The case for prosecuting Hunter Biden

On that last point, there is a second potential felony gun offense at issue. Section 922(g)(3) of the penal law makes it a crime, also punishable by ten years’ imprisonment, for a person who is an unlawful user of narcotics to receive or possess a firearm or ammunition. (Note: Politico reports that Hunter Biden told police he used the gun in question for target practice.) Hunter, of course, has notorious drug-abuse issues. Narcotics use has factored into a number of his escapades, and the Daily Mail reported that recreational drug use appeared to be depicted in video images stored on his laptop computers (the ones the press wouldn’t cover in the weeks before Election Day).

Hunter Biden was also kicked out of the U.S. Navy in 2014 for cocaine use. Consistent with the special treatment to which he is accustomed, the son of the then-vice president of the United States was permitted to be separated from the Navy administratively, rather than be dishonorably discharged.

That’s worth noting because another provision in the federal gun laws, Section 922(g)(6), makes it a ten-year felony for a person to possess a firearm if he “has been discharged from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions.” Technically, Hunter’s administrative separation probably spares him that status. Nevertheless, for a prosecutor responsible for exercising discretion regarding whether Hunter Biden should be charged with making a false statement, it would weigh heavily that a) he actually got a gun due to the false statement, b) the gun was temporarily lost because of the negligent way in which it was kept, and c) his mere receipt and possession of the gun (indeed, of even the ammunition, apart from the gun) was likely a separate felony offense under at least one other provision of the gun laws.