American gun rights through judicial activism. They believe that these activists are exploiting the courts to bypass legislative processes and impose stricter regulations on firearms.

Congress has historically balanced Second Amendment rights with the need to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005 reflects this balance. The PLCAA prohibits civil liability actions against gun manufacturers and dealers for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others. The prosecutors argue that allowing this lawsuit to proceed would effectively nullify the PLCAA and jeopardize the firearms industry, which is crucial for both civilian and military purposes.

The prosecutors contend that the Mexican government’s policies and failure to control cartel activities contribute significantly to the country’s violence. They argue that Mexico’s government should not use American courts to shift the blame for its own shortcomings and policy failures onto U.S. gun manufacturers. Furthermore, they point out that Mexico could enforce stricter border controls to prevent firearms smuggling if it chose to do so.

The argument from the Republican attorneys general emphasizes that holding American gun manufacturers liable for violence in Mexico would set a dangerous precedent. It could lead to a flood of lawsuits aimed at undermining the Second Amendment and crippling the firearms industry. Such actions, they argue, could pave the way for foreign governments to influence American laws and policies, eroding national sovereignty and individual rights.

This case underscores the broader battle between gun rights advocates and those seeking to impose more stringent gun control measures. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the firearms industry and the constitutional rights of American citizens. The prosecutors’ stand against this lawsuit is a defense of both the Second Amendment and the principle that American courts should not be used to enforce foreign policy decisions.

In conclusion, the amicus brief filed by the 27 Republican prosecutors is a crucial step in defending the rights of American gun manufacturers and protecting the Second Amendment. By challenging this lawsuit, they aim to prevent foreign governments from influencing American law and ensure that gun rights remain robust and intact. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear this case will be pivotal in determining the future of gun rights and the protection of American manufacturers from foreign interference.

What do you think of this lawsuit? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Guncountry. All Rights Reserved