On Eve of Hunter Biden Gun Trial, Judge Maryellen Noreika Covers Up Possible Gun Crime

Judge Maryellen Noreika has ruled that Hunter Biden cannot present evidence that, to cover up that StarQuest gun shop sold Hunter Biden a gun without requiring him to show an ID with his address on it, the shop owner and one of its employees falsely claimed they had seen such ID three years after the fact on the physical ATF form.

They doctored the form.

More importantly, the gun shop owner testified that he did so because Hunter Biden listed a celebrity address (his father’s), and also because he wanted to get Joe Biden’s kid out of his store as quick as possible.

By his own testimony, the gun shop owner only belatedly complied with the required record-keeping because of who Hunter Biden is.

Now I get that Hunter Biden cannot claim that he cannot be prosecuted because the gun shop owner also committed a potential crime. Judge Noreika is perfectly correct to prevent that kind of argument.

But Hunter Biden has to be able to use the shop’s admitted willingness to skip documentary steps with a celebrity client and doctor the forms after the fact, because it leaves open the possibility they did that with more than the identification.

In ruling against Biden, though, she said that the gun shop’s willingness to doctor the form after the fact on one issue would not have any tendency to make it more likely they did elsewhere on the form.

Indeed, she seems to misunderstand that the gun shop owner appears to have confessed to doctoring the form.

2. The Court finds that the 2021 Form is irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and excludes it at trial.2 Moreover, even if the 2021 Form were admissible, the Court finds that it is excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because any probative value it arguably has is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and misleading the jury.

2 The government has stated that it intends to call Gordon Cleveland, a gun shop employee, who will testify that he watched Defendant fill out Section A of the Certified Form and that Defendant checked “no” to question 11e about being an unlawful user or addict. Both the Certified Form and the 2021 Form have the same check mark (“X”) responding “no” to question 11e. The addition of “DE VEHICLE REGISTRATION” to a different section of the 2021 Form after the Defendant filled it out does not have “any tendency to make” those two facts, which are “fact[s] of consequence in determining” the charges – that he filled it out and that he said he wasn’t an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance – more or less probable. F.R.E. 401. The Court also agrees with the government that Defendant’s conspiratorial theory about “doctored” forms and currying favor with the government is unsupported rhetoric, which would be prejudicial and confusing to the jury.

One reason her logic he is especially problematic is because it’s clear the form wasn’t prepared at once. The multiple colors make it clear that the date on Gordon Cleveland’s signature — the employee on the hook for selling a gun without seeing an ID with an address on it — was added after the fact, and probably by someone else (Cleveland reportedly testified that his colleague wrote everything in red ink).

Noreika likely credited something misleading Derek Hines said in a reply posted shortly before her order which cites to it (he has, repeatedly, projected his own inaccurate claims onto Abbe Lowell, and this may be an instance where, at the very least, Hines misunderstood a reference Lowell made).

Hines took what appears to be a reference to Cleveland saying he never saw a Delaware registration, and instead insinuated that by that reference to “a second form of identification,” Lowell instead referred to what the FBI showed Cleveland, rather than what Hunter did.

Cleveland has been entirely consistent on the issue of identification in the two interviews where it came up. Defendants claims he has offered an “evolving story,” but that characterization is not accurate based on defendant’s own quotes from Cleveland’s Jencks material. Supp. Resp. at 5. The only form of ID Cleveland saw was the passport. He never saw a Delaware vehicle registration and never claimed to. Instead, in both interviews he stated that Turner, who handled the background check, may have, but Cleveland didn’t have first-hand knowledge of whether he did or didn’t. In his first interview on September 27, 2021, Cleveland told investigators:

“He said he would provide the copy of the U.S. Passport and the firearm information on a sheet of paper to the person sending the background check in. Mr. Cleveland said he did not see the document [a second form of identification] with the ATF Form 4473 he was shown [by the Agent on September 27, 2021].” (TAB 3, 10/12/21 ATF EF 3120 at 2, ¶6) (emphasis added). Supp. Resp. at 5 (emphasis added).

