Post Sandy Hook Gun Laws to Judges

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Post-Sandy Hook Gun Laws to Reach Justices Days After Orlando Shooting

Second Circuit upheld Connecticut restrictions on military-style rifles. But justices haven’t shown a recent interest in gun cases.

NationalLawJournal: With the worst mass shooting in American history in the background, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 16 will take its first look at a challenge to Connecticut’s ban on military-style firearms. But as past actions show, the justices may have little interest in revisiting Second Amendment disputes, including the regulation of the AR-15-style weapon reportedly used in the Orlando shootings that killed at least 50 people at a night club.

Since its landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the high court has declined numerous requests by gun rights advocates to examine the scope of protection for firearms—from concealed carry bans to open carry and guns on campus.

One possible reason? Lower courts have largely been uniform in upholding firearm restrictions. Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told The National Law Journal last year that the circuit courts haven’t split on any significant issues.

In the Connecticut case, Shew v. Malloy, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and others challenged a law the state passed in the aftermath of the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut. The shooter, Adam Lanza, fired 154 rounds in less than five minutes from an AR-15 military-style rifle.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the challenged provisions in October.

The Supreme Court last year was presented a chance to take up a Chicago suburb’s assault-weapon ban. In December, the court, with justices Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia dissenting, denied review in Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois. The decision left in place a Seventh Circuit ruling that upheld the city’s ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

Highland Park defined an “assault weapon” as a semiautomatic firearm with one of five specific features and with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition. A large capacity magazine is an “ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” according to the ordinance.

Thomas dissented from the denial of review. He said the Heller decision asks “whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns.”

Thomas said Highland Park’s ban “is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.”

California, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii, have bans similar to Highland Park’s law.

In June 2015, with Thomas and Scalia again dissenting, the justices declined to review Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco. The Ninth Circuit in that case upheld certain restrictions on handguns kept in the home.

The Ninth Circuit acted again on June 10 in Peruta v. County of San Diego, holding there is no Second Amendment right for private citizens to carry concealed weapons in public.

The Connecticut case that the justices have scheduled for their June 16 conference was filed by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and others. They are represented by the same lawyers who brought the Illinois challenge—including David Thompson of Washington’s Cooper & Kirk.

Thompson argues the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller applies to firearms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

Under Heller’s reasoning, he said, “law-abiding citizens also must be permitted to use the arms at issue in this case, which include AR-15s, the nation’s most popular semi-automatic rifles.”

Opposing review, Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Maura Osborne argued: “There is no disagreement among the lower courts on the question in this case. Indeed, the lower courts that have fully and finally considered whether a state may prohibit access to assault weapons have universally concluded that states may do so.”

Maryland regulations under review

Gun rights advocates and their opponents are closely watching a Maryland case that could create a division among circuit courts.

On May 11, the full Fourth Circuit considered the constitutionality of Maryland’s ban on certain semiautomatic weapons. Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, like Connecticut’s regulations, passed in the wake of the 2012 Newtown elementary school shootings. The law also prohibits magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

A three-judge panel in Kolbe v. Hogan ruled in February that the state ban imposed a “substantial” burden on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. It vacated a district court decision that upheld the ban. The appellate panel directed the trial court to apply “strict scrutiny,” a high standard that requires the government to prove a restriction “furthers a compelling interest” and it not overly broad.

“Let’s be real: The assault weapons banned by Maryland’s [Firearm Safety Act] are exceptionally lethal weapons of war,” Fourth Circuit Judge Robert King wrote in a dissent that supported the trial judge. “In fact, the most popular of the prohibited semiautomatic rifles, the AR-15, functions almost identically to the military’s fully automatic M16.”

A decision by the full Fourth Circuit is pending.

Read More:

Thomas Objects as Justices Turn Away Challenge to Assault-Weapon Ban

A Liberal Court Could Limit Reach of ‘Heller’

Second Circuit Largely Upholds Weapon Restrictions in Connecticut, New York

Split Ninth Circuit Rejects Concealed Carry Right in Gun Case

Florida Supreme Court Takes On Open-Carry Case

The Long Push to Get Another High-Court Gun Ruling

In Wake of Oregon Shooting, Don’t Expect Gun Makers to Pay

POTUS, No Executive Order to Close Gitmo

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Official offers details on Gitmo detainees who kill more Americans

An official who spoke to CNN Thursday put the numbers at fewer than 15 who went on to attack Americans or coalition forces in Afghanistan. The number of Americans killed in these attacks is believed to be in the single digits, according to the U.S. official, who is familiar with the matter.

“Because many of these incidents were large-scale firefights in a war zone, we cannot always distinguish whether Americans were killed by the former detainees or by others in the same fight,” the official said. More here.

USN: The White House was unable to come up with a strong legal strategy for executive action in this case, as the White House teams did in the cases of gun control and immigration executive orders, even though Obama serves as commander-in-chief and the office that he occupies traditionally has wider latitude in military matters. Obama sent a closure plan to Congress in February.

