PUBLISHED: 09:51 EST, 8 November 2018 | UPDATED: 12:11 EST, 9 November 2018
Eight of the 12 the victims shot dead in the crowded country music bar in California have now been identified.
Sean Adler, 48; Cody Coffman, 22; Blake Dingman, 23; Jake Dunham, 21; Justin Meek, 23; Daniel Manrique; Kristina Morisette; Telemachus Orfanos, 27; and Noel Sparks were among those killed in the massacre at the Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks on Wednesday night.
Alaina Housley, the 18-year-old niece of ‘Sister, Sister’ actress Tamera Mowry-Housley and her husband Adam Housley, was also killed.
Ventura County Sheriff’s Sergeant Ron Helus, who was first on the scene, was killed after being shot multiple times when he exchanged fire with the 28-year-old gunman, Ian David Long.
Sergeant on Brink of Retirement
Ventura County Sheriff Sgt. Ron Helus was among those killed. He was shot multiple times by the gunman after responding to the first 911 calls and later died in hospital
Ron Helus, 54, was set to retire from the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department next year after 29 years on the job.
He was among the first to respond to calls of a shooting at the Borderline Bar, and was shot multiple times as he and a California Highway Patrol officer exchanged fire with the gunman inside the bar.
Helus was speaking to his wife Karen when he received the call about a mass shooting.
The last thing he said to her was: ‘Hon, I got to go, I love you. I gotta go on a call’.
Devoted Son
Cody Coffman, 22, was killed in the massacre at the Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks, California on Wednesday night
Video playing bottom right…
Click here to expand to full page
Cody Coffman’s father Jason sobbed as he confirmed that authorities had told him on Thursday that his oldest son had died.
‘Oh Cody, I love you son,’ he said. ‘This is a heart I will never get back.’
He said he spoke to his son just before he went to the bar Wednesday night.
‘The first thing I said was ‘Please don’t drink and drive.’ The last thing I said was ‘Son, I love you’,’ he said.
Cody had plans to go into the military and was speaking with U.S. Army recruiters.
His father Jason had earlier rushed to the bar after hearing news of the shooting and calls to his son’s cellphone went unanswered. He feared the worst when a tracking app on his son’s phone indicated the device was still inside the venue.
Jason said he was alerted to the shooting when several of Cody’s friends started banged on their front door after 1am.
‘Some of his girlfriends got out but they didn’t know where Cody was,’ Jason said.
Barman Who Rushed to Save Others
Justin Meek, 23, (above) worked at the Borderline Bar as a bouncer and was the organizer of the bar’s country music college night, which was taking place when the gunman struck
Justin Meek was identified as one of the slain victims by his family and his former college.
The 23-year-old, who was a recent graduate of California Lutheran University, worked at the bar where he was killed.
Meek is believed to have heroically saved lives as the shooting unfolded, according to university president Chris Kimball.
‘Justin was a criminal justice and criminology major who had a passion for doing what was right,’ Jenn Zimmerman, Cal Lutheran’s veterans coordinator, said in a statement.
‘I’m not shocked he took action to protect the people at Borderline.’
During college, he worked in the school’s veteran resource office and often worked with the Veterans Club to plan events and help veteran students.
Meek also loved singing in choir and took part in the school’s Kingsmen Quartet.
He planned to join the US Coast Guard.
Las Vegas Shooting Survivor
Borderline employee Telemachus Orfanos was also among those confirmed dead. He survived the mass shooting that killed 58 at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas last year
Borderline employee Telemachus Orfanos, 27, was also among those confirmed dead.
In a cruel twist of fate, Orfanos was a survivor of the Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting massacre in Las Vegas last year.
An estimated 50 to 60 survivors of the Las Vegas shooting were at the Borderline Bar on Wednesday – they often met there for mutual support.
Orfanos was an Eagle Scout and served in the Navy.
His social media indicates he attended the local Thousand Oaks High School and Moorepark College.
Niece of Sitcom Actress
Alaina Housley, the 18-year-old niece of actress Tamera Mowry-Housley and her husband Adam Housley, died in the shooting
Actress Tamera Mowry-Housley and her husband Adam Housley (left) issued a statement saying their hearts were broken following her death
‘Sister, Sister’ actress Tamera Mowry-Housley and her husband Adam Housley revealed that their 18-year-old niece had also been killed.
The couple issued a statement, saying: ‘Our hearts are broken’.
‘We just learned that our Alaina was one of the victims of last night’s shooting at Borderline Bar in Thousand Oaks.
‘Alaina was an incredible young woman with so much life ahead of her and we are devastated that her life was cut short in this manner.’
Mowry-Housley posted this tribute to her slain niece on Instagram after the shooting
The teenager was a freshman at Pepperdine University and had been at the bar with several friends.
Her Apple Watch and iPhone showed her location as still inside the bar in the aftermath of the shooting.
Her uncle Adam, who is a former Fox News correspondent, had rushed to the hospital at 3.30am in search of his niece after hearing reports of the shooting.
‘My gut is saying she’s inside the bar, dead. I’m hoping I’m wrong,’ Adam had told the LA Times before her dead was confirmed.
Two of her friends jumped out of a broken window and ran for safety but say they lost Alaina in the mayhem. They are in hospital being treated for major injuries.
Waitress with Bright Smile
Kristina Kaylee Morisette, who worked as the cashier at Borderline Bar and Grill, was also confirmed dead in the shooting
Kristina Kaylee Morisette, who worked at Borderline Bar and Grill, was also confirmed dead in the shooting.
She attended Simi Valley High School.
Morisette was reportedly working the cash register at the front of the bar when the gunman stormed in and began shooting.
‘The worst things happen to the best people,’ a friend wrote on Twitter. She was such a sweet girl and cared for everyone.
Churchgoing College Student
Noel Sparks, a 21-year-old student at Moorpark College, was also confirmed dead
Noel Sparks’ final Snapchat post
Noel Sparks, a 21-year-old student at Moorpark College, was also confirmed dead.
The United Methodist Church in Westlake Village, of which she was a member, posted condolences to her parents on Facebook.
Sparks’ friends had been in tears throughout the day as they desperately searched for her in the aftermath of the shooting.
Her friend Madison Nenkervis posted a tribute to Sparks on Facebook, writing: ‘one of the Victims of the shooting was a dear Church friend of my families and Such a sweet Amazing soul.’
Nenkervis shared Sparks’ chilling final post on Snapchat from shortly before the shooting.
It showed the dance floor at Borderline half empty, with the caption ‘It’s quite [sic] tonight’.
Entrepreneurial Bouncer
A friend places his hand on a photo of Sean Adler during a vigil at the Rivalry Roasters coffee shop on Thursday. Adler had recently launched the business when he was killed
Sean Adler, 48, was working as a bouncer at the Borderline Bar & Grill when he was killed.
He was a wrestling coach who had only recently opened a coffee shop in the local area.
The married father of two had big dreams for Rivalry Roasters, but stuck with his job working the door at Borderline to ensure he’d be able to support his family.
Adler had dreamed of becoming a police officer, and was training with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department last year when a heart attack forced him to reconsider his career path.
He is survived by his wife and two sons, ages 12 and 17.
Motorsports Enthusiast
Blake Dingman, 21, was identified by his girlfriend as a victim of the mass shooting
Blake Dingman, 21, was identified by his girlfriend as a victim of the mass shooting.
‘My sweet Blake… my heart is hurting more than words can say. I cannot believe you’re gone. I am so grateful for our little infinity and all of our deep talks, cuddles, late nights, and adventures,’ she wrote in a tribute.
‘I am so incredibly grateful for every moment we spent together. God brought us together for a reason and I will hold our memories in my heart forever. I love you with all of my heart my sweet boy and my angel.’
Dingman played high school baseball at Hillcrest Christian School in Thousand Oaks.
His Facebook page shows his enthusiasm for motorsports, including monster trucks and racing.
Jake Dunham, 21, was also killed
Loyal Friend
Jake Dunham, 21, was also among those killed in the shooting.
He had gone to the bar to play pool with his friends, his father Ken Dunham told NBC Los Angeles.
‘I keep calling it but there’s no answer,’ Ken said. ‘It just keeps ringing out… he always answers his phone.’
Some published reports said that Dunham was at Borderline with his friend, Blake Dingman, who also was among those killed.
Dunham and Dingham were known to be close friends.
Marine Veteran
Marine veteran Daniel Manrique, 33, was another victim confirmed killed in the shooting
Marine veteran Daniel Manrique, 33, was another victim confirmed killed in the shooting.
‘He had spent his entire adult life, post military service, helping veterans readjust to civilian life and had just recently accepted a position with Team RWB as the Pacific Regional Program Manager,’ family member Gladys Manrique Koscak wrote in a tribute on Facebook.
‘I have no doubt that he died a hero, shielding others from gunshots. He will forever be our hero, son, brother, and the best uncle anybody could ever ask for,’ she said.
Frantic Search for Survivors
A shirtless man and two others carry an injured person out of the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California, on Wednesday night after a gunman opened fire at 11.20pm
A number of parents rushed to the bar and used tracking devices to look up their children’s iPhones and iWatches.
