This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity.
By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content.
Honestly, that’s a horrible idea. Far more minorities are convicted on drug charges than their population represents. It’s likely that the document violates people’s 2nd amendment rights (for those who think that it still applies when a well regulated malitia is not required for the protection of our free state). Regardless, it’s a bad precident. I don’t care about Hunter, but this should not be used on anyone else. If I had my choice, he’d use his resources, which he has plenty of, to fight it for the good of all other people, but that would be bad politically.
If its a horrible idea, the law should be changed. It shouldn’t be determined by one rich, white guy’s ability to fight it in court. Precident isn’t going to help any minorities or majorities with this type of case.
If it’s ruled unconstitutional then it’s unconstitutional. It won’t just be for him. I believe it’s happened once for this form, but it was in a stare court, so the precedent isn’t set at the federal level. I might be wrong though. It might just be strong suspicion that it’s unconstitutional that hasn’t been tested yet.