The government at this point is obligated to point out that the defendant is again making malpresentations to the Court. In the above quote from his filing, the defendant inserted brackets into a real quote from the September 27, 2021, interview report for Cleveland. The defendant writes in those brackets that “Mr. Cleveland said he did not see the document [a second form of identification] with the ATF Form 4473 he was shown [by the Agent on September 27, 2021]. Supp. Resp. at 5. What defendant inserted into those quotes in brackets isn’t accurate. The ATF never showed Cleveland “a second form of identification.” If you look at the report, which defendant has and attached to his filing, it says that the only documents that were shown to Cleveland, at any point during the interview, were the following:

The ATF did not show Cleveland “a second form of identification,” as the above list of documents make clear. Defense counsel made that up. What defense counsel chose not to quote from that report was the next sentence: “He said Jason Turner may have gotten the vehicle registration due to the U.S. Passport issue.” As defendant noted, Cleveland was not asked any questions about the form of identification that was used in the grand jury so there is nothing inconsistent between his first interview and his grand jury testimony.

Finally, when asked in his second interview on May 17, 2024, about identification he repeated that he only saw the passport and did not see a Delaware vehicle registration:

When Biden presented his passport as identification, Cleveland went into the back and asked Ronald Palimere and Jason Turner if it could be used. Cleveland recalls going back out to Biden and saying something to the effect that if Biden was going to use a passport, they would need another form of identification. [] Cleveland thinks Biden went outside and got something, but he can not say with certainty. Cleveland would not have paid attention to the paperwork side of the sale because he had already done his part by working with the customer and making the sale. Cleveland does not think they would have competed the sale without the second identification, though. (TAB 3B, 5/17/24 Cleveland FD-302 at 1). Supp. Resp. at 5. [Hines’ bracket, which I’ve bolded, only marks paragraph break; my italics]

In every interview Cleveland stated that Turner handled the part of the form that covered forms of identification, Section B, and he, Cleveland, watched the defendant fill out Section A, where the defendant records information about himself and answers the required questions, including the one that is the basis of the charges, namely, whether he was an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. Here is what Cleveland said in his first interview:

Defendant claims “Palimere was in discussions with Cleveland and Turner on that date about what was and was not on the form and, thereafter, the sale would be made regardless of legal compliance concerns.” Supp. Resp. at 7. That is not true. Defense counsel made that up, too. And the best evidence it is not true is that defendant cites nothing from any grand jury transcript or interview report in support of that assertion in his supplemental response. To be clear, no one has testified or stated in an interview—not Cleveland, not Turner and not Palimere—that they discussed “what was and was not on the form.” All that was discussed was whether a U.S. Passport could be accepted as a form of identification and whether a Delaware vehicle registration was needed as a second form of identification. And no one has testified or stated in an interview—not Cleveland, not Turner and not Palimere—that they discussed “the sale would be made regardless of legal compliance concerns,” because no such discussions occurred. [my italics]

The quote Hines accuses Lowell of excluding — that Jason Turner may have gotten a second form of ID — is utterly consistent with the reading that Lowell was referring to what Hunter showed Cleveland, not what the FBI did.

Even based off what is public, Hines appears to be misreading the rest, too.

Palimere, the gun shop owner, was in discussions with both Cleveland and Turner about what would be used on the form (the passport only). And while inapt, I believe Palimere’s testimony is only consistent with a claim that the sale would be made regardless.

That’s because it was made regardless, after a discussion about whether to get anything more.

In the case of Biden’s sale, Gordon Cleveland, was the salesman. Palimere was sitting at his desk in the back and Cleveland said something to the effect of, “Hey, Hunter Biden’s here. He wants to use his passport.” Palimere was familiar with Biden’s father’s not being a gun supporter so Palimere thought it would be bad for Palimere’s business to have Hunter Biden seen in his store. Palimere wanted to get the sale completed and get Biden out of the store, so Palimere said yes to using the passport as identification. Palimere never interacted with Biden.


Normally, they would call a customer if they found an error/omission and needed to annotate the Form 4473. The ability to annotate the Fom 4473 is allowed by the ATF. For this case, a typical customer would have been called and told they needed to come back in and bring registration to show the residency.

