Hunter Biden’s attorneys are arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on gun possession by someone accused of domestic violence bolsters their client’s Second Amendment rights — saying the president’s son was never under such a court order or deemed dangerous.

In a 17-page motion filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Delaware, Biden’s lawyers say he should be acquitted because the law at issue runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

They point to the high court’s 8-1 ruling in United States v. Rahimi last week, in which the majority said that an individual under a domestic violence protective order whom a court has deemed to be a danger or threat to another can be temporarily disarmed.

Biden’s attorneys note that no court ever deemed their client to be dangerous and that the law preventing him from possessing a firearm as an addict is not temporary.

“That distinction is critical to the Second Amendment analysis,” they wrote.

A federal jury in Delaware this month convicted Biden of three felonies stemming from his purchase of a gun in October 2018 while he was addicted to crack cocaine. Federal law prohibits drug users from owning and possessing firearms. A sentencing date has not been scheduled.

Biden was found guilty of two counts of making false statements on a federal form in saying he was not addicted to drugs when he purchased a revolver at a Delaware gun store in 2018. He was also found guilty of illegally possessing a firearm while addicted to drugs.

In Monday’s series of filings, his lawyers are attempting to have his charges and conviction dismissed. One motion focused specifically on the Rahimi decision.

On Friday, the Supreme Court said some “dangerous” people can be disarmed. But it was a narrow ruling that won’t settle scores of gun challenges heading to the justices over bans against semiautomatic rifles, carrying permits, and if illegal immigrants and drug users can possess a gun.

The justices in an 8-1 decision said a ban on a dangerous person who is subject to a domestic violence protection order can temporarily be disarmed.

The case involved Zackey Rahimi, who was under a domestic violence order in Texas but hadn’t been convicted of any crime. Under federal laws, that meant he couldn’t have a gun. Rahimi was convicted of illegally possessing a gun.

The Supreme Court in 2022 issued a major gun rights ruling saying any law restricting the use of a gun had to comply with the nation’s history dating back to its founding. Rahimi’s lawyers challenged his conviction, saying under that 2022 ruling, he had a Second Amendment right to handle a gun.

Following that 2022 ruling, courts have seen challenges from felons, illegal immigrants and others who have been disarmed, saying their ban is not grounded in history and tradition surrounding the Second Amendment.

Biden also has argued that his conviction doesn’t hold water under the high court’s 2022 ruling.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote Friday’s ruling, saying that the 2022 Bruen ruling doesn’t require an exact historical twin of a law to be able to disarm someone.

“Since the founding, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition,” the chief justice said in upholding the federal law.

Biden’s attorneys have tried to use that temporary status of a court order — and the language and history surrounding how a dangerous person was treated — to say the high court would find the federal law that snared Hunter Biden unconstitutional.

“It seems to be important to the majority in Rahimi that this domestic violence law was placed on individualized findings that this person posed a threat to someone else,” said Andrew Willinger, executive director of Duke Center for Firearms Law, noting that the order was only temporarily used to bar someone’s gun possession. He is not involved in representing Biden.

“Really this actually indicates the Supreme Court would likely be suspicious of a law that is broader than the one it upheld in Rahimi,” Mr. Willinger added, referring to the federal law enforced against Hunter Biden.

Lauryn P. Goulding, a law professor at Syracuse University, said the Rahimi ruling IS “highly relevant” for Biden’s appeal and his attorneys have to be “pleased” with the decision.

She said the Supreme Court repeatedly noted that Rahimi had notice and process for being subject to a domestic violence protective order, whereas Biden did not.

“You don’t have any of that notice or process that attaches for Biden’s case. That is a lot of what his defense team was challenging before the trial and at the trial,” Ms. Goulding said.

• Jeff Mordock contributed to this story.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.