Trump Derangement Syndrome is real, and at times it can be highly amusing to see just how far off the rails some progressives have gone because the president has broken their brains.
I recently ran across a piece at Daily Kos that made me laugh out loud; not because the author was trying to be humorous, but because his take on the U.S. v. Hemani case is so bizarre and incorrect that I've never seen anything quite like it.
Hemani, you will recall, is the case involving Section 922(g)(3) and its prohibition on gun possession by unlawful users of drugs. In this particular case, the federal government is defending the statute after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is unconstitutional as it applies to Ali Danial Hemani, who was arrested and charged after admitting to regularly using marijuana while a gun owner.
The Daily Kos piece starts out with a brief overview of the case before descending into the depths of madness.
One would expect the NRA and its lawfaring fur covered razor blade (ahem, lobbying arm) the ILA to be howling in dismay over the notion that someone who say, has a prescription for medical marijuana, or even ambien or gabapentin, should be categorically disarmed. And face federal gun charges. With marijuana legal in some 40 states alone , a decision for plaintiff here would result in a lot of ‘gun grabbing’ to say the least. But other than a timid amicus brief, it’s crickets from the once mighty publisher of “American Rifleman”. The only person who has dared step out of line on Mr. Trump’s previous arguments toward disarmament (when his DHS supposed that bringing a gun to a protest was probable cause for arrest) is ironically Kyle Rittenhouse.
I'm not sure what else the author expects from NRA other than an amicus brief, but they're not part of Hemani's counsel. I also have no idea why the author claims the NRA's amicus brief is "timid," since it's a pretty clear refutation of 922(g)(3) and an embrace of the Fifth Circuit's decision that held while prohibitions on possessing guns while actively intoxicated are likely constitutional, barring users of intoxicating substances is not.
The author also ignores all of the other amicus briefs filed on behalf of Mr. Hemani from the likes of Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, National Association of Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, among others.The Second Amendment community has hardly been timid in urging the Court to strike down 922(g)(3), at least as it applies to users of marijuana.
The quoted paragraph above was my first indication that the Daily Kos author either doesn't have a firm command of the facts in this case or is just ignoring information that doesn't fit his point of view. Things really took a turn for the weird, though, when he divulged his theory about what's really behind the Trump administration's defense of the statute.
Why is Mr. Trump’s so-called conservative Justice Department trying to chisel away a reliable Republican platform pillar? Well, IMHO the answer is of course Mr. Trump, and his obsession with petty revenge against the Biden Family. The real subject here isn’t about Mr. Hemani or whether the right to bear arms is situational or categorical. I believe the real target here is Hunter Biden. And Mr. Trump’s obsession with sending this particular individual to prison.
In June of 2024, Hunter Biden was convicted on three felonies after he lied on a federal form to purchase a gun in Delaware by saying he wasn’t a drug user in 2018, a period when he has acknowledged being addicted. The case was formally dismissed by a federal judge due to Joe Biden’s blanket pardon and the Trump administration has been unsuccessful in resurrecting the charges ever since. If SCOTUS finds for the plaintiff in U.S. V Hemani, this would open a whole new toolbox for the Justice Department to prosecute Mr. Biden.
Say what now?
First of all, the DOJ's defense of 922(g)(3) isn't an attempt to chisel away any part of the Republican platform. Conservatives, even gun owners, are pretty divided about the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3), and I suspect the Supreme Court's decision will reflect that. I won't be shocked if Justice Samuel Alito, for instance, ends up siding with the government and votes to uphold the statute, even though he's been a reliable defender of the right to keep and bear arms during his time on the bench.
I suspect that Alito will be in the minority when the Hemani decision comes down, but even if I'm wrong and SCOTUS upholds the statute as it applies to Hemani, it will have no impact on Hunter Biden's case, which as the author notes, was mooted by his dad's blanket pardon. Biden was tried, convicted, and pardoned for lying on the Form 4473 he filled out when purchasing a revolver. He can't be tried again for those crimes. The constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy applies here.
Even if it didn't, Biden's case involved an addiction to crack cocaine, not marijuana, and the Supreme Court is expected to issue a narrow ruling to Hemani's as-applied challenge, not throw out the statute entirely. Hemani isn't an impediment to re-trying Hunter Biden. The Constitution is.
This is one of the worst cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome that I've run across, exacerbated by what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the Hemani case and even the rule of law. Even by the low standards of the Daily Kos this is some nutty thinking... and I really hope the author will share his thoughts after the verdict in Hemani comes down so we can see how much worse his TDS has become.