Palimere was not about to call Biden. Palimere felt they could not have him come into the store. Plus, Palimere did not want to contact Biden and tell him he needed to come in and he was being investigated.

We can’t be sure (Lowell submitted his filing under seal because it included grand jury and non-public exhibits), but Hines’ representations seem to take imprecise comments from Lowell and read them in a way that makes no sense.

Noreika’s ruling becomes a problem (and likely will require at least clarification) for two reasons that seep into Hunter Biden’s Sixth Amendment right to impeach the government’s witnesses.

First, in the order, Noreika prohibited all discussion of political bias, which Hines suggested Lowell wanted to present exclusively through Palimere’s efforts to make this public before the 2020 election.

3. Questioning, testimony, evidence or argument, including but not limited to, the additional exhibits designated by the Defendant as tabs “6-6C” to his supplemental submission regarding any witnesses’ political bias are excluded from introduction or admission at trial because such questioning, testimony, evidence or argument is not relevant, is unduly prejudicial and invites nullification.3

3 The Court agrees with the government that the political views expressed in 2020 by the gun shop owner, Palimere (who did not witness Defendant fill out Section A of the Certified Form or check the box for question 11e in 2018), are sideshows aimed at tainting or confusing the jury. [my italics]

But Palimere described that he made an affirmative decision to treat the sale to Hunter Biden differently because of who his father is. Palimere freely confessed that he sold a gun without requiring the proper paperwork because Joe Biden is not a gun supporter.

Palimere was familiar with Biden’s father’s not being a gun supporter so Palimere thought it would be bad for Palimere’s business to have Hunter Biden seen in his store. Palimere wanted to get the sale completed and get Biden out of the store, so Palimere said yes to using the passport as identification.

This is politics. It affected the sale. Noreika doesn’t want that to come in because explaining that the gun store didn’t follow the rules with the sale to Hunter Biden and that they did so because of Joe Biden’s politics would be unduly prejudicial.

That strips Hunter of the ability to present key details about the sale.

And Noreika’s ruling may prevent Hunter from impeaching Cleveland.

A prosecutor can’t simply claim, nope, these statements Cleveland made about the form are not inconsistent. That usurps the role of the jury.

And they are inconsistent. In the first interview, Cleveland said that if a second ID was really requested, Turner handled it (it’s unclear whether Turner ever came to the front room, but since he’s the guy who doctored the form, it would be significant if he did). In the second interview, Cleveland claimed to remember asking for it. If his memory is inconsistent on that point, there’s no reason to credit his memory about how the form was filled out.

That, coupled with Cleveland’s claim he didn’t much care about the paperwork, should be fair game for questions about whether Hunter Biden’s part of the form really was filled out properly. As it is, Cleveland has signed the form even though he didn’t do key parts of it. But Noreika’s exclusion of the form will make it nearly impossible to argue that Cleveland’s testimony about the form is inconsistent.

Judge Maryellen Noreika may think it’s a conspiracy theory that the gun shop doctored the form because they wanted to get Joe Biden’s kid out of the shop quickly. Except it is also precisely what the gun shop owner’s testimony says.

Update: One piece of timing of note. ATF picked up the physical form on September 24, 2021. Cleveland was first interviewed on September 27, 2021. It appears they had to have used the physical form, not the scanned one, not least because the reference to the DE registration only appears on page 2 in the form, not the scan (which has a cover sheet). He was not interviewed again until a grand jury appearance. We know investigators did no basic investigative steps (getting a warrant, sending the pouch to be tested) until after the actual indictment.

Which makes me wonder whether they decided not to pursue charges because of this form and now are just (successfully, so far) bulldozing past this real evidentiary problem.

Update: According to the 302 from Cleveland’s May 2024 interview, he stated that he would not have paid attention to the paperwork side of the sale.

Cleveland thinks Biden went outside and got something, but he can not say with certainty. Cleveland would not have paid attention to the paperwork side of the sale because he had already done his part by working with the customer and making the sale. Cleveland does not think they would have competed the sale without the second identification, though.

