Now That DOJ Is Running Fact Checks On Gun Applications

[Beastly Boy]

55. Well, if you insist on going in circles:

It's a friggin opinion piece. Opinions are exceedingly common. Everybody has one, as the saying goes.

So do I. But I will not opine on the matters of fact. I will just point out the glaring inaccuracies Mr Hartmann inserted into his opinions.

The description of the plea deal Mr Hartman is opining on, "involving checking an “I’m not a drug addict” box on a gun purchase application and failing to pay his taxes" is not only a complete misrepresentation of the deal, but also misquotes the actual content in the application in question. There is no such thing as "“I’m not a drug addict” box" in the application, which Mr Hartmann puts in quotation marks as if it accurately represents what Biden had been charged with (https://courts.delaware.gov/Forms/Download.aspx?id=33068). That was not the charge.

Then, Mr Hartmann, as so many other DOJ detractors do time and again, despite clear evidence to the contrary, assumes that the Fifth Circuit ruling that struck down the law barring users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms, and would make you believe that this ruling has anything to do with Biden's charges. Yet, in the ruling, Judge Smith clearly states, referring to the defendant in the case: "We conclude only byemphasizing the narrowness of that holding. We do not invalidate the statute in all its applications, but, importantly, only as applied to Daniels" (https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf , Page 29)