This case could very well mean that Hunter Biden, the son of a virulently anti-gun president, might be instrumental in moving the needle in favor of the gun rights crowd. You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating Hunter Biden over his purchase of a firearm in 2018. However, he later acknowledged that he had been an avid user of crack cocaine during this time period, which is a violation of federal law:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms says this ban applies to people who have admitted to using illegal drugs in the 12 months before buying a gun. Violators can receive up to 15 years in prison.

But the provision, long considered an unassailable gun restriction, now faces challenges. Last June, the Supreme Court undid decades of lower-court jurisprudence about the Second Amendment. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court’s six-justice conservative majority ruled that contemporary gun restrictions must be consistent with those of the founding era.

This new constitutional test presents a massive opening for people working to loosen gun restrictions, since firearm laws in America’s founding era were, in some ways, extremely permissive. The president, meanwhile, called the ruling deeply troubling and said it “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution.”

This provision has already been successfully challenged in multiple instances after the Bruen ruling. In a recent case, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone handed down a ruling dismissing a case against a marijuana user who was charged with possessing a gun and transferring it to her husband, who also used illegal drugs.

Cardone wrote in her opinion:

In short, the historical tradition of disarming ‘unlawful’ individuals appears to mainly involve disarming those convicted of serious crimes after they have been afforded criminal process. Section 922(g)(3), in contrast, disarms those who engage in criminal conduct that would give rise to misdemeanor charges, without affording them the procedural protections enshrined in our criminal justice system.

What is even more delicious about this story is Biden’s argument that the Bruen ruling “contradicts common sense and the Constitution.” This means that Hunter will be using the very decision his father despises to defend himself from prosecution.

If Hunter is able to successfully use this defense, it will be the most high-profile case in which a federal gun control law was repudiated by a court, which could mean that this part of the law might eventually be struck down, which is precisely what should happen. This gun restriction is an egregious violation of the right to keep and bear arms. It essentially mandates that one can only own a firearm if they consume substances of which the state approves.

If one is a frequent drinker or using pharmaceuticals approved by the government, they can exercise their Second Amendment rights even if these substances cause intoxication. It makes about as much sense as letting President Biden babysit your eight-year-old daughter. The provision was intended only to further restrict the ability to arm oneself. Thanks to Bruen, and a little help from the scandal-ridden Hunter Biden, the restriction might be living on borrowed time at the moment.