This is a stunning comment from someone whose name is on the form transferring the gun. I could certainly see questioning about why he signed off on a form without personally taking responsibility for the paperwork, not least because he recognized the passport was not sufficient. His boss has basically put him in a position where he’s on the hook for a crime.

Now, he may contest this representation — 302s are only used to refresh memory, they never go back to the jury.

But if he does, it would be his word against the FBI agent who’ll submit much of the rest of the case, because they broke FBI protocol by not having a second FBI agent there. So Cleveland may be in the position of having to admit he violated gun purchase laws, knowingly, or trying to undercut another key witness.

50 replies
  1. Rugger_9 says:

    I have to wonder how much Lowell will tempt fate and ask Cleveland when he filled out the form. He then can ask why the colors are different. As I see it (though IANAL) the jury will not be buying whatever Cleveland is selling with his testimony. He can also object to preserve the record because as noted in the post this is getting very close to McCarthyesque prevention of putting on a defense.

  2. N.E. Brigand says:

    Typo in beginning of the seventh paragraph, I think: “In ruling against Noreika”.

  3. NYsportsfanSufferer says:

    How in the world does the original form not make it into evidence? That is insane. So the jury will see a photocopy but not the actual form? How do you justify that? It’s not the defendants fault the form was altered by the owner of the shop and his testimony is inconsistent.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Noreika, though, … said that the gun shop’s willingness to doctor the form after the fact on one issue would not have any tendency to make it more likely they did elsewhere on the form.

    Whatever planet Noreika is from, that’s not how it works on this one. That’s especially so where the owner is worried about both his own lawbreaking and apparent longstanding bias against the Bidens. Why, for example, it would the owner want Hunter out of his shop quickly, if he’s there to buy a gun the owner wants to sell him?

    • NYsportsfanSufferer says:

      The only reason I could think of trying to deal with a customer to get them out of your store is that they are being abusive and belligerent. But then why would you sell a firearm to that person? It makes no sense. Hating his father is a strange excuse to do what he did.

      At the end of the day, business is business. It was what, a $900 transaction? That’s a good bit of money. Who cares who the person is? I wonder if Hunter presented a DC drivers license and the guy went oh no, got any other ID on you? And just wanted the money and sold it illegally.

      • Mark Corker says:

        Business is business true.

        But MAGA’s don’t want it widely known they deal with the Bidens. So get him out of the store fast.

        You think if Trump was in the store the guy would have stayed in the back of the store?

        [Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “Marjk”; you last commented here as “Mark Corker.” I’ve edited your username this one time to match your previous comment. Please make a note of your correct username. /~Rayne]

        • WhisperRD says:

          Sorry, but it feels a lot more like an after-the-fact story. For starters, “get a customer out of the store fast” isn’t really a think that shop owners do. And a gun store is just as likely to proudly show that even a Biden wants to own guns. Finally, rejecting a sale due to a lack of the proper paperwork would be a lot faster than processing it with the wrong document.
          The store owner is dodgy and Hunter Biden should be allowed to impeach his credibility.

  5. Sussex Trafalgar says:

    This “coverup” ruling is typical Noreika MO.

    She became a jurist for her political beliefs, not her legal acumen.

    • wa_rickf says:

      SEE: Judge Aileen Cannon
      SEE: Judge Bruce Schroeder
      SEE: Judge Carl Nichols

      It appears that the scales of U.S. justice are becoming less blind.

      • bmaz says:

        Lol. You ever have issues with judges appointed by Democrats? Or just cherry pick Republican appointees? Federal judges come in all stripes and colors. get over it.

        • Norske23 says:

          Cherry-picking would be digging to find some rando cases to use to point out problems. These are the judges involved in some of the most important cases in the history of the country. Is it the fault of anyone here that they all happen to be Republicans? No one here is cherry-picking anything. If anything, it’s the Republicans who have cherry-picked these judges for their appointments. Were they Democrats and behaving in the same manner I would absolutely have issues with them.

        • LeyteWolf says:

          > Federal judges come in all stripes and colors. get over it.