Report: Obama Administration Is ‘Not Pursuing’ an Executive Order to Close Guantanamo

TheBlaze: The Obama administration is not planning to use an executive order to close the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after officials determined that such an order would not be a “viable” strategy, “sources familiar with the deliberations” told Reuters.

According to Reuters, the decision “narrows the already slim chances that President Barack Obama can fulfill his pledge to close the notorious offshore prison before leaving office in January.”

While campaigning for president in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama promised to close the controversial facility if elected. Earlier this year, the president announced a plan to close the facility that was met with opposition in Congress.

The source told Reuters that the administration won’t pursue an executive order to close the facility, although the president is eager to close the prison.

“It was just deemed too difficult to get through all of the hurdles that they would need to get through, and the level of support they were likely to receive on it was thought to be too low to generate such controversy, particularly at a sensitive (time) in an election cycle.”

Myles Caggins, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, told Reuters, “The administration’s goal is to work with Congress to find a solution to close Guantanamo.”

Related reading: Obama Submitted the Plan to Close Gitmo, Rejected

Related from the White House in 2011:

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 7, 2011

FACT SHEET: NEW ACTIONS ON GUANTANAMO AND DETAINEE POLICY

FBI on Orlando Attack, Comprehensive Details

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

House members will receive a classified briefing on Tuesday afternoon on the Orlando shooting from FBI Director James Comey, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johson, and National Counterterrorism Center Director Nick Rasmussen, Speaker Paul Ryan’s office has announced.

Police and SWAT finally got into the club and said if you are alive, raise your hand….let that sink in.

Director Provides Update on Orlando Shootings Investigation


FBI Director James Comey—joined by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates—addresses members of the media during a press briefing held June 13, 2016 at FBI Headquarters regarding the recent mass shooting at nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

FBI Director James B. Comey said today that the FBI is working non-stop to understand what led a man to commit a mass shooting in Orlando, Florida that left 49 people dead and dozens more injured.

In a televised news briefing at FBI Headquarters, Comey said FBI investigators—working closely with state and local law enforcement agencies—are trying to understand “every moment of the killer’s path” leading up to the shooting early Sunday morning at a popular nightclub.

Comey said the shooter, who was killed in a gunfight with police responders, made three 911 phone calls from the club during the attack, beginning at about 2:30 a.m. In the calls, he claimed allegiance to the leader of the so-called Islamic State (ISIL) as well as the perpetrators of the 2013 Boston Marathon attack and a Florida man who died as a suicide bomber in Syria for a terrorist group in conflict with ISIL.

“There are strong indications of radicalization by this killer and of potential inspiration by foreign terrorism organizations,” Comey said, adding that the FBI is the lead investigative agency on this case because it is a terrorism investigation.

Director Comey also described the FBI’s prior contacts with the killer, beginning in May 2013. The FBI opened an investigation when the shooter, then working as a contract security guard, made some inflammatory comments to co-workers and claimed a family connection to Al Qaeda. The shooter was interviewed twice during the preliminary investigation, where he admitted making the statements but said he had done so in anger at his co-workers, who he believed were discriminating against him. The case was closed after 10 months.

Two months later, the shooter’s name surfaced as a casual acquaintance of the Florida man who blew himself up in Syria for the terrorist group al Nusra Front. “Our investigation turned up no ties of any consequence between the two of them,” Comey said. “We will continue to look forward in this investigation, and backward. We will leave no stone unturned.”

Comey said the Bureau is reviewing those cases to see if anything was missed. “We’re also going to look hard at our own work to see whether there is something we should have done differently. So far, the honest answer is: I don’t think so. I don’t see anything in reviewing our own work that our agents should have done differently.”

The Director, who was joined at the press briefing by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, expressed sorrow for the victims and their families.

“Our hearts are broken and ache for the people who are lost in Orlando, those wounded, and their families,” he said.

Comey also thanked first responders for their heroic work. “They showed professionalism and extraordinary bravery that saved lives,” he said. “We are very lucky that such good people choose lives of service in law enforcement.”

Saudi Key Funder of Hillary Clinton Campaign

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Primer:

Foreign nationals or foreign money cannot pay for or lobby for any ballot measures either. Document here from the FEC Commissioner.

From the Federal Election Commission website: The ban on political contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals was first enacted in 1966 as part of the amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), an “internal security” statute. The goal of the FARA was to minimize foreign intervention in U.S. elections by establishing a series of limitations on foreign nationals. These included registration requirements for the agents of foreign principals and a general prohibition on political contributions by foreign nationals. In 1974, the prohibition was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (the FECA), [HTML] [PDF] giving the Federal Election Commission (FEC) jurisdiction over its enforcement and interpretation.

This brochure has been developed to help clarify the rules regarding the political activity of foreign nationals; however, it is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of the election law. If you have any questions after reading this, please contact the FEC in Washington, D.C., at 1-800-424-9530 or 202-694-1100. Members of the press should contact the FEC Press Office at 202-694-1220 or at the toll free number listed above.

Except where otherwise noted, all citations refer to the Act and FEC regulations. Advisory Opinions (AOs) issued by the Commission are also cited.

