Supreme Court Gun Law Case Could Impact Hunter Biden Case

There is a rather significant case in front of the Supreme Court right now that could have a serious trickledown effect on cases pending in the courts.

One of those cases just happens to be Hunter Biden’s case.

After hearing arguments, the Court seems to be leaning in favor of upholding a law that would prevent people subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) from owning a firearm.

Big Implications

The Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday and while listening to questions and comments made by justices is a bit like reading tea leaves, they generally give off a vibe as to which way they are leaning.

The case, U.S. v. Rahimi, will have a significant impact on numerous cases as well as future legislation.

It could also impact Hunter’s case regarding whether or not current or former drug users can own a firearm.

Hunter Biden’s attorneys plan on challenging the indictment against Hunter Biden for illegally purchasing a weapon after having lied on his form regarding drug use.

During arguments, Justice Elena Kagan stated, "It's so obvious that people who have guns pose a great danger to others, and you don't give guns to people who have the kind of history of domestic violence that your client has or to the mentally ill.

"I'm asking you to clarify your argument because you seem to be running away from it because you can't stand what the consequences of it are."

Chief Justice John Roberts was a bit concerned that the term “irresponsible” was too broad, stating, "It seems to me that the problem with 'responsibility' is that it's extremely broad, and what seems irresponsible to some people might seem like, well, that's not a big deal to others."

Roberts later drilled Rahimi’s attorney, asking him if he thought this client was a “dangerous person,” at which point the attorney tried to deflect, but Roberts jumped back in, "Well, it means someone who's shooting at people. That's a good start.”

This decision could go either way, but legal experts are interpreting the questions asked by the justices as a lean for the Department of Justice, which would uphold the law.