          Wow….just wow. I’ve been a long-time reader but never had a reason to weigh in, until now. Talk about bloody close-minded. No matter how you constantly judge and attempt to publicly shame others here when they don’t share your opinion, in this case, if you don’t think the system completely failed by putting completely-unqualified Federalist Society wacko “Loose” Cannon on the bench in the waning days of the guy we fired, then you’re just completely…wrong. Opinions, as a rule can’t be wrong—because they are opinions—but the above intolerant screech is the exception to the rule.

          Continuing these barrages only undermines the collaborative attempts—like the empty wheel site—to fix our society. Those attacks are just “big-frog small-pond”/ITG-style wrong and you *owe* wa_rickf a sincere apology for your acerbic closed-mindedness.

        • wa_rickf says:

          I selected judges that I know have put their thumb on the scale of justice. I don’t know how to determine the political affiliation of a judge – I thought judges were supposed to be apolitical.

        • bmaz says:

          To LeyteWolf: Well, I have always called things as I see them. Apparently unlike you, I have a lot of decades of experience with judges, both good and bad. Here, in state court, I can get rid of a judge for no reason within 10 days of his or her appointment to a case. For no stated reason whatsoever. Just file the notice, and I often have. I never even had to create the notice, our lead secretary had a list and just brought me the notice to sign. You cannot do that in federal court. You get who is appointed, and to not understand that is silly. I am not “undermining” squat, I am telling you the truth. Get over it.

          To wa_rickf: It is easy to determine the score on judges. Check their judicial biography, talk to their partners before elevating to the court. Talk to fellow defense (and prosecution!) attys. And other judges privately. There is a book on all of them if you want to look for it. It is easier than you think.

    • Nadezhda_03JUN2024_1306h says:

      Truer words never spoken! Let’s face it. The fix is in.

      [Welcome to emptywheel. Please use a more differentiated username when you comment next as another community member already claimed “nadezhda” as a username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  6. Brad Cole says:

    I’m wondering if motor vehicle registration information is publicly available in Delaware? If so, what’s to prevent these guys from looking it up and then just filling in the blanks? Then they can claim due diligence and not be liable. But impeachable.

  7. originalK says:

    At this late stage, Hines is bordering on incoherence (“malpresentations” are babies in a difficult position during labor) and Noreika, as is her habit, is fact-challenged and out of her lane (this time in the jury’s).

    I guess if the multi-colored 4473 doesn’t exist then the 302s can be memory-holed as well.

  8. wa_rickf says:

    If Americans have learned ANYTHING from Donald J. Trump, that is to appeal EVERYTHING, including pre-trial motions. Hunter and his attorney ought to do the same with this pre-trial motion that the jury cannot hear the true and correct facts regarding the gun purchase.

    • WhisperRD says:

      And we see why most observers are appalled at Judge Cannon’s overt bias towards the defense. The strategy of “file one delaying motion after another” won’t work unless the judge is in on the ploy.

      • wa_rickf says:

        My suggestion was not to necessarily file “file one delaying motion after another,” but it certainly is probably a good idea in this case, for this particular pre-trial motion. Why wait until the end of trial and there is a jury verdict? Juries should have evidence in full as opposed to what Judge Bruce Schroeder allowed and disallowed in the Kyle Rittenhouse trail.

  9. Don Cooley says:

    Has Lowell used the term “witch hunt” yet? What about “rigged”? Because this sure seems fishy.
    Not having followed this thing closely, I’m in the dark as to the point of this issue. Is Biden claiming he did not check “no?”

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this as “Don” which is too short, too common, not in compliance with the site’s username standard. You have previously commented as “Don Cooley”; I have edited your username this one time, make a note of your correct name, check your browser’s cache and autofill. /~Rayne]

  10. Scott_in_MI says:

    The “I wanted him out of the store” excuse doesn’t pass the smell test. What are the chances that a random gun shop customer would have recognized Hunter Biden on sight in October 2018?

      • Scott_in_MI says:

        “Palimere was familiar with Biden’s father’s not being a gun supporter so Palimere thought it would be bad for Palimere’s business to have Hunter Biden seen in his store.” That’s a concern about recognizing Hunter Biden’s face, not his passport.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The story is a crock, made up long after the fact. HB is not nearly as well-known as his dad. But a hard right small bidnessman would have been happy to sell to a gun-totin’ Biden.

