WASHINGTON, DC – In response to recent fatal shooting incidents that gained national attention, President Joe Biden announced a series of executive actions he’s planning to embark upon relating to gun control.
President Biden takes his first steps on gun control, ordering tightened regulations on “ghost guns” and pistol braces https://t.co/FBfg18w7Ev
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) April 8, 2021
Among these executive actions, President Biden spoke of on April 8th included using his vested power to increase regulation against things like arm braces for pistols and working to restrict accessibility of firearms known as “ghost guns.”
During this April 8th announcement, President Biden also emphasized that Congress should be taking steps to ban “assault weapons” and also push for universal background checks.
The clamoring of universal background checks is a rather interesting notion brought up by the president, considering that his son Hunter is facing a lot of critical inquiries regarding a 2018 incident involving a firearm.
In that instance, some allege the gun was procured unlawfully due to falsifying answers on the background check needed to purchase the weapon.
The Biden Family’s arrogance and corruption are astounding. Joe Biden issued several new executive orders on gun control while his son, Hunter Biden, is accused of lying on his gun background check. https://t.co/2HDrArsSZa
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) April 8, 2021
The October 2018 matter also left authorities alleging that Hunter Biden disposed of said firearm in a trash can, which is frankly a bizarre incident.
Back in March, Law Enforcement Today shared a report that detailed the allegations revolving around this incident that reportedly occurred in Wilmington, Delaware.
For those short on time, here’s sort of the “Reader’s Digest” version of the October 2018 incident that involved Hunter Biden and the speculation it has caused:
- On October 12th, 2018, a Firearms Transaction Record showed Hunter Biden purchased a firearm
- On the background check inquiry, Hunter Biden answered “no” when asked if he was “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
- Despite the answer provided on the form, Hunter Biden has a well-documented history of unlawful narcotics abuse
- Hunter Biden’s then-love interest, who also happens to be his late brother’s widow, allegedly disposed of the firearm in a garbage can near a high school
- At some point the Secret Service had allegedly gotten involved and there are accusations claiming that they tried to cover up or bury the incident
It is extremely difficult to draw any hard line conclusions on whether Hunter Biden violated federal law with respect to how he answered the inquiries on his background check in October of 2018.
The reason for this is the question on the form itself: It’s presented in what a reasonable person would construe as present-tense.
The question on the form at the time was presented as such:
“Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
The phraseology in the context is very important.
It’s widely known that Hunter has struggled with drug addiction, but nowhere in the question does it ask, “Have you ever” or “Were you at one time.” Instead, it says “Are you.”
Hence, it’s reasonable to understand why this incident is sparking some debate over semantics, legal interpretations, and the sort.
But the timing of President Biden urging Congress to enact more stringent background check measures just weeks after his son’s alleged firearm incident having been made public is slightly ironic.
Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters? Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you. Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories. Click to check it out.
In other news pertaining to gun control, the state of Arizona has enacted legislation aiming to preemptively counteract any federal gun laws that may come to fruition that the state would deem an encroachment of the Second Amendment.
Here’s that previous report.
ARIZONA – Arizona Republican Governor Doug Ducey recently took a stand for the Constitution: He signed into law legislation that would ban any sort of enforcement of federal firearm laws which would be deemed to violate the Second Amendment.
The landmark legislation that serves as a win for those among the pro-Second Amendment crowd came to fruition despite efforts and petitions launched against it by none other than Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety.
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed legislation Tuesday to bar in-state enforcement of any federal firearm laws which violate the Second Amendment. https://t.co/fWILNslmit
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) April 8, 2021
Governor Doug Ducey signed into law HB 2111 on April 6th, which has been dubbed as the “2nd Amendment Firearm Freedom Act” that had been passed by both the Arizona House and Senate back in March.
The purpose of the bill is as simple as it sounds, in that it’s an effort to preemptively counteract any potential federal gun laws that might infringe upon the Second Amendment or state law in Arizona regarding firearms.
Back on February 24th, the House passed the bill quite narrowly in a 31 to 29 vote in favor of the bill.
Arizona Lawmakers Sending ‘Firearm Freedom’ Bill to Gov. Doug Ducey’s Desk
— Dave Jones (@mdj17) March 31, 2021
On March 30th, the Senate voted 17 to 13 in favor of the bill which then saw it handed over to the governor’s desk on March 31st. One week after landing on the governor’s desk, the bill was signed on April 6th.
Now this of course will undoubtedly raise concerns regarding the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption. The aforementioned serves as a means to reiterate that federal law will always supersede state law.
However, the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption has been flagrantly disregarded by the states for several years.
Said flagrant disregarding of such can be seen with states that have passed laws allowing the recreational use of marijuana, or states that have created effective legal shields for illegal immigrants via barring cooperation with federal authorities to enable immigration enforcement.
Essentially, HB 2111 is not really all that different in spirit when compared to states and localities that have adopted “sanctuary laws.”
Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone is slightly critical of HB 2111, but not necessarily because he’s against the Second Amendment.
Sheriff Penzone’s concerns are the potential confusion it could present to law enforcement within the state, as well as noting that it’s perhaps arbitrary creating a state law to back the Constitution since the document cannot be legally subverted already:
“You could make the easy argument saying it’s a state practice – the person has a right to bear arms, therefore you’re in conflict with that. Now you’re putting officers or deputies in this position where they’re questioning whether or not some other entity will determine if it’s in conflict with the Second Amendment, therefore do we act on it? And that’s where it creates problems.
“Whether you are very much in support of the second amendment, whether you have concerns about gun laws – the Constitution is its own entity. It has its protections. If you violate the Second Amendment, you don’t need a state statute to say that is unlawful or unconstitutional.”
Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone said an Arizona gun bill designed to ensure the Second Amendment is not violated was confusing and put law enforcement in an awkward position.https://t.co/YAHFYAd9Dh
— KTAR News 92.3 (@KTAR923) April 2, 2021
The Maricopa County Sheriff said that he’s not going to pay too much mind to this new legislation, and instead stay hyper focused on deterring prohibited possessors from gaining access to firearms:
“My priority right now is the loophole issue. We still are allowing for firearms, whether it’s small capacity or large capacity weapons to get in the hands of people who, if they went through that legal process that applies in certain circumstances, would be prohibited from that purchase.
“So it’s how do we do a better job making sure people we know should not lawfully possess a firearm, that we’re doing our best to get the weapons out of their hands.”
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Gregory Hoyt
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.