Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, is facing three felony gun charges and is set to be arraigned on Tuesday. The charges stem from his possession of a Colt Cobra 38SPL revolver in October 2018, during which he allegedly lied on the firearm registration form about his drug use. One of the charges he is facing is for violating a ban on gun possession for drug users, which his defense attorneys argue is unconstitutional. They base their argument on a Supreme Court decision from last year that expanded gun rights and stated that gun restrictions must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The case against Hunter Biden raises questions about the constitutionality of the law cited in the indictment. Some U.S. district courts have found the drug-user provision to be unconstitutional, while others have upheld it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit recently found the statute to be unconstitutional as applied to a Texas man who admitted to regularly using marijuana. The court acknowledged that while there may be limits on an intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon, disarming a sober citizen based solely on past drug usage is not justified.

There are several key issues that could arise in Hunter Biden's case. One issue is establishing whether he was actively using drugs during the 11-day span that he possessed the revolver. The defense may argue that unless the government can prove he was high at the specific time he had the gun, they cannot prevail. Another issue is the interplay between the possession charge and the alleged false statements charges. If a court were to find the possession charge unconstitutional, the false statements charges may also fall.

The charges against Hunter Biden could potentially carry a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison and fines of up to $750,000. His defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, argues that the charges are barred by the agreement prosecutors made with his client and by recent rulings that found the gun possession statute to be unconstitutional. Lowell believes that the prosecution's bending to political pressure presents a grave threat to the justice system.

The Biden administration has urged courts to uphold the gun possession statute, pointing to historical laws that disarmed intoxicated individuals and those deemed dangerous to public peace or safety. However, the Supreme Court's new framework for evaluating gun restrictions in the Bruen decision has raised questions about the constitutionality of such laws. The court will have the opportunity to clarify its historical tradition test in a case involving the prohibition of people under domestic violence restraining orders from having guns.

While pro-Second Amendment groups are typically opposed to gun control, they are not jumping to Hunter Biden's defense. Gun Owners for America stated that as long as President Biden continues to harass and criminalize guns, his son should be subject to the same treatment as everyone else. The National Rifle Association echoed this sentiment, saying that laws should be applied equally against all criminals.

The outcome of Hunter Biden's case may have significant implications for the constitutionality of gun laws and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's ruling in Bruen and subsequent cases will determine how far courts can go in invalidating gun laws based on historical tradition. It remains to be seen how the court will balance gun rights with the government's interest in public safety.