  11. Error Prone says:

    I have a problem with the statutes and form being overbroad. What’s an “addict?”

    AA is famous for sessions where each attendee introduces himself/herself by name and “I am an alcoholic.” The motto, “One day at a time” suggests addiction is a status that never ends, an always risk.

    The drug laws focus on possession or dealing. The status of drug addict is not criminalized. Here, Second Amendment “rights” are curbed over a status which in one analysis is a lifetime bar to firearm ownership, even if clean for years and years. So, how do you answer that question about “addicted to” some controlled substance?

    Was a user, not now a user is a clear answer to the user part. Not now using, narrow time frame, can still exist even while fighting a use history, going clean a day at a time.

    As to the form, is it possible Hunter signed a blank paper, if in a hurry to get out, the merchant in a hurry to get him out – “We’ll handle all the paperwork”? If that happened, then at trial Hunter would have to say so, and if a witness on that single question on direct, how could the prosecution work him over from that on cross?

    Not expecting that, but any ideas on a what-if? Is it worth speculation? With all the different ink, but a live witness saying he filled out the key item, it gets back to whether he was an addict or user and that’s back to Count 3. And the tardy notice of white powder trace, and lo, cocaine – powder not crack. Is there any indication defense persons visited the evidence room or questioned evidence room practices re possible cross contamination of the gun wrapper?

    Is there case law on how to define “addict” specifically regarding the form and statute, or coherent law otherwise on how “addict” is to be defined for jury instruction?

    With alcohol use or addiction omitted from barring a firearm purchase or possession a bias does exist. Show up at the store drunk as a skunk and you’re okay? Or is there another statute?

    • Shadowalker says:

      The law defines an addict as being “so far addicted” to the use of drugs that it overcomes their self-control. The law implies there are levels of addiction as well as an addict achieving self-control.

      Both alcohol and tobacco are excluded in the act.

    • Fred Fnord says:

      I am not a lawyer, but perhaps best evidence in this case is the form as submitted to the government, which was depended upon to permit the weapon’s purchase. If I filled out a form and faxed it to my local city government, the legal form that they would depend upon for best evidence in any lawsuit would HAVE to be the faxed form, because otherwise they would be dependent upon something in court that they could not ever have seen before legal proceedings began.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Different objectives. It’s important to assess the document the witness produced, when and how, not just what might have been faxed to a government authority.

  12. pdaly says:

    I would think the FBI forensics lab could tell the court (not that it will) whether the different inks on the paper were written around the same time. And whether the form submitted is from the proper year, too.
    Even ballpoint pen ink, it seems, can be be analyzed for same time entry vs. entries over time:


  13. klynn says:

    IANAL. Is there anything stopping Lowell from describing the differences in the scanned ATF doc vs the original?

    And if he is able to describe the discrepancies between the scanned and the original ATF form, is the jury able to request the original? Or are they tied to only the “bench allowed” evidence?

    • emptywheel says:

      Yes. He’ll get slapped down.

      These evidentiary decisions serve an important purpose. THey’re supposed to be about only trying the facts of the case.

      To some degree (as I pointed out, to prevent Hunter from making a selective prosecution argument) they make sense. I just think the Noreika doesn’t really understand the implications of her order, as written and (as I said) doesn’t seem to understand that the gun shop owner says they did doctor the form.

      • bmaz says:

        OMG, a criminal defense atty getting slapped down for doing his job? What is the world coming to…

        • klynn says:

          So bmaz, is your snark an indication that if you were a defense atty on this case, you would figure out a way to introduce the ATF scan vs original discrepancies at the risk of getting slapped down? Or is the risk well worth it to aid the client? Again IANAL.

        • Shadowalker says:

          June 3, 2024 at 3:29 pm

          “ Or is the risk well worth it to aid the client?”

          It’s tampering with evidence, that the jury will use in determining guilt.

        • Joe Stewart says:

          How does the jury know that Biden checked that box? Because a store employee says he did. Does it make sense that the defense cannot impeach the employees? I don’t get that.

