politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So he lied on a form about not being a drug user.
Good to know that Republicans will be champing at the bit to take more guns away and give this enforcement some teeth.
Let's drug test Congress.
Wait, don’t Republicans want more guns?
Not if your name is Hunter Biden
That'd depend on who's getting those guns. Rules are tricksy business in Republicanland.
Something which, notably, happens on around 1% of all applications, but is prosecuted less than 0.000005% of the time.
From 2008 - 2012 there were 32 million background checks, and 373,900 rejections.
Between FY 2008 and FY 2015, an 8-year period, ATF formally referred 509 NICS denial
cases that included 558 subjects to USAOs for possible prosecution. The USAOs
accepted for consideration of prosecution 254 subjects (or less than 32 subjects per
year) and declined to prosecute 272 subjects.
32 prosecutions a year for an average of 6 million background checks (completed, there is a much larger number for bg checks initiated)
huh? I'm guessing you didn't mean to reply to me.
I was asking why the OP changed the title of the article to add "son of the president". As if it'd somehow make people care more about this total non-story.
I think it is a huge story. Hunter has money, so his attorneys can move the case up the chain. The court may have to rule if it is constitutional or unconstitutional for a government form to restrict gun sales to people. Hunter walks on that charge if deemed unconstitutional, and if deemed constitutional, it could maybe set precedent that the government can legally enforce stricter gun regulations.
E.g. No assault charges in the last x amount of years unless deemed okay by a medical professional. No firearms over a certain caliber, etc.
So for the trump appointee to win, he has to do what is good for the populous, which he can't do. It's against his programming. Who knows though, maybe the clock will be right at that time of day?
I hear you, that would definitely make the case more interesting, if it ever gets to that. That money also means he's way more likely for him to hire lawyers to get him off on some technicality so judges never have to take that on.