Many of the devices were still located inside the bar as the parents said they hadn’t heard from their loved ones since the shooting happened.
There were roughly 100 people inside the bar when the gunman opened fire.
Many of those inside were students at Pepperdine University and others are thought to have gone to California Lutheran University – both are Christian schools.
The Ventura County Sheriff’s office said the victim notification process was ‘slow and methodical’. They said they were doing everything possible to notify relatives.
EMTs treat a victim from the shooting at Borderline Bar and Grill on Wednesday. In addition to the 12 innocent people who were killed, another 12 at least were injured
Authorities said Long was wearing a hood and dressed all in black when he used a smoke bomb and handgun to open fire at the bar.
Patrons screamed in fear, shouted ‘get down!’ and used barstools to smash second-floor windows and jump to safety as gunfire erupted at the bar, a hangout popular with students from nearby California Lutheran University.
Authorities said 21 people injured in the shooting had been released from various hospitals by Thursday morning.
‘It’s a horrific scene in there,’ Ventura County Sheriff Geoff Dean said. ‘There’s blood everywhere.’
The gunman, who was a former marine, deployed a smoke device and used a .45-caliber handgun in the attack.
He first fired on a person working the door and then appeared to shoot at random at people inside, according to witnesses.
This is a list of known mass shootings that have occurred in the United States since 1966. Mass shootings are incidents involving multiple victims of firearm-related violence. The precise inclusion criteria are disputed, and there is no broadly accepted definition.[2][3]
The Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research group that tracks shootings and their characteristics in the United States, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, excluding the perpetrator(s), are shot in one location at roughly the same time.[4] The Congressional Research Service narrows that definition further, only considering what it defines as “public mass shootings”, and only considering victims as those who are killed, excluding any victims who survive.[3]The Washington Post and Mother Jones use similar definitions, with the latter acknowledging that their definition “is a conservative measure of the problem”, as many rampages with fewer fatalities occur.[5][6] The crowdsourced Mass Shooting Tracker project uses a definition even looser than the Gun Violence Archive’s definition: four people shot in one incident regardless of the circumstances.[7]
Larger documentation of mass shootings in the United States has occurred through independent and scholarly studies such as the Stanford University Mass Shootings of American Data Project.[5][8]
There are many definitions for what a mass shooting is:
Mass Shooting Tracker: 4+ shot in one incident, at one location, at roughly the same time.[7]
Gun Violence Archive: 4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time.[4]
Vox: 4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time.[9][10]
USA Today: 4+ shot and killed in one incident, at one location, at roughly the same time (same as the FBI‘s “mass killing” definition).[11]
Mother Jones: 3+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place, excluding gang-related killings.[12]
The Washington Post: 4+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place, excluding gang-related killings.[5]
Only incidents considered mass shootings by at least two of the above definitions are listed, and only shootings that have Wikipedia articles of their own are included in this list. Detailed lists of shootings can be found per-year at their respective pages.
Shooting of Jemel Roberson: A man re-entered a bar after being ejected and began to fire, wounding three people and becoming injured himself. Armed security guards apprehended the suspect. Responding officers saw one of the security guards with a gun, and shot and killed him.[13]
Thousand Oaks shooting: A man entered a bar hosting a student line-dancing event and killed twelve people, including a police officer. At least twelve people were injured. The gunman then killed himself.[14]
2018 Tallahassee Attack: A man entered a yoga studio and killed 2 women and injured 5 others; four by gunshots and one by pistol-whipping, before committing suicide.[15]
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting: A man opened fire in the Tree of Life synagogue in an antisemitic attack, killing eleven people and injuring six others (including four police officers). The suspect was taken into custody by police.[16][17]
Florence County shooting: Officers were shot at during a two-hour standoff while attempting to execute a search warrant in which the perpetrator held children hostage, killing one and wounding seven before being arrested.[18]
Aberdeen, Maryland shooting: An employee of the Rite Aid Distribution facility killed three victims before wounding herself. The shooter died later in the hospital.[19]
Fifth Third Center Shooting: A gunman entered a loading dock at the Fifth Third Center skyscraper and opened fire before entering the lobby of a building. Four people, including the shooter, were killed and two were injured.[20]
Jacksonville Landing Shooting: A gunman killed two people and wounded eleven more (nine with gunshot wounds) at a Madden NFL 19 competition before killing himself. The shooter was identified as David Katz, an individual who had reportedly been eliminated from the competition before the shooting.[21][22][23]
Art All Night shooting: Multiple gunmen wounded 17 people at the Art All Night festival. Five others were wounded when they were trampled by people around them. One of the suspected gunmen was shot and killed by police. Police suspect the shooting was gang-related.[26]
2018 Scottsdale Spree Shootings: Over the course of several days, a man killed a forensic psychologist, two paralegals, a counselor, and a couple from whom he took a handgun. The suspect killed himself when police began closing in on him.[27][28]
Santa Fe High School shooting: A student at Santa Fe High School shot and killed ten people and wounded fourteen others. Explosive devises were also found, but they were not detonated. The suspect was taken into custody by police.[29]
Yountville Shooting: A man entered the Veterans Home of California and held three staff members hostage. He killed the three staff members (and the unborn child of one of the staff members, who was pregnant) before killing himself in a murder–suicide.[31]
Marshall County High School Shooting: A fifteen-year-old student killed two other students and injured sixteen others before discarding his weapon and attempting to hide among other students. He was apprehended by police.[34]
Copper Canyon Apartment Homes shooting: After being called to a home for a report of a disturbance, four police officers were shot in an “ambush-style” attack. One officer was killed and the other three were wounded. Two other people were also wounded in a neighboring apartment. Officers later re-entered the apartment with a SWAT team and killed the suspect; another officer was injured in this exchange.[35]
Rancho Tehama Reserve shootings: A man killed his wife and hid her body under the floorboards of their home before killing two neighbors, firing at random at people, and then ramming his truck through the gates of an elementary school and firing at those inside. He then drove away and targeted other random victims before being rammed by police and shooting himself. He killed five people and injured twelve others (some with bullet wounds, others who were injured by flying glass) before committing suicide.[36]
Sutherland Springs church shooting: A gunman approached the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs and killed two people outside before entering and shooting at the congregation, killing 26 people (including an unborn child) and injuring twenty. He was confronted by a local man with a gun, and they exchanged gunfire before entering a vehicle. The man flagged down another person and they began a high-speed chase of the gunman, which ended when the gunman went off the road and was found dead either from a self-inflicted gunshot wound or from one of the two bullets fired by the local man.[37][38]
2017 Las Vegas shooting: A man in a high floor of a hotel opened fire on a country music festival happening outside, killing 59 people and injuring 851 others, with 422 of them suffering from gunshot wounds. The man then shot himself.[39][40]
Burnette Chapel shooting: A man killed a woman outside the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ before entering the chapel and wounding seven others. During a struggle with an usher, the man shot himself in the chest. The usher ran to his car to get his own pistol and held the man at gunpoint until police arrived to arrest him.[41]
2017 Plano shooting: A man entered his ex-wife’s home while she was hosting a football-watching party and killed her and seven others, and wounding one other. He was killed by police.[42]
Little Rock nightclub shooting: 28 people were injured (25 directly injured by gunfire) when shooting broke out in a nightclub where rapper Finese 2Tymes was performing.[44]
2017 Mississippi shootings: A man killed eight people, including several family members and a sheriff’s deputy, at three separate houses. He was injured by police and then arrested. The shooter later said he had intended to commit suicide by cop.[48]
2017 Fresno shootings: A man killed a security guard at a hotel, then killed three other people five days later. The attacks, committed against white people by a black suspect, are believed to be racially motivated and the suspect believed there was a race war taking place between white and black people. He was taken into custody by police.[49]
North Park Elementary School shooting: A man entered an elementary school, telling school administrators he needed to drop something off for his wife. He entered the classroom where she was teaching and killed her, also killing a student and wounding another who were standing nearby. He then killed himself.[50]
Cincinnati nightclub shooting: Two men were killed and sixteen people were wounded after a fight escalated into a shooting at a crowded nightclub. One person was arrested.[51]
Townsville Elementary School shooting: A fifteen-year-old shot and killed his father before driving to the local elementary school and injuring three students and a teacher. One student later died of his injuries. The shooter was later arrested.[53]
2016 Mukilteo shooting: A student at the University of Washington killed three people and injured one other in a shooting at a party. One of the people he killed was his ex-girlfriend. The shooter was arrested and sentenced to life in prison.[56]
St. Joseph courthouse shooting: A handcuffed inmate killed two bailiffs and injured a deputy and another woman after taking a deputy’s gun in a courthouse. The inmate was killed by two other bailiffs.[59]