  14. Savage Librarian says:

    Ton of Bricks

    No, no, no, no politics,
    This here’s now her bailiwicks,
    Your honor gets her cherry picks,
    Her very own bag of tricks.

    She decides what to deep six,
    What stays out or is in the mix,
    But rule of law knows what sticks:
    Some amendments, like beggar-ticks.

  15. ShellBell says:

    This is all so messed up. Hunter was not convicted of anything at the time of the purchase. And he should have just went to a damn gun show and bought a pistol. The damn republicans don’t want any background checks done there. Just a month ago Twenty-six Republican attorneys general filed lawsuits Wednesday challenging a new Biden administration rule requiring firearms dealers across the United States to run background checks on buyers at gun shows and other places outside brick-and-mortar stores. But now they are worried about Hunter purchasing a gun 5-6 years ago because he may or may not have done drugs? Gimme a break. And even if the background check was run and there was no conviction on record, please explain to me how these stupid republican tit for tats would have known except for who it is. Grasping again in their retaliation and they all should be put in prison for their abuse of power and breaking their oaths of office! What a disgusting sham of human beings. Everyone knows the republicans want no gun laws, no background checks.

  16. ShellBell says:

    Cornyn, Tillis, Colleagues Introduce Resolution to Block Biden ATF Rule
    May 15, 2024

    Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and 43 Senate Republicans today introduced a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to strike down the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) rule on the definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms, which ignores the law and congressional intent and flagrantly violates the Constitution to try to require anyone who sells a firearm to register as a federal firearm licensee”

    This is bs from the get-go. Oh, the lies they spread.

    “This rule is proof that the Biden administration is a dishonest broker, and Congress must hold it accountable for its actions in favor of its gun-grabbing liberal base over the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,” said Sen. Cornyn. “We will fight this lawless rule tooth and nail to ensure the God-given right to keep and bear arms is preserved and this flagrant distortion of congressional intent of our landmark mental health and school safety law is struck down.”

    What does this even mean. Am I being slow? Is he insinuating that he is ok with people that have mental health issues should be permitted to purchase semis and the school safety is not important?? Am I reading this correctly?

    “It is outrageous that the Biden Administration decided to take a good faith effort to curb the mental health crisis across our country and turn it into an unconstitutional attempt to restrict firearms from law-abiding American citizens,” said Sen. Tillis. “This overreach is exactly why Republicans don’t trust this Administration, and it will setback any attempt on future bipartisan legislation as long as President Biden is in office. I encourage my colleagues to support this CRA we introduced and immediately overturn this ridiculous regulation.”

    And here is a list of all the wonderful traitors:
    Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senators Roger Marshall (R-KS), Ted Budd (R-NC), John Kennedy (R-LA), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Steve Daines (R-MT), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rick Scott (R-FL), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), John Boozman (R-AR), Jim Risch (R-ID), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), John Hoeven (R-ND), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Mike Lee (R-UT), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Mitt Romney (R-UT), James Lankford (R-OK), John Thune (R-SD), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Tim Scott (R-SC), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Mike Braun (R-IN), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), J.D. Vance (R-OH), John Barrasso (R-WY), Katie Britt (R-AL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Todd Young (R-IN) joined the resolution.

    [Moderator’s note: formatted to improve readability. Please learn how to offset excerpted text clearly using HTML blockquote tags or other measures so that readers can easily distinguish excerpted material from your own words. /~Rayne]

    • Rayne says:

      In addition to the need for better formatting of excerpted materials, a link to the source would be appreciated.

      I assume this is the likely source because of the first name in the head: https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-tillis-colleagues-introduce-resolution-to-block-unconstitutional-biden-atf-rule/

      Please remember that many readers here are on mobile devices with smaller displays. Lengths of text like a list of names eats up a lot of comment thread. It might have been more beneficial and space efficient to note 43 of 49 GOP senators signed this toothless “sense of GOP caucus” resolution and note instead who the six GOP senators were who didn’t sign this pointless exercise which pisses in the face of the 2nd Amendment’s “well regulated militia” clause.

Comments are closed.