party opposition doesn't matter.  Remember, one party rule.  They do what they want.

Trying to throw out the suit about lying on his ATF form involving current user of illicit drugs as unconstitutional (I'm guessing via 2A) .

Judge said the suit against hunter can proceed

Double edged sword as far as I'm concerned with 2A community since the drug question is unconstitutional but it's a biden so....

Don't know if anyone else posted this but it was introduced in April and changes technicalities in regards to red-flag laws

Looking through if basically removes official mental condition reports via mental health providers (under discretionary disclosure and duty to warn), and it doesn't need to be written at all.  Basically,  just like the worst parts of any red-flag law,  all that needs to happen is any verbal report from anyone about any SUSPECTED mental condition of someone else,  namely a person with guns/ammo

It also extends the periods of time between proceedings and hearings

Not in committee yet but you can guarantee without push back from opposing party it's going to go through

Well gang, the Delaware District Court got it wrong again.  This time with the denial of Hunter Biden's challenge to the charge for possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of controlled substances. As you may recall, last year, the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals decided the case of United States v. Daniels which held 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied.  Section 922(g)(3) is the one that says a person may not possess a firearm if they are an unlawful user of controlled substances.  In that case, the defendant was stopped for a minor traffic violation and was found to be in possession of a de minimis quantity of marijuana, a pistol, and a rifle.  He was convicted under Section 922(g)(3) and later appealed to the Fifth Circuit which reversed and vacated the conviction as Section 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied.  In the Biden case, the attorney got a bit too ambitious and argued that Section 922(g)(3) is facially unconstitutional, and by using rather lazy analogical analysis under Heller and Bruen, the presiding Delaware District Court judge denied the motion without prejudice.  While this is a bit of a set back, it left the door open for an as applied challenge at the close of the Government's case in chief.  Stay tuned for more.  If anyone wants to look over the opinion, I can link it here in a reply. 

The left is indeed trying to stifle his rulings, but they're also trying to do so by throwing the proverbial poo at the wall to see what sticks.  If they had half a brain between them all, they'd know that having a United States District judge voluntarily recuse himself from criminal proceedings would accomplish the opposite of their goal with respect to advancing gun control measures.  If they were smart (and they're not), they'd have found a way to have him recuse himself from presiding over civil cases.  Fortunately for us, the left has made their bed and now they've got to sleep in it given that United States District judges are appointed to a life term.  It would take far more serious misconduct for a judge to be removed from the bench.