As a seasoned tax attorney, I’ve seen my fair share of high-profile cases. However, the upcoming federal trial of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, on gun charges is particularly noteworthy. The case, which is expected to begin with jury selection on June 3, revolves around allegations that Hunter Biden lied about past drug use when purchasing a gun in 2018. This was during a period in which he has since shared that he was struggling with crack cocaine addiction. He has pleaded not guilty.
The case brings to the forefront the heated debate around gun control and mental health in the US. While research shows that there is no link between mental illness and mass shootings, gun-related suicides are on the rise, especially among men. This case opens the question of whether and when someone with a history of mental illness, including addiction, should have their Second Amendment rights taken away.
A fairly recent federal court ruling, Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department, could offer some insight. In 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that someone who has been “adjudicated intellectually disabled” or “committed to a mental institution” couldn’t be barred outright from owning guns on those grounds alone.
Another one of the federal exclusion criteria is the following, in addition to involuntary hospitalization: any person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. So as I understand the charges in the Hunter Biden case, the government is alleging that he was, at the time that he purchased a firearm, an unlawful user of a controlled substance, and therefore was not legally entitled to purchase that firearm, even if he was not listed in the NICS as being ineligible. If he actually lied, that suggests arguably a greater level of culpability.
Both Clifford Tyler and Hunter Biden had a documented mental health history. Could someone’s fear of losing their gun rights deter them from seeking mental health treatment? This is a real concern. In most states, the only people who are reported to the NICS are people who have been involuntarily hospitalized, and in most states that doesn’t include short-term emergency detentions.
Nonetheless, we have heard concerns within psychiatry, particularly in parts of the country where gun ownership appears to be an essential part of a person’s identity—particularly a man’s identity—that people at least say that they would not seek mental health treatment because of this concern. When push comes to shove, how much of a role that actually plays in keeping people from treatment is not at all clear.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of responsible financial citizenship and the consequences of tax evasion. It also highlights the need for a comprehensive understanding of the legal and ethical implications of tax evasion.