2016 shooting of Dallas police officers: A shooter killed five police officers and wounded nine other officers and two civilians at a protest over the police shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. The shooter was killed by a bomb delivered by a remote control vehicle. He is believed to have been motivated by retribution for black men killed by police.[60]
Pulse Nightclub shooting: A gunman killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in a shooting at Pulse, a gay nightclub. The gunman was killed in a shootout with the police.[61]
2016 Maryland Shooting Spree: A federal officer shot and killed three people and injured three others in an attack that began with him killing his estranged wife.[62]
2016 Wilkinsburg mass shooting: Six people (including an unborn child) were killed and three were injured by two gunmen in an attack during a backyard party. One person with a handgun drove the partygoers toward a backyard porch, where the second shot at them with an assault-style rifle.[64]
Hesston shooting: A man killed three people and injured fourteen others in an attack at his workplace. He had been served with a temporary order of protection shortly before he began shooting. He was killed by police who responded to the scene.[65]
2016 Kalamazoo shootings: An Uber driver is suspected to have killed six people and wounded two others in a series of shootings targeting random people.[66]
San Bernardino attack: A married couple opened fire on the husband’s colleagues at a work training event. They killed fourteen people and injured 22, before being killed in a shootout with police. Pipe bombs set at their residence failed to detonate. The two perpetrators are believed to have been radicalized, though they are not believed to be directly connected to a specific foreign terrorist organization.[67]
2015 Harris County, Texas shooting: A man broke into his ex-girlfriend’s home and held her hostage along with her husband and six children, one of whom was his biological son. Over the course of nine hours, he killed everyone in the home. After a shootout with police, he surrendered and was taken into custody.[70]
2015 Lafayette shooting: A gunman killed two people and injured nine in a shooting at a movie theater. After trying to blend into the crowd leaving the theater, the gunman heard sirens and returned to the theater and killed himself.[71]
2015 Chattanooga shooting: A man committed a drive-by shooting at a military recruitment center in a strip mall, wounding one Marine. With police in pursuit, he drove to a U.S. Navy Reserve center and rammed his vehicle through a gate. He fatally wounded a Navy sailor, killed four Marines, and wounded a police officer before being killed by police.[72] The FBI later determined the gunman had been motivated by propaganda published by terrorist organizations.[73]
2015 Waco shootout: Gunfire broke out at a restaurant where members of several motorcycle clubs had gathered to discuss political rights for motorcyclists. Members of the clubs and police were both involved in the gunfire. Nine people were killed and eighteen were injured in the shootout, all members of the motorcycle clubs. The shooting may have resulted from a territorial dispute between two of the motorcycle clubs.[76]
2015 Tyrone shooting: A man killed seven people and wounded one after going door-to-door and shooting people in four separate homes. Four of the people he killed were family members. The man then killed himself. The shooting was possibly motivated by the man finding his mother dead from natural causes.[77]
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings: Six people were found dead and one wounded in three locations across Montgomery County. The shooter was found dead the next day after committing suicide by overdose. One of the victims was the shooter’s ex-wife, the others were her relatives.[78]
2014 Harris County, Texas shooting: A man is suspected of killing six of his family members and wounding a seventh. He was arrested after a brief chase and a standoff that lasted several hours.[80]
2014 Isla Vista killings: Several hours after stabbing and killing his three roommates, a man drove to a sorority house near the University of California, Santa Barbara and knocked on the door. After receiving no answer, he began shooting at people nearby, killing two members of another sorority and injuring a third. He then returned to his car and continued to shoot at and ram people with his vehicle before killing himself with a gunshot.[81] The attack is believed to have been motivated by the killer’s hatred of women and frustration with his dating and family life.[82]
2014 Fort Hood shooting: After being denied leave from the Fort Hood military base where he was stationed, a man killed three people and injured 14 before killing himself.[83]
2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting: A man entered the Los Angeles International Airport and killed a TSA agent and wounded three other people. He was injured when he was shot multiple times by police.[84]
Ross Township Municipal Building shooting: A man entered a meeting of township supervisors and killed three people, injuring three others. The gunman was also injured when his gun went off and hit his own leg as two men wrestled him to the ground and took away his weapon. The shooting was suspected to be motivated by a longstanding feud in which the gunman’s property rights had been taken away. He was sentenced to life in prison.[86][87]
2013 Santa Monica shooting: A man killed two people in a residence before lighting it on fire. He continued to shoot at people while moving towards Santa Monica College, then attempted to carjack a passing vehicle. After firing rounds at a passing bus, he ran into the college library and continued shooting. He killed five people and injured five others before being killed by police.[89]
Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater Shooting (2012): The perpetrator stormed a late-night premier of a Batman film and shot and killed 12 people and wounded 70 others. He was sentenced to life in prison.
Chardon High School Shooting (2012): The perpetrator entered the school and fired at students sitting in the cafeteria killing 3 and wounded 3 others before being arrested.
Seal Beach Shooting (2011): The perpetrator entered the workplace of his ex-wife and shot and killed 8 people and injured 1, before he fled the scene and later arrested.
Hartford Beer Distributors Shooting (2010): An employee of the company was fired, and in retaliation he shot and killed 8 coworkers and injured 2 others before committing suicide.
Carthage Nursing Home Shooting (2009): The perpetrator attacked the workplace of his estranged wife, and shot and killed 8 people and wounded 2 others before being arrested.
Crandon, Wisconsin Duplex Shooting (2007): A part time police officer returned after arguing with a group in the duplex, armed with a semiautomatic rifle and killed 6 people and wounded 1 before he attempted to flee and was killed by officers.
Capital Hill Shooting (2006): A guest returned to a house party, while armed with a shotgun and a semiautomatic handgun. He shot indiscriminately, killing 6 people and injuring 2, before committing suicide.
Goleta Postal Facility Shootings (2006): The perpetrator killed her neighbor, before driving to the mail processing plant and shot and killed 6 people before committing suicide.
Hunting Trip (2004): Chai Soua Vang shot eight people while on a hunting trip in northern Wisconsin on November 21, 2004; six were killed and two were wounded.
1990s
Day Trading Firms Shooting (1999): The perpetrator shot and killed his wife and two children, two days prior to entering two separate Buckhead firms and shot fellow traders, he killed 12 in total and wounded 13 before committing suicide.
Wedgwood Baptist Church Shooting (1999): During a concert in the church for teenagers, the perpetrator entered and shot and killed 7 attendees and wounded 7 others before committing suicide.
Westside Middle School Shooting (1998): Two students aged 11 and 13, shot and killed 4 students and a teacher and injured 10 others before being arrested.
Thurston High School Shooting (1998): An expelled student targeted his parents and the school and killed 4 people and injured 25 others before being arrested.
Bethel Regional High School Shooting (1997): A student shot and killed 2 people and wounded 2 others before surrendering to police, he was reportedly assisted by multiple students in learning how to shoot, and many knew about the shooting plans in advance.
Pearl High School Shooting (1997): The perpetrator shot and killed his mother, then drove to the high school and shot and killed 2 students and injured 7 before being arrested.
Fairchild Air Force Base Shooting (1994): A former airman who had been discharged returned to the base hospital and killed 4 people and injured 23 people before being shot and killed by responding police.
101 California Street Shooting (1993): The perpetrator opened fire through an office building killing 8 people and wounded 6 others before committing suicide.
University of Iowa Shooting (1991): A former graduate student attended a meeting for a research group before opening fire and killed 5 individuals and injured 1 before committing suicide.
GMAC Office Shooting (1990): A convicted felon returned to the loan office, he used to purchase a car and opened fire killing 11 people and injured 4 before committing suicide.
Las Cruces Bowling Alley Massacre (1990): Two unknown perpetrators entered the bowling alley and killed 4 people and injured 3, before fleeing, the case is still unsolved.
1980s
Cleveland Elementary School Shooting (1989): A drifter used an semi-automatic rife to kill 5 children and wound 30 other students and teachers on the school playground before committing suicide.
Oakland Elementary School Shooting (1988): The perpetrator shot and killed 2 eight-year old students and wounded 9 others (7 students, a teacher, and a gym coach) in the schools cafeteria and a classroom, before being arrested and sentenced to death.
Attacks by Laurie Dann (1988): The perpetrator entered the Hubbard Woods Elementary School and killed 1 student and wounded 5 others before entering a home and held the inhabitants hostage before committing suicide.
Old Salisbury Road Shooting (1988): The perpetrator shot nine passersby from the centerline on the road, killing 4 and injuring 5, before being arrested.
Edmond, Oklahoma Post Office Shooting (1986): A part-time employee entered to begin his day before locking the doors and killed 14 coworkers and injured 6 others before committing suicide.
Murray-Wright High School Shooting (1985): During half-time at a football game, the perpetrator opened fire with a shotgun on individuals that he had earlier fought with, and wounded 6.
San Ysidro McDonald’s Shooting (1984): A male suspect entered a busy McDonald’s and opened fire with an Uzi, shotgun and semiautomatic pistol, and killed 21 people and injured 19 before being killed by a police sniper.
49th Street Elementary School Shooting (1984): The perpetrator fired on children in a school playground from his home across the street, and killed 2 individuals and injured 12 others, before committing suicide.
Welding Shop Shooting (1982): A teacher opened fire inside a welding shop killing 8 people and injured 3, before attempting to flee by bicycle and was run down as he cycled away.
