Hunter Biden and the Democratic Hypocrisy Regarding Gun Rights

Hunter Biden and the Democratic Hypocrisy Regarding Gun Rights

Hunter Biden's conviction in June 2024 on federal felony gun charges has blown up the ongoing debate regarding gun legislation and how the Democrats are handling it. This puts a nationally publicized case in the limelight to show off the inconsistencies in the Democratic Party platform on gun control by putting a dent in their ability to support and uphold laws they wish to fight for. While Democrats have been actively pushing for increased gun control in the name of public safety, they have ‌remained conspicuously silent when it comes to addressing one of their own criminal conduct ("Does Hunter Biden's Gun Conviction Matter to US Voters?").

A federal jury convicted Hunter Biden of multiple felony counts on June 11, which included lying about drug abuse on his background check form and illegal possession of a firearm while under the influence of crack, cocaine and other narcotics in 2018. This case has brought out, once again, who gets held accountable according to the rule of law.

The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of demanding legislative restrictions on gun ownership, from "assault weapon" bans to "red flag" confiscation laws, but has been remarkably quiet about Hunter Biden's criminal behavior that violates the very statutes they wish to strengthen. Although Democrats routinely blast them and call for the maximum punishment for people who commit similar offenses themselves, there has been a curious lack of outrage over non-enforcement this time around. This inconsistency will undermine that very principle of fairness and equity, and raise questions about the party’s commitment to the rule of law.

In an independent development, but a related one, the Supreme Court recently made a ruling in a landmark case, Garland v. Cargill, which may have further-reaching implications for the gun control agenda as a whole. It struck down a federal ban against bump stocks, declaring that the federal ban represents an unconstitutional infringement on Second Amendment protections. As such, this decision is indicative of a change in the Court's approach to such matters, with new gun control regulations coming under tight scrutiny rather than ceding to the government's right to limit freedoms. Indeed, some experts suggest that this ruling challenges the narrative of convention and perhaps portends more principled exploration of the boundaries of gun control.

The experts’ response to the ruling, however, epitomizes hyperbole and assumes that Republicans support an imminent catastrophe, instead of engaging in principled deliberations concerning the constraints of state authority. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for instance, responded to the ruling as disastrous by "[ruling] to make our neighborhoods less safe,” (Pelosi). On the whole, this approach is really an alarming one from Pelosi, conveniently sidestepping its broader implications for gun owners and the rights guaranteed to them under the Second Amendment. Federal data completely debunks this concept of gun violence crisis being derived from the majority of gun owners; alarmism continues so as to circumvent the checks and balances on state power. Noticeably, statistics from the FBI in 2019 show that fewer than 250 homicides nationwide were committed with rifles—in fact, fewer than those committed using knives or other weapons ("Expanded Crime"). As legal analyst Bennet Parlatore has elaborated, an individual's civil rights—like the right to bear arms—should not be revoked just because he or she has used drugs (Parlatore). All of these recent developments, from the conviction of Hunter Biden to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Garland v. Cargill, are potentially indicative of openness to reviewing policies not yet permanently set in stone, and principled scrutiny rather than rhetorical or expedient political fiat.

The various Democratic nonsense over the gun laws—that is, some stricter and others looking largely the other way, even to their own offenses—justifies reaffirmation as a matter of consistency and fairness in democratic decision-making. Healthy self-rule can be attained only through honesty and an essentially classless rule of law, combined with a commitment to principles above political convenience.

Therefore, this conviction of Hunter Biden on federal felony gun charges has been a manifest case for the Democratic Party and its discrepancies in treating gun legislation. Though Democrats have been highly ongoing in seeking control over more stringent gun laws at the federal and state levels, they have maintained quite a ghostly silence over the criminal actions of one of their own and their drastic effects on the 2024 Presidential election. It is this inconsistency that has dealt a serious blow to the principle of fairness and equity, and raises questions concerning party commitment to respect for the rule of law. Moreover, the judgment of Garland v. Cargill from the Supreme Court seems to indicate intensified scrutiny for new gun control measures. Instead of opting for nuanced discussions related to the constraints on state power, Democrats used hyperbolic rhetoric as their chosen response. It is important that laws respect constitutional constraints in the manner devised to address the central causes of violence, while at the same time protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens. What is extraordinarily beneficial to democracy is consistency and fairness—principles rather than politics.

Works Cited

“Does Hunter Biden’s Gun Conviction Matter to US Voters?” Www.ft.com,

www.ft.com/content/e64ed877-6015-40aa-91a9-52f689e85ed9. Accessed 19 June 2024.

Brakman, Dana. “Supreme Court's Bump Stock 

Ruling Upends Gun Control Push.” Reuters, 14 June 2024, https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-backs-challenge-federal-ban-gun-bump-stocks-2024-06-14/ .

“Expanded Offense.” FBI, FBI, 10 Sept. 2018, ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/expanded-offense . 

Lybrand, Holmes, Cohen, Marshall, et. al., "Hunter Biden Found Guilty." CNN, 11 June 2024, https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/hunter-biden-trial-06-11-24/index.html .

Swearer, Amy. “The Gun Violence Epidemic: A Public Health Crisis.” The Heritage Foundation, 8 Dec. 2023, www.heritage.org/second-amendment/report/the-gun-violence-epidemic-public-health-crisis . 

McWhirter, Cameron. “Supreme Court Deals Blow to Gun Control Efforts.” The Hill, 14 June 2024, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4722871-supreme-court-bump-stocks-gun-rights/ .

Parlatore, Bennet. “Drugs, Guns, and Civil Rights.” Texas Journal of Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, vol. 24, no. 1, 2020, pp. 13-30. HeinOnline, https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ttxjcivlrts24&id=13&collection=journals&index= .

Pelosi, Nancy. “Twitter Post” X, 14 June 2024. https://x.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1801640877858689501.

Press, Associated. “6 Things to Know about the Supreme Court’s Decision on Bump Stocks.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 14 June 2024, www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/6-things-to-know-about-the-supreme-courts-decision-on-bump-stocks#:~:text=The%206%2D3%20majority%20opinion,single%20pull%20of%20the%20trigger .