247
Biden Issues a ‘Full and Unconditional Pardon’ of His Son Hunter Biden
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
247 points (90.2% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2033 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Or to change that stupid ATF form 4473 which basically requires anyone who smokes weed to either commit a felony by lying (checking the box for they don't use illegal drugs) or tell the truth (checking the box that they do) and being unable to purchase a firearm. Unfortunately the war on law abiding gun owners had to continue so on a few occasions their position continued to be that marijuana users should not be allowed to buy or own firearms.
Hypocrisy+++++
That question is required by HR 1025 ("The Brady Act"). To get rid of weed as a factor, there would either need to be a change to the form requirement, or weed to be made federally legal and thus not an illegal substance. The requirement is not an ATF determination.
Joe Biden could theoretically pardon all people in violation of this, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a blanket universal pardon involving guns and weed together.
Nope. Biden's DOJ was happily pushing the 'weed users can't have guns' as one angle of gun control, while the administration was simultaneously pushing the 'weed shouldn't be persecuted' angle. Quite hypocritical really.
I was just pointing out the way on a limb theoretical to cover all my bases. The Presidential pardon could in theory be used on a mass scale (and it has been in the past) but in realistic terms, no it won't happen. That said, inside the realm of some sort of reality weed will still be a factor on 4473 until the law either removes the question about illegal drugs, or weed is made federally legal. That's not something controlled solely by the executive branch.
Not entirely. Not solely controlled by the president for sure. But this is where we get into the question of law vs. regulation. Law gives DEA the right to regulate drugs and substances. DEA classifies marijuana as harmful, thus it becomes illegal. Law requires the 4473 form question on illegal drugs. Political decisionmaking and bureaucratic policy decide whether state medical marijuana registries should be imported into NICS deny lists. And Biden is of course responsible for the actions and communications of his own office.
So if Biden wanted to go hardcore pro-weed, he could simply order DEA to de-schedule marijuana, and if they refuse demand the resignation of the DEA head and replace them with someone who'd deschedule weed. That then effectively removes the federal prohibition on marijuana. As a softer action, he could order FBI to not import state MMJ registry lists into NICS. And he could direct his office that while he and they may be anti-gun, marijuana won't be used against gun owners.
But it has been the position of various parts of the executive branch that marijuana users must still be prohibited....