Oregon Museum Tavern Shooting (1981): The perpetrator entered the location and fired, killing 5 people and injuring 18 before he was wrestled to the ground.
Golden Dragon Massacre (1977): Five members of a Chinese youth gang attempted to kill rival gang members, which quickly turned into a shootout with 5 people dead and 11 people injured.
Olean High School Shooting (1974): A student locked himself in a third floor room before shooting out the window killing 4 people and injuring 11, before being subdued with tear gas and arrested.
Howard Johnson’s Shooting (1973): The perpetrator spent 10-hours, and multiple locations to kill 7 people and injured 10, and had previously killed 2 police officers and wounded another, before being shot and killed by police.
Kent State Shooting (1970): During a protest of the bombing of Cambodia at the University, members of the Ohio National Guard opened fire killing 4 and injuring 9 individuals.
PUBLISHED: 01:28 EST, 9 November 2018 | UPDATED: 13:39 EST, 9 November 2018
“The people of Florida deserve fairness and transparency,” Rick Scott told reporters
Florida has made a disturbing return to the election spotlight 18 years after the drama that launched George W Bush’s presidency, as the state braces for race recounts amid accusations of corruption and voting discrepancies.
Two races in the southeastern state, for governor and US Senate, hung in the balance Friday, three days after the contentious midterm elections that saw Democrats seize control of the House of Representatives from President Donald Trump’s Republicans.
Most US political races have already been settled. But Florida’s ballot chaos — rife with intrigue and Trump’s accusation of abuse by officials in Democrat-heavy counties — raises fresh questions about why the world’s most powerful democracy is incapable of producing swift and accurate election results across all 50 states.
Florida is not alone. In neighboring Georgia, the Democratic candidate for governor initiated legal action to ensure all votes were counted in her contest.
In Arizona, hundreds of thousands of ballots were still left to be counted in a fierce battle for the Senate as Kyrsten Sinema — currently a Democratic congresswoman — edged ahead of Martha McSally, a Republican congresswoman.
Florida’s Governor Rick Scott, the Republican challenging incumbent Senate Democrat Bill Nelson, filed a lawsuit against two election officials alleging fraud after his lead narrowed.
His race, and the one for governor, appear headed for mandatory recounts, which could delay a final outcome for days or weeks.
“The people of Florida deserve fairness and transparency,” Scott told reporters.
US President Donald Trump has accused some local Florida officials of “fraud” as the state’s key races for governor and US Senate head towards likely mandated recounts
“Every Floridian should be concerned there may be rampant fraud happening in Palm Beach and Broward Counties.”
Scott said he was ordering an official investigation into his own race.
With the developments raising partisan tensions to fresh highs, Trump weighed in to allege a major corruption scandal was brewing, while fellow Republican Marco Rubio of Florida accused Democrats of a coordinated effort to “steal the election.”
“What’s going on in Florida is a disgrace,” Trump told reporters.
Scott “easily won, but every hour it seems to be going down,” he said of Scott’s lead which on Friday stood at 14,999 votes out of 8.2 million cast, a margin of just 0.18 percent.
“If you look at Broward County, they have had a horrible history,” Trump added, referring to a Democrat-heavy county where officials were slowly counting votes including absentee and provisional ballots.
– 537 votes –
Broward County canvassing board member Judge Robert Rosenberg, pictured on November 24, 2000, looks over a questionable ballot at the Broward County Courthouse in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Broward was at the heart of Florida’s bitter legal brawls in 2000. That year’s recounts in Broward and other counties were halted by the US Supreme Court, and George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes in Florida, giving him the edge in the electoral college and handing him the White House.
Scott’s lawsuits alleged a lack of transparency over the counting process and asked that further details be made public.
Rancor was spilling into governors’ races, where Andrew Gillum in Florida and Stacey Abrams in Georgia were aiming to become the states’ first African-American leaders, but the contests were tilting in favor of their Republican rivals.
Unofficial results show Gillum trailing Ron DeSantis, a Trump-endorsed Republican, by just 36,165 votes, or 0.44 percentage points.
State law mandates a recount if the difference in a race is within 0.5 percent. If the margin is within 0.25 percent, as it stood in the Senate race, a hand recount — slower and more thorough than by machine — is ordered.
– ‘Highly irresponsible’ –
Andrew Gillum was aiming to become Florida’s first African-American governor and initially conceded, but now says he is ready for a state-mandated recount
David Lublin, a professor of government at American University, dismissed suggestions that corruption was to blame, and said the latest statements by Trump and Scott “are highly irresponsible.”
Broward County officials were simply taking deliberative steps to count all ballots, including absentee and provisional ones, he said.
“The good news is that since the 2000 election, the process has improved both in terms of how people vote in Florida and the designation of a recount,” he said.
And yet unusual voting discrepancies were being reported in Broward.
The South Florida Sun Sentinel said it analyzed voting patterns and found that of Broward ballots already counted, thousands made the unlikely choice of voting in lower-profile contests like for agriculture commissioner, but not for Senate, the marquee race on the ballot.
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema, pictured on November 3, 2018 in Tempe, Arizona, is in a fierce battle against against two-term congresswoman Martha McSally
The unusual pattern appeared in no other Florida county, the newspaper reported.
Experts including lawyer Lawrence Norden have turned to a possible flaw with the ballot’s design.
“If this is the cause of lost votes, it is incredibly frustrating that somehow the state hasn’t gotten its act together to make sure ballots are designed in a way that don’t cause lost votes,” he told the Sentinel.
Who is Brenda Snipes, the Broward County supervisor of elections?
Rick Scott’s campaign names Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes in a lawsuit filed Thursday.
Author: Mark Bergin
Published: 8:16 AM EST November 9, 2018
Updated: 4:33 PM EST November 9, 2018
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Gov. Rick Scott’s campaign has filed lawsuits against election officials in Broward and Palm Beach counties, accusing them of not being able to provide accurate totals of how many ballots remain left to be counted.
In the lawsuits, Scott’s campaign names Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes and Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher in their respective county roles.
Snipes and Bucher are Democrats. Scott is a Republican.
The Broward suit complains of a “lack of transparency” about how many people voted, how many ballots were received and how ballots were counted.
Scott ordered the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate. Florida’s 67 counties are required to report their unofficial returns to state elections officials on Saturday.
Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner held a conference call with county elections supervisors Thursday morning to discuss a possible recount and plan ahead for one.
The earliest Detzner could issue a recount is Saturday.
Friday afternoon, a judge ruled Snipes violated state law and must hand over records from Tuesday’s vote by 7 p.m. CBS Miami reports the judge said Snipes must “allow immediate” viewing and copying of records that have been requested.
Who is Brenda Snipes?
Republican Gov. Jeb Bush asked Snipes to serve as Supervisor of Elections in Broward County – Florida’s second-most populous county – nearly 15 years ago.
Broward County has about 1.15 million voters, second only to Miami-Dade’s at about 1.4 million.
CBS Miami reported while Oliphant was in office, uncounted votes were found in a cabinet drawer, and the department went a million dollars over budget.
Snipes was reelected in 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016.
She has lived in Broward County since 1964.
Click or tap here to read Snipes’ biography on the Broward County Supervisor of Elections website.
Snipes has had several election-related incidents:
August 2016: Broward elections office post election results before polls close
CBS Miami reported the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office inadvertently posted election results 30 minutes before the polls closed at 7 p.m.
It prompted Secretary of State Ken Detzner to fire off memos to the Broward County State Attorney and sheriff asking for an investigation.
A private contractor that runs the website, VR Systems, said one of their workers accidentally put up the results while creating a link for a Broward County elections worker.
The CEO outlined the mistake in an affidavit sent to Snipes and issued an apology, saying, in part, “VR Systems assumes responsibility for the error. We are taking additional measures to ensure this never occurs again.”
March 2018: Judge rules in favor of Broward elections office in voter fraud suit
The Sun Sentinel reported a federal judge cleared Snipes in a lawsuit that accused her office of facilitating voter fraud.
May 2018: Destroyed ballots in Wasserman-Schultz race
In May 2018, the Sun Sentinel reported a judge ruled the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office violated state and federal laws by destroying ballots from a 2016 Congressional race too soon — and while the ballots were the subject of a lawsuit against the office.
The ruling stems from Tim Canova’s bid to unseat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the Democratic primary, a race he lost convincingly. In September, Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots, signing a certification that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending.
Snipes said the action a “mistake” during testimony she gave in the case, saying the boxes were mislabeled and there was “nothing on my part that was intentional” about destroying the contested ballots.
August 2018: Judge orders Snipes to stop opening mail-in ballots in secret
Politico reported a judge ordered for Snipes to stop opening mail-in ballots in secret or before the county’s three-member canvassing board to determine the ballots’ validity.
“We appreciate the court’s order clarifying what Florida law plainly requires — that Supervisor Snipes and her staff must safely keep and may not open any vote-by-mail ballot until the Broward County Canvassing Board canvasses the vote,” a spokeswoman for the Republican Party of Florida told Politico.