The Prohibition

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

Who is a Foreign National?

The following groups and individuals are considered “foreign nationals” and are, therefore, subject to the prohibition:

Foreign governments;

Foreign political parties;

Foreign corporations;

Foreign associations;

Foreign partnerships;

Individuals with foreign citizenship; and

Immigrants who do not have a “green card.”

Deleted official report says Saudi key funder of Hillary Clinton campaign

#USA2016

MEE: Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly said Saudi has enthusiastically funded Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign

Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next president of the United States, according to a report published by Jordan’s official news agency.

The Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate’s campaign.

The report was later deleted and the news agency has not responded to requests for comment from Middle East Eye.

It is illegal in the United States for foreign countries to try to influence the outcome of elections by funding candidates.

The Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs has re-published the original Arabic Petra report, which quoted Prince Mohammed as having said Saudi Arabia had provided with “full enthusiasm” an undisclosed amount of money to Clinton.

“Saudi Arabia always has sponsored both Republican and Democratic Party of America and in America current election also provide with full enthusiasm 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s election even though some events in the country don’t have a positive look to support the king of a woman (sic) for presidency,” the report quoted Prince Mohammed as having said.

The US Federal Election commission reports that over the past two years Clinton has raised a little more than $211.78m. Twenty percent of this sum is $42.35m.

A screenshot of the English report published and then deleted by the Petra News Agency

The report was published on the eve of Prince Mohammed making an official visit to the United States.

The Saudi Press Agency reported on Monday that the senior royal was due to fly to Washington where he will meet officials to discuss US-Saudi ties.

He will remain in the American capital until 16 June, when he will travel to New York for meetings with financial companies, the Saudi Gazette reported.

Prince Mohammed will discuss regional issues with American officials, and he will hold talks with the financial companies about his vision for diversifying Saudi Arabia’s economy away from oil dependency.

Links between Saudi Arabia and the Clinton family, including with Hillary’s campaign, are well reported.

In 2008, it was revealed that the Gulf kingdom had donated between $10m and $25m to the Clinton Foundation, a charity set up by Hillary’s husband and former US President Bill Clinton.

Last year the Centre for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court paid public relations firm the Podesta Group $200,000 for a month-long project to provide “public relations services”.

The Podesta Group was founded in 1988 by brothers John and Tony Podesta. John Podesta is the chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next US president.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

Jesse Ventura Award Case Rejected by the Court

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

FNC: MINNEAPOLIS – A federal appeals court on Monday threw out a $1.8 million judgment awarded to former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who says he was defamed in the late author Chris Kyle’s bestselling book “American Sniper.”

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the jury’s 2014 award of $500,000 for defamation and $1.3 million for unjust enrichment against Kyle’s estate. Kyle, a former SEAL who was the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history with 160 confirmed kills, died in 2013.

The majority of the three-judge panel reversed the unjust-enrichment award, saying it fails as a matter of law. The majority also vacated the defamation award, but sent that portion of the case back to court for a new trial.

Messages left with Ventura’s publicist and attorney were not immediately returned Monday. A message left with an attorney for Kyle’s estate also did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Kyle claimed in a subchapter called “Punching Out Scruff Face,” to have decked a man, whom he later identified as Ventura, during a fallen SEAL’s wake at a California bar in 2006. He wrote that “Scruff Face” had made offensive comments about the elite force, including a remark that the SEALs “deserve to lose a few” in Iraq.

Ventura, a former Underwater Demolition Teams/SEAL member and ex-pro wrestler, testified at trial that Kyle’s story was a fabrication. Ventura said he never made the comments and that the altercation never happened. He said the book ruined his reputation in the tight-knit SEAL community.

The hit movie based on the book did not depict the alleged incident.

Kyle, who was killed on a shooting range in 2013 by a troubled fellow veteran, gave sworn videotaped testimony before his death that his story was true.

Kyle’s widow, Taya Kyle, appealed the $1.8 million judgment, asking the appeals court to throw out the verdict or at least order a new trial on First Amendment and other grounds. Ventura’s lawyers, however, argued that jury got the verdict right, and that the judge properly applied the law and correctly instructed the jury.

A key issue in the appeal was whether Kyle acted with “actual malice,” a demanding legal standard laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Times v. Sullivan case in 1964. It means a plaintiff who’s a public figure must prove that a defendant knew that the statement in question was false or made it with reckless disregard for whether it was false. Kyle’s estate argued that the judge gave the jury faulty instructions on that point.

A separate issue was the $1.3 million award for unjust enrichment. Ventura’s attorneys argued that “American Sniper” shot to the top of the best-seller lists only because Kyle’s statements about Ventura thrust him into the national spotlight. The Kyle estate argued that no other court had awarded damages for unjust enrichment for allegedly defamatory speech.

The Kyle estate also said the judge improperly let the jury hear that publisher HarperCollins had an insurance policy to cover a defamation award and attorney fees. Courts are typically reluctant to permit such testimony out of concerns that it could taint a jury’s decision.