Skip to Content

Is the White House Pardon a Second Amendment Win or Setback?

The recent presidential pardon issued to Hunter Biden has ignited intense debate across legal, political, and Second Amendment communities. While some argue this could become a victory for gun rights by exposing the arbitrary nature of certain gun laws, others see it as a setback, erasing a critical opportunity to challenge firearm restrictions in court. Opinions on this development vary widely, as illustrated by gun influencers Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner, Richard Hayes and Emily Taylor of Armed Attorneys, and Tom Knighton from Bearing Arms.

Hunter Biden’s Pardon: The Basics

Hunter Biden's Pardon The Basics
Image Credit: WHAS11

President Biden’s pardon wipes clean Hunter’s record of federal crimes dating back to 2014, including tax offenses and a firearm-related conviction. This sweeping action surprised many, as Biden had publicly stated he would not intervene in Hunter’s legal matters. Critics from across the political spectrum note the implications of this unprecedented move, particularly as it relates to gun laws and their enforcement.

Mark W. Smith’s Take: A Win for the Second Amendment?

Mark W. Smith’s Take A Win for the Second Amendment
Image Credit: The Four Boxes Diner

Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney and host of The Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel, highlighted what he sees as a silver lining for gun rights advocates. He explained that Biden’s justification for the pardon focused on the nonviolent nature of Hunter’s firearm-related offense. By portraying Hunter’s crime as a “malum prohibitum” – a crime due to regulation rather than inherent immorality – Smith argued this rationale could be used to challenge similar gun laws in the future.

Smith also emphasized that Biden’s framing undermines many anti-gun arguments. “If Hunter’s offense was no big deal, then why should others face harsher penalties for similar nonviolent gun violations?” he asked. Smith views this moment as an opportunity for Second Amendment advocates to push back against laws targeting technical violations rather than actual dangers.

A Missed Opportunity, According to Armed Attorneys

A Missed Opportunity, According to Armed Attorneys
Image Credit: Armed Attorneys

Meanwhile, Richard Hayes and Emily Taylor of Armed Attorneys approached the issue from a different angle. They lamented the lost opportunity to challenge the prohibition on firearm possession by drug users, a restriction they describe as overly vague and ripe for abuse. Had Hunter’s case gone to higher courts, it might have set a precedent limiting the government’s power to broadly restrict gun ownership.

Taylor pointed out that such prohibitions often rely on ambiguous terms like “unlawful user,” which could encompass a wide range of scenarios. “This was a strong case for us,” she argued, noting that it could have forced the courts to reconsider the constitutionality of these laws under the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen standard.

Tom Knighton’s Perspective: Political Hypocrisy at Play

Tom Knighton’s Perspective Political Hypocrisy at Play
Image Credit: WHAS11

Tom Knighton of Bearing Arms focused on the political implications of the pardon. He criticized the double standards exhibited by Democrats who advocate for stricter gun control while excusing Hunter’s violations. Knighton argued that this incident exposes the hypocrisy of anti-gun politicians who enforce rules on others but exempt themselves or their allies.

For Knighton, the pardon represents “rank hypocrisy,” highlighting how partisanship often trumps principle. He suggested that Republicans could use this incident to bolster their arguments against gun control, as it undermines the moral authority of those pushing for stricter regulations.

Biden’s Justification and Its Flaws

Biden’s Justification and Its Flaws
Image Credit: WHAS11

In his statement, President Biden argued that Hunter’s prosecution was politically motivated and lacked aggravating factors, such as violence or repeated offenses. By framing the crime as selective enforcement, Biden painted Hunter as a victim of political gamesmanship. However, critics, including the Armed Attorneys, questioned the credibility of Biden’s claim, given the glaring political dimensions of the pardon itself.

Implications for Gun Laws and Enforcement

Implications for Gun Laws and Enforcement
Image Credit: Survival World

Mark W. Smith and the Armed Attorneys agree on one point: Biden’s rationale could be weaponized by gun rights advocates. If the President himself believes that nonviolent gun crimes are over-penalized, it sets a precedent that challenges the fairness of similar prosecutions. This logic could be applied to argue against other firearm restrictions, particularly those involving technical violations.

A Political Weapon for Republicans

A Political Weapon for Republicans
Image Credit: Survival World

Knighton suggested that the pardon gives Republicans a new talking point in upcoming debates over gun control and tax policy. By pointing to the unequal application of the law, conservatives can argue for reforms that emphasize fairness and constitutional protections. For Trump and other Republicans, this incident may serve as ammunition in the ongoing culture wars surrounding the Second Amendment.

A Divide Within the Gun Rights Community

A Divide Within the Gun Rights Community
Image Credit: Survival World

Interestingly, not all gun rights advocates see this as a victory. While some, like Smith, view the pardon as a chance to challenge unjust gun laws, others worry it removes a high-profile case that could have advanced Second Amendment protections. The Armed Attorneys expressed frustration that the legal battle over Hunter’s charges was effectively “ripped from their hands,” leaving the underlying issues unresolved.

A Double-Edged Sword

A Double Edged Sword
Image Credit: Survival World

What fascinates me most about this controversy is how it exposes the contradictions in our legal and political systems. On one hand, the pardon undermines the credibility of gun control advocates who claim these laws are essential. On the other, it denies the gun rights community a chance to challenge those laws in court. It’s a rare situation where both sides feel aggrieved, yet both also see potential opportunities.

The Bigger Picture

The Bigger Picture
Image Credit: WHAS11

This case is not just about Hunter Biden or even Joe Biden—it’s about how our justice system handles power, privilege, and principles. The pardon has laid bare the inconsistencies in how gun laws are enforced and challenged. It also raises critical questions about fairness: if Hunter’s offense was no big deal, why are others prosecuted for similar actions?

Win, Loss, or Something Else?

Win, Loss, or Something Else
Image Credit: WHAS11

The debate over Hunter Biden’s pardon is far from settled. Whether it’s a win or loss for the Second Amendment depends on how gun rights advocates use this moment to their advantage. For now, it serves as both a rallying cry for reform and a reminder of the political and legal complexities surrounding gun laws in America. What’s clear is that this story, like the broader fight over the Second Amendment, is far from over.