August 2018: Vote-by-mail late arrivals in the primary election
CBS Miami reported the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office had late delivery on about 5,000 vote-by-mail ballots for the 2018 primary election.
The Census Bureau has released new data that strengthens the case for calling the current generation of American children “The Welfare Generation.”
Among American residents under 18 years of age in 2017, according to the Census Bureau, 51.7 percent lived in households in which one or more persons received benefits from a means-tested government program.
That was down slightly from the 52.1 percent of Americans under 18 in 2016who lived in households receiving means-tested government assistance. (Also, because this new Census Bureau estimate is for 2017, it predates the significant economic and job growth the United States has seen in 2018).
But in each of the last five years on record (2013 through 2017), according to the Census Bureau, at least 51 percent of Americans under 18 have lived in households receiving means-tested government assistance.
In fact, the 51.7 percent in 2017 was the lowest percentage in any of the last five years on record.
The programs the Census Bureau includes in its estimate of how many people are living in households receiving means-tested government assistance include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), Supplemental Security Income, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, Medicaid, public housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the National School Lunch Program.
The table enumerates, by various characteristics, “[p]eople who lived with someone (a nonrelative or relative) who received aid.”
“Not every person tallied here,” Table POV-26 says, “received the aid themselves.”
In 2017, the Census Bureau estimates, according to the table, that there were approximately 322,549,000 people living in the United States. Of these, 114,637,000—or 35.5 percent—lived in a household that received means-tested government assistance.
Of the 322,549,000 people in the United States in 2017, 73,356,000 were under 18 years of age. Of these children, 37,908,000—or 51.7 percent—lived in a household that received means-tested government assistance.
Even when the school lunch program was excluded from the group of means-tested government programs, there were still 32,467,000 people in America under 18 (or 44.3 percent of that demographic) living in a household receiving means-tested government assistance.
The 51.7 percent of people under 18 on means-tested government assistance in 2017 was a slight declined from the 52.1 percent on means-tested government assistance in 2016.
In 2016, according to the Census estimate, there were 73,586,000 people under 18 in the United States (compared to 73,356,000 in 2017) and 38,365,000 (compared to 37,908,000 in 2017) were living in households receiving means-tested government assistance.
The percentage of persons under 18 living in households receiving means-tested government assistance also varied by the type of household the person was living in, according to the Census data.
But it was above 40 percent even in married-couple families.
In married couple families in 2017, according to Table POV-26, there were 49,436,000 related children under 18. Of these, 20,230,000—or 40.9 percent—lived in households in which one or more persons received means-tested government assistance.
There were 5,330,000 related children under 18 living in households headed by a male householder with no spouse present. 3,371,000 of these children—or 48.7 percent—lived in a household receiving means-tested government assistance.
There were 17,766,000 related children under 18 living in households headed by a female householder with no spouse present. 13,702,000 of these children—or 77.1 percent—lived in a household receiving means-tested government assistance.
After the 51.7 percent of children under 18 who lived in a household that received means-tested government assistance in 2017, the next most likely age group to live in a household that received means-tested government assistance were those 18 to 24. There were 29,363,000 in that age bracket and 11,855,000—or 40.4 percent—lived in a household getting means-tested government assistance.
The age group least likely to be receiving means-tested government assistance were people 75 and older. There were 20,713,000 in that age bracket in 2017 and only 3,894,000—or 18.8 percent—lived in a household on means-tested government assistance.
This chart summarizes key data from the Census Bureau’s POV-26 tables from 1994 through 2017, showing the total population each year, the total number of people in households receiving means-tested assistance, the percentage in households getting asisstance, the total number of residents under 18, the total number in households receiving means-tested assistance, and the percentage of children in households getting means-tested assistance:
Story 1: Mr. Magoo aka Attorney General Jeff Sessions Gets A Clue from President Trump — Appoint Special Counsel to Prosecute FISA Abuses and Politically Corrupt Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Now! — Videos —
13 Republicans ask Jeff Sessions to appoint second special counsel to investigate FBI, DOJ
by Daniel Chaitin |
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Tuesday that the Justice Department’s inspector general will investigate alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a move condemned by President Trump on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
A group of 13 Republican lawmakers have signed on to a letter asking Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a second special counsel to investigate concerns they have with the Justice Department and FBI.The lawmakers say this special counsel would look into agency leadership decisions to end the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized private email server, the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the Trump-Russia investigation, and allegations in a recently released House Intelligence Committee memo regarding government surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
“It’s simple: We’ve learned deeply concerning information on FISA abuses, the dossier, former high-level FBI officials, and more—and it stinks to high heaven. Americans deserve the truth,” tweeted Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the chair of the House Freedom Caucus and one of the signees of the letter.
Many Republicans in recent months have sounded the alarm about potential bias in the DOJ and FBI.
Exacerbating those concerns, the House Intelligence Committee memo asserted that the “Trump dossier,” which contains salacious and unverified claims about Trump’s ties to Russia, was an “essential” part of the surveillance application to spy on Page. However, the Democratic rebuttal memo, released in redacted form over the weekend, said it “played no role” in the FBI launching its Russia probe, which is now led by special counsel Robert Mueller.
The Democratic memo, however, did leave some other concerns raised by the GOP memo, spearheaded by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., unanswered.
While the lawmakers who signed on to the letter say, on balance, the employees of the agencies do admirable work, a special counsel is needed to weed out the bad ones.
“We acknowledge with immense gratitude that nearly every single man and woman in the DOJ and FBI conducts themselves daily with integrity, independence, patriotism, objectivity and commitment to the rule of law,” the lawmakers wrote. “That is why this Special Counsel is of the utmost importance to ensure that these historic, legendary and necessary agencies move forward more respected and effective than ever before.”
The letter comes one day after Sessions said that his Justice Department’s inspector general will investigate the alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — a move condemned by President Trump on Wednesday.
“Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse,” Trump tweeted. “Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!”
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, responded to that tweet, questioning why a FISA investigation is needed at all.
“More important question: Why is the AG asking for a FISA investigation at all? DOJ and FBI already said the Nunes memo was inaccurate, misleading and extraordinarily reckless. With no evidence of abuse, only explanation is political pressure,” Schiff
Americans should be reassured that the federal law enforcement agencies are working to keep America safer rather than focused on revenge against political enemies.
By Mollie Hemingway
JANUARY 24, 2018
It is long past time for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel to investigate the possibility of widespread and systematic corruption, obstruction, leaking, and collusion within America’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The leadership of the FBI and Department of Justice have made clear, through their ongoing obstruction of congressional investigations and oversight, that these agencies simply can not be trusted to investigate or police themselves.
Robert S. Mueller III was appointed as a special counsel to make sure that any investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign was independent and impartial. In the same way, it is necessary for an independent special counsel to investigate alleged corruption at the FBI and Department of Justice, so the American public can once again be assured that the federal law enforcement agencies are in fact working to keep America safer rather than focused on getting revenge against political enemies.
To recap, we’ve seen the following startling developments in just the past few days:
The revelation that two key FBI agents, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, sent each other more than 50,000 texts about their work, including regarding the Clinton and Russia probes. Strzok, the former deputy assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division, ran the Clinton investigation and interviewed key witnesses. He was also involved in the Russia investigation.
That five months of texts between these agents are missing. The bureau claims, in the latest of strange coincidences affecting the investigation, that a technical error resulted in a failure to capture these important texts.
The suspicious timing of the missing texts — from shortly after the election to the day that Mueller was named special counsel. These months were full of leaks from intelligence officials about the Russia probe.
That these 50,000-plus texts aren’t even all of their texts, but just those related to the ongoing Office of Inspector General investigation. The FBI and DOJ are not sharing texts that are personal or about other cases. Since the Office of Inspector General hasn’t said it’s reviewing Russia or dossier-related cases, that leaves a lot of texts yet to be disclosed and examined by investigators.
Political considerations in the handling of the Trump probe.
Strzok admitting before he joined the Mueller probe, but after he’d worked on the Russia probe for the better part of a year, that to his knowledge there was nothing there.
That Comey’s implausible claim to have waited until after interviewing Hillary Clinton to decide to let her off the hook for mishandling classified information is contradicted by additional available evidence.
That Attorney General Loretta Lynch only made her claim that she would defer to the FBI on prosecuting Clinton because she knew Comey would let her off, according to Page.
The existence of a four-page memo compiled by the House Select Permanent Committee on Intelligence alleging surveillance abuse by the FBI against Trump affiliates.
These revelations are not wild speculation but based on concrete evidence that the FBI and DOJ fought tooth and nail against releasing.
Previous months saw startling allegations about the use of a scurrilous dossier to secure a wiretap against a Trump affiliate, the use of that dossier to brief congressional committees, the leaking of the existence of the dossier despite its lack of corroboration, statements that the FBI probe was an “insurance policy” because “we can’t take that risk” that Trump would be elected, and that the dossier itself was funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. There were also criminal leaks of top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) communications. This to say nothing of the widespread unmasking, distribution, and illegal leaking of surveillance information.
It is vital to a democratic republic that the public have faith in their law enforcement institutions. All of these developments feed the perception that there are two different law enforcement regimes — one for friends, and one for enemies. There are clear signs that Clinton benefited from a different set of rules that applied to her that didn’t apply to anyone else. There are also signs that people in federal agencies improperly used spy powers to spin up investigations and special counsels to go after political enemies.
That can’t happen.
Why A Second Special Counsel?
The current special counsel probably should have been investigating the FBI and DOJ as part of his charge into the Russia probe. Mueller has been on the case since May, and should have seen enough shortly thereafter to be concerned about various agencies’ handling of the probes.
But it also shouldn’t be surprising that he has not done much, if anything, to probe the FBI and DOJ. Mueller is the former head of the FBI and very close to Comey. Nobody can be expected to investigate his own friends and family, and asking Mueller to seriously tackle the problems that have been revealed regarding his friends at his old agency is unrealistic.
Similarly, an investigation into all these allegations can’t be done by a U.S. attorney, because it has to be removed from the oversight of those who have run the department for the last several years, since they will be the ones being investigated.
An investigation into all of these allegations can’t be done solely by Congress, either. As Rep. Trey Gowdy said this week, while Congress has a great deal of authority and ability to do general statutory oversight, it’s not an institution that is equipped or designed to do the nitty gritty of law enforcement. A proper investigation will serve warrants and be able to generate quick responses to subpoenas. Congress has been unable to get the FBI or DOJ to quickly comply with requests for information, sometimes waiting months or more for meager responses. This investigation requires an institution and person with authority, institutional expertise, and the tools necessary to get to the bottom of problems at Justice.
Schiff’s Case For a Special Counsel
Even Democrats have been making a good case for a special counsel, however inadvertently. When asked on CNN why the American public couldn’t just see the House Intelligence Committee memo alleging surveillance abuses, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Americans couldn’t handle it without knowing the underlying information that was too sensitive to release. He also suggested that public demand to see the memo, which has been high, was actually just another Russian operation. That turned out to be false.
But if it’s true that controversial information about the FBI’s handling of the Russia probe is too sensitive and could be misconstrued — so sensitive that Schiff voted to keep the rest of Congress in the dark about it and is fighting to make sure the public doesn’t see this information — that means it’s important enough to demand a special prosecutor.
The Leakers’ Case For a Special Counsel
As damaging and discrediting news about “potential corruption at highest levels” came out this week, leaks about the Mueller investigation started coming out. These included that FBI Director Christopher Wray reportedly threatened to resign; that Sessions was interviewed by the Mueller probe, that Mueller is ready to interview Trump, that Russian bots are the real culprits behind public demand to see the surveillance memo, that Trump reportedly asked controversial FBI official Andrew McCabe who McCabe voted for, and various other items.
These leaks tend to happen when bad news threatens the Mueller probe. But they’re perhaps ill-advised, only suggesting all the more to the politicized nature of the current investigation. A special counsel should not be seen as a threat to the Mueller probe but as a necessary help.
An investigation into potential corruption will help preserve or restore confidence in the Mueller investigation. If the results of the Mueller investigation are to be taken seriously, these questions have to be addressed. High-ranking FBI agents are in their own words undermining the entire purpose of the Mueller investigation, such as when Strzok said there’s nothing to the Russia probe prior to joining the special counsel team. Or when he had to be kicked off the team because of how his texts pointed to corruption.
Because the Mueller investigation itself was brought about by a Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton-funded opposition research document, which the FBI used despite it not being verified, as well as Comey’s leaks of classified information in retaliation for being fired, the entire investigation has a cloud over it. A special counsel could clear the air or provide clarity regarding the trustworthiness of the Mueller probe. A failure to investigate these charges would damage the country’s ability to have any objective investigation into abuses of power in the future.
Does Sessions Care About Charges Of Corruption At DOJ?
Congressional investigators and concerned citizens are growing alarmed. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Ron Johnson, Rep. Ron DeSantis, Rep. Jim Jordan, Rep. Lee Zeldin, Rep. Mark Meadows, and many other informed members of Congress have called for a second special counsel to deal with allegations of corruption at the Department of Justice.
The political and media arms of the Democratic Party attempt to downplay the scandal, but it’s only getting worse with each new piece of information that is brought to light. The American people need to know that the attorney general cares about the charges, wants to get to the bottom of the problems, and will work to restore the integrity of this important department. The criminalization of politics in this country is undermining confidence in the republic itself.
If there are good explanations for all of these strange coincidences and lapses in judgment, the American people need to be told. If there is systematic corruption, that needs to be learned as well.
A special counsel who is not part of the current club at the top of these agencies should be appointed. The individual needs to be unimpeachable and a person of integrity who has the strength to take on an incalcitrant bureaucracy and establishment. He or she should have experience in investigating and rooting out corruption in bureaucratic agencies.
Story 2: Trump Take Guns Before Due Process Comment Betrays Bill of Rights Voter Base — In Your Heart You Know He Is Nuts — Never Mind — Governments Many Failures in Parkland Florida Shootings — American People Have The Absolute Right To Defend Themselves Against Tyrants, Criminals and Nuts — Videos
Gun control measures proposed by Trump
Trump: Take the guns first, go through due process second
President Trump Meets with Bipartisan Members of Congress to Discuss School and Community Safety
Trump tells senators: ‘You’re afraid of the NRA’
Watch Dianne Feinstein Erupt With Glee After Trump Seems to Endorse Her Assault Weapons Ban
Tucker: Trump betraying core campaign promises on guns
Tucker: Assault weapons ban will not stop mass killings
Trump talks gun control with bipartisan group of lawmakers
Loesch: Trump’s gun control meeting was good TV, bad policy
Cornyn: Gun meeting with Trump was ‘brainstorming session’
Judge Nap: Trump’s Comments on Due Process Represent What Gun Owners & the NRA Fear Most
Republicans Freak Out As Trump Says He’s Coming To Take Their Guns Away
Dan Bongino reacts to Trump’s ‘take the guns first’ comment
Trump: Take People’s Guns Away!
Trump Suggest Taking Guns Before Due Process Of Law
Trump criticized for ‘take the firearms first’ comments
Trump: Take the guns first, go through due process second
Donald Trump supports right to own assault weapons (CNN interview with Chris Cuomo)
“Common Sense” Gun Control Debunked! (Man-On-Street)
NRA turns on Trump: Gun lobby says president’s meeting with lawmakers was ‘great TV but bad policy’ after he suggested taking guns before due process
National Rifle Association blasted President Donald Trump’s proposals for gun control during a bipartisan meeting at the White House on Wednesday
Trump heard directly from lawmakers leading the charge for new gun violence prevention measures this afternoon at the White House
Wednesday’s session was attended by Reoublicans and Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Chris Murphy of Connecticut
Listening session is directly tied to a school shooting in Parkland, Florida two weeks ago today that resulted in 17 deaths
Trump has been meeting with stakeholders in the gun control debate for a week
White House says he will offer specific remedies to gun violence after today
Was already backing a background check bill in the Senate, as well as legislation that would provide schools with federal funding to conduct trainings
Now says he wants a ‘comprehensive’ background check bill that closes the so-called gun-show loophole
PUBLISHED: 22:25 EST, 28 February 2018 | UPDATED: 02:38 EST, 1 March 2018
The National Rifle Association on Wednesday blasted President Donald Trump for his proposal to take guns away from dangerous individual even if it violates constitutional rights to due process.
Trump made the remarks during a bipartisan meeting with lawmakers at the White House to discuss safety measures in the wake of last week’s mass shooting at a high school in Florida.
‘While today’s meeting made for great TV, the gun control proposals discussed would make for bad policy that would not keep our children safe,’ NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said in a statement to The Hill.
‘Instead of punishing law-abiding gun owners for the acts of a deranged lunatic our leaders should pass meaningful reforms that would actually prevent future tragedies.’
The National Rifle Association on Wednesday blasted President Donald Trump for his proposal to take guns away from dangerous individual even if it violates constitutional rights to due process
Baker said that preventing mass shootings would best be done by addressing the country’s mental health system and boosting background checks so that psychologically ill people are prevented from obtaining a gun.
The NRA spokeswoman said that her organization has always supported policies that promote school safety.
‘Whether you love or hate firearms, we all want to send our children to safe schools and to live in safe communities,’ she said.
But Baker added that this can be done without ‘shifting the focus, blame or burden onto safe, law-abiding gun owners.’
‘Doing everything we can as a nation to address the problem of dangerous people committing heinous acts is not inconsistent with the Second Amendment – the systemic failures of government to keep us safe reinforces the need for the Second Amendment,’ she said.
‘We will continue to support legislative efforts to make our schools and communities safe and oppose gun control schemes that cannot keep us safe and only punish law-abiding Americans.’
Trump angered the NRA earlier on Wednesday, saying he will be giving ‘very serious thought’ to signing legislation that lifts the minimum age for purchasing certain firearms like the AR-15 to 21.
The position is a serious split from the organization, which has been a major backer of Trump’s and most Republicans.
In a listening session with lawmakers on Wednesday, the president acknowledged that his posture wouldn’t be popular with the gun group, but he’ll be ‘giving it a lot of consideration’ anyway.
Trump demanded to know why background check legislation that he wants to use as a vehicle for gun violence prevention measures doesn’t already contain the provision.
‘You know why? Because you’re afraid of the NRA!’ the president told Sen. Pat Toomey, the Republican author of the bipartisan bill, with a laugh.
President Donald Trump (seen right with Senator John Cornyn, the Republican from Texas) said he will be giving ‘very serious thought’ to signing legislation that lifts the minimum age for purchasing firearms like the AR-15 to 21
‘You know why? Because you’re afraid of the NRA!’ the president told Sen. Pat Toomey, the Republican author of the bipartisan bill, with a laugh
The Pennsylvania lawmaker explained that five years ago, when the legislation first came for a vote in the Senate, an age restriction never came up.
Toomey also argued that the ‘vast majority’ of teens in his state are non-violent.
‘I know where you’re coming from, and I understand that,’ Trump replied.
But the president made clear that he wants Toomey and cosponsor Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, to include the measure in the universal background check bill they plan to revive in the Senate.
The measure failed in a Democratically-controlled 2013, even though it had the backing of 54 senators, because it did not reach the upper chamber’s 60-vote threshhold.
That was roughly four months after the horrific slaughter of 20 elementary school children in Newtown, Connecticut.
One lawmaker told Trump on Wednesday not to underestimate the power of the gun lobby as the president said over and over again that he couldn’t understand why action was not taken under the previous administration.
‘They have great power over you people,’ Trump replied. ‘Some of you people are petrified of the NRA.’
The president said he told the Second Amendment group, ‘We have to do what’s right.’
Trump said that he truly believes that the NRA also wants to do ‘what’s right’ for Americans.
‘I’m a big fan of the NRA. These are great people. These are great patriots. They love our country. But that doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything,’ the president told legislators.
Earlier on in the session, Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator from the state that endured the horrible tragedy five years ago that inspired Toomey’s failed background check bill, informed Trump that he would have to take on the NRA if he wanted substantive legislation to pass.
‘There is no other issue out there with the American public like background checks. Ninety-seven percent of Americans want universal background checks. And yet we can’t get it done, there’s nothing else like that. Where it works, people want it and we can’t do it,’ Murphy told the president.
Video playing bottom right…
One lawmaker told Trump on Wednesday not to underestimate the power of the gun lobby as the president said over and over again that he couldn’t understand why action was not taken under the previous administration
Asked if he’d sign legislation making 21 the floor for buying certain firearms, Trump said,’I’ll tell you what, I’m going to give it a lot of consideration, and I’m the one bringing it up, and a lot of people don’t even want to bring it up because they’re afraid to bring it up
Trump rebutted, ‘But you have a different president now.’
To which Murphy said, ‘The reason that nothing has gotten done here is because the gun lobby has had veto power over any legislation that comes before Congress .
‘I wish that wasn’t the case, but it is. If all we end up doing is stuff the gun industry supports than this just isn’t worth it, we’re not going to make a difference,’ he told the Republican president, ‘so I’m glad that you sat down with the NRA, but we will get 60 votes on a bill that looks like the Manchin-Toomey compromise on background checks if you, Mr. President, support it.’
The Connecticut Democrat told Trump: ‘If you come to Congress, if you come to Republicans and say we’re going to do a Manchin-Toomey-like bill to get comprehensive background checks, it will pass.
‘But if this meeting ends up with just sort of vague notions of future compromise than nothing will happen.’
Murphy explained that comprehensive background check legislation would have to bar criminals, people who are very mentally ill and individuals on the terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns.
‘But Mr. President it’s going to have to be you that brings the Republicans to the table on this because, right now, the gun lobby would stop it in its tracks,’ he said.
Trump told him, ‘I like that responsibility Chris, I really do. I think it’s time, it’s time that a president stepped up. I’m talking Democrat and Republican presidents, they haven’t stepped up.’
The president urged lawmakers in the room to come up with compromise legislation that encapsulates universal background checks and strengthens the existing system.
He told them he’d like to see age limits included in the merger, as well.
Asked if he’d sign legislation making 21 the floor for buying certain firearms, Trump said,’I’ll tell you what, I’m going to give it a lot of consideration, and I’m the one bringing it up, and a lot of people don’t even want to bring it up because they’re afraid to bring it up.
‘But I will give very serious thought to it,’ he said.
The president said he wants lawmakers to put together ‘something great.’
The president urged lawmakers in the room to come up with compromise legislation that encapsulates universal background checks and strengthens the existing system
Wednesday was the first time that Trump heard from federal lawmakers leading the charge for new gun violence prevention measures in person since the Parkland massacre
At one point, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat from California, was elated when it appeared that Trump expressed support for gun control measures for which she has long advocated.
During the meeting, Feinstein’s Democratic colleague, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, proposed expanded background checks aimed at reducing domestic violence.
Trump replied that Klobuchar’s suggestion should be added to the bipartisan Toomey-Manchin bill.
Then the president turned to Feinstein and said she ‘could add what you have also…into the bill.’
Feinstein then appeared giddy – nearly jumping out of her seat, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
‘Joe, are you ready?’ Feinstein then asked Manchin.
Then Trump chimed in to back up Feinstein.
‘Joe, can you do that? Can you add some of the things?’ Trump asked Manchin.
‘We’re going to get it passed,’ the president said.
During the meeting, Feinstein pressed Trump to endorse an assault weapons ban, but Trump told her she needed to work it out with her colleagues.
He would not go beyond his support for the age restrictions, background checks and concealed carry permits for teachers trained to wield firearms.
Making a reference to his proposal to allowed teachers to pack heat, Trump said, ‘To me something great, is where you stop it from happening, and I think there’s only one way.’
If lawmakers feel that’s the wrong way to attack the problem, Trump told them, ;I want a very strong counter punch.’
Trump predicted a ‘very successful vote’ this time around on gun control legislation.
‘Some people aren’t going to like that, but you’re going to have to look at that very seriously,’ he said, returning to age limits. ‘And I will sign it, and I will call whoever you want me to if I like what you’re doing, and I think I like what you’re doing already, but you can add to it.
‘But you have to be very, very powerful on background checks – don’t be shy – very strong on mentally ill, you have to be very very strong on that, and don’t worry about bump stock, we’re getting rid of it, I mean you don’t have to complicate the bill by adding another two paragraphs.’
The president claimed once again that his administration would be banning the firearms accessory that it plans to recategorize as a machine gun.
‘We’re getting rid of it. I’ll do that myself because I’m able to. Fortunately we’re able to do that without going through Congress,’ he asserted.
‘I DON’T KNOW WHY I WASN’T INVITED’: President Donald Trump will heard directly from lawmakers leading the charge for new gun violence prevention measures this afternoon at the White House…yet Florida’s Democratic senator, Bill Nelson, wasn’t invited
Wednesday was the first time that Trump heard from federal lawmakers leading the charge for new gun violence prevention measures in person since the Parkland massacre.
In addition to Machin, Toomey, Feinstein and Murphy, Sen. John Cornyn, the GOP whip in the Senate, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio also attended.
Cornyn described President Trump’s meeting about guns today as ‘fascinating television’ and ‘surreal.’
‘My takeaway is that we like to start with background checks and build from there and see where we can get consensus,’ the Texas Republican said.
Cornyn, the Senate’s whip who was seated next to Trump during the meeting, added that rolling multiple gun bills into one was ‘easier said than done.’
The Sunshine State’s Democratic senator, Bill Nelson, says he was not invited.
A White House spokesperson did not respond to DailyMail.com’s request for comment on the snub.
A chagrined Nelson told reporters Wednesday afternoon that he was not invited to the president’s chat today with legislators at the White House.
‘I don’t know why I wasn’t invited,’ he said, according to ABC News. ‘And of course that doesn’t foster bipartisanship when you’re trying to solve a problem.’
Trump has been holding listening sessions with parents, students, teachers, state and local officials, law enforcement officers and other stakeholders in the gun control debate, including the National Rifle Association, in the weeks since the Marjory Stoneman massacre.
Yesterday, the White House promised to unveil a set of ‘school safety’ recommendations later this week that will include specific policy initiatives.
The president was already supporting legislation that would incentivize states and agencies to fully comply with existing federal background check mandates. His White House also endorsed a bill this week that funds gun violence prevention training for teachers, law enforcement and students.
Trump last week directed his attorney general to find a way to regulate bump stocks, claiming this week that regardless of what Congress has to say about the matter he’s ‘getting rid’ of the accessory that manipulates semiautomatic rifles.
Other suggestions the president has made had been just that, with the White House pledging hardened stances on Tuesday by the end of the week.
Among those: the proposal to raise the minimum age for some gun purchases and a proposition to allow upwards of 700,000 teachers to carry concealed weapons.
Neither of the proposed remedies to gun violence was gaining traction on Capitol Hill this week as Congress returned from a week-long hiatus.
Sarah Sanders denies that Trump softened stance on gun age limit
A top GOP congressional aide told DailyMail.com on Tuesday that the prospects are ‘pretty dim,’ for age limits that could be why the president appeared to be backing away from it in remarks over the past few days.
‘That proposal won’t get a lot of traction in Congress,’ the source said.
Trump did not put forward the proposal during at Friday speech before conservative activists, and he did not bring it up Monday at a bipartisan meeting with governors at the White House, where gun violence was the top talker during a televised session.
Sources familiar with the White House’s discussions with leadership on Capitol Hill told CNN later that Trump was seemingly moving away from his position.
A senior congressional aide told DailyMail.com that discussions about the president’s proposals, like allowing teachers to pack heat, were still in their early stages, with Congress having been out of session last week and only just returning on Monday to Washington.
Furthermore, the House will be out from today on as the late evangelical pastor Billy Graham lies in honor in the U.S. Capitol.
The source said that the basic posture of the House is to see what can pass in the GOP-controlled Senate, which is focused this week on nominations.
House Republicans have already passed legislation to strengthen the existing background check system that it paired with a concealed carry provision. The Senate version of the background check bill has lingered in the Senate.
Trump informed GOP Rep. Steve Scalise, the Republican Party’s top vote counter in the House, on Wednesday that the measure permitting concealed carry reciprocity between states would have to be cut from the bill now in order to get the base background check bill through the more liberal Senate.
‘Let it be a separate bill,’ he warned the GOP leader. ‘If you add concealed carry to this, you’ll never get it passed.’
Trump’s administration had cautiously endorsed the Senate legislation that’s sponsored by Murphy and Cornyn.
On Monday the bill hit a roadblock in the upper chamber, though, as conservative senator Mike Lee opposed the measure and Democratic senators pushed for more aggressive gun control legislation.
The NRA does not support new age restrictions on firearms sales and its spokeswoman suggested Sunday that Trump was not firmly committed to his position
Democrats want to Congress pass legislation requiring background checks on all firearms sales, eliminating the so-called gun show loophole.
Trump has said he favors comprehensive legislation, but the White House had refused to take a position on universal background checks prior to Trump’s assertion on Wednesday that he supports them.
‘We’d have to see what it looks like and review that before we make that determination,’ press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday.
Sanders was equally non-committal on Tuesday in her daily briefing when questioned about the president’s support for the bill put together by Manchin and Toomey.
‘The President, as I’ve said, expects to meet with a number of lawmakers tomorrow from both sides of the aisle, and we’ll have some more information about specifics after that,’ she asserted.
The Trump spokeswoman insisted Tuesday, as she did Monday, that the president remains supportive of the proposition to make sales of the AR-15 and other automatic rifles 21 and over, despite the National Rifle Association’s adamant opposition to the measure.
‘He knows that everybody doesn’t necessarily agree,’ Sanders explained. ‘We’re not going to get into the details on the specifics of what we will propose.’
On Monday, Sanders said that Trump had not ‘downgraded’ his proposal.
‘The president is still supportive of the concept,’ she said, as a weekend meeting with the National Rifle Association that was kept off Trump’s public schedule came to light.
The NRA does not support new age restrictions on firearms sales and its spokeswoman suggested Sunday that Trump was not firmly committed to his position.
‘These are just things that he’s discussing right now,’ spokesman Dana Loesch said during an appearance on ABC News.
Sanders told reporters on Monday that it ‘would be ridiculous’ to intimate that Trump had been influenced by the powerful gun group that opposes the restrictions ‘considering the number of individuals he’s met with that come from both the far left to the far right, and a lot of those in between.’
She said Trump plans to continue his talks with a lawmakers this week in meetings at the White House and would ultimately base his decision on what is outlined in legislative text.
‘In concept, the President still supports it, but in terms of legislation, we’d need to see what that looks like before we weigh in further,’ Sanders said.
White House Communications Director Hope Hicks made the surprising announcement on Wednesday that she will leave the Trump administration in the coming weeks. The news comes a day after Hicks testifies for hours before the House Intelligence Committee as part of the Russia probe. Judy Woodruff learns more from Ashley Parker of The Washington Post.
Hope Hicks named most powerful person in Washington
Hope Hicks Now in Spotlight Surrounding White House Domestic Abuse Scandal
Lawrence: Hope Hicks’ Loyalty Tested As She Meets Mueller Team | The Last Word | MSNBC
Hope Hicks Is The New White House Communications Director
Simon & Garfunkel – The Sound of Silence – Madison Square Garden, NYC – 2009/10/29&30
Simon & Garfunkel – Bridge over Troubled Water (from The Concert in Central Park)
Why did Hope Hicks resign? Even the good option looks bad.
Hope Hicks to resign as White House communications director
Embed
Share
Officials announced on Feb. 28 that Hope Hicks will resign. She had been White House communications director since Sept. 2017.(The Washington Post)
White House Communications Director Hope Hicks is resigning less than six months after officially taking that job on a permanent basis. And according to a timeline provided by the reporter who broke the story, the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman, Hicks spent a substantial portion of her tenure — perhaps as much as half of it — considering leaving.
Hope Hicks departure is NOT about yesterday’s hearing, per multiple sources. She had planned it before, had been thinking about it for months. She had informed a very small number of people prior to Hill hearing that she planned to leave.
It was tempting to draw a line — as Iand others speculated about — between Hicks’s exit and two controversies: Her involvement in the Rob Porter scandal as both communications director and his girlfriend, and her House Intelligence Committee testimony Tuesday in which she admitted to telling white lies for Trump. If nothing else, the timing is suspicious for a resignation to come so close in proximity to each of those two things.
But consider the alternative. The alternative is that someone who has been in the White House for 13 months started thinking about leaving well shy of a year on the staff — and shortly after rising to one of the top jobs. The point: Regardless of which one it was, it doesn’t portend good things or stability in the White House moving forward.
It’s no secret the White House has become something of a revolving door for staff. Hicks was the fifth person designated as communications director and the third to hold the job on a non-interim basis. Trump has also already parted ways with a press secretary, a national security adviser, a chief strategist, a chief of staff (with his second, John Kelly, apparently on thin ice) and plenty of others.
Hicks was supposed to be different. Perhaps his longest-serving aide — dating back to before the campaign — she was someone who understood Trump and seemed to command his implicit trust. The White House would be a stressful job for anyone, but Hicks at least benefited from the kind of strong working relationship with Trump that other figures — especially those from the GOP establishment — clearly did not have.
She was not as familiar with politics as others, but in a White House in which conflictswith the boss are often the cause for early departures, Hicks made sense as a potential long-termer. Like Reince Priebus, Stephen K. Bannon, Sean Spicer and the rest, though, she has now proven a short-timer. Even fellow Trump loyalists like Keith Schiller have found the White House to be tough long-term employment.
Whether it’s because of exhaustion in dealing with Trump or the exhaustion in dealing with Washington politics for outsiders like Hicks, or a combination, it seems Trump will have a difficult time maintaining anything resembling a core staff organization. And for a president who has struggled with consistency and is thought to be heavily reliant upon the last person he has spoken to, that’s likely to lead to even more volatility.
We may yet learn more about Hicks’s departure in the days to come. Nothing about it, though, suggests stability is over the horizon for the White House. If anything was stability for Trump, it was Hicks.
Turnover, investigations have Trump administration adrift
WASHINGTON (AP) — Rattled by two weeks of muddled messages, departures and spitting matches between the president and his own top officials, Donald Trump is facing a shrinking circle of trusted advisers and a staff that’s grim about any prospect of a reset.
Even by the standards of Trump’s often chaotic administration, the announcement of Hope Hicks’ imminent exit spread new levels of anxiety across the West Wing and cracked open disputes that had been building since the White House’s botched handling of domestic violence allegations against a senior aide late last month.
One of Trump’s most loyal and longest-serving aides, Hicks often served as human buffer between the unpredictable president and the business of government. One official on Thursday compared the instability caused by her departure to that of a chief of staff leaving the administration — though that prospect, too, remained a possibility given the questions that have arisen about John Kelly’s competence.
Hicks’ departure comes as special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation appears to be circling the Oval Office, with prosecutors questioning Trump associates about both his business dealings before he became president and his actions in office, according to people with knowledge of the interviews. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, has also been weakened after being stripped of his high-level security clearance amid revelations about potential conflicts of interest.
Communications Director Hope Hicks, one of President Trump’s most trusted aides, abruptly announced her resignation Wednesday. Julie Pace says Hicks is under the political magnifying glass, which might have affected her decision. (Feb. 28)
The biggest unknown is how the mercurial Trump will respond to Hicks’ departure and Kushner’s more limited access, according to some of the 16 White House officials, congressional aides and outside advisers interviewed by The Associated Press, most of whom insisted on anonymity in order to disclose private conversations and meetings. Besides Kushner and his wife, presidential daughter Ivanka Trump, most remaining White House staffers were not part of Trump’s close-knit 2016 campaign. One person who speaks to Trump regularly said the president has become increasingly wistful about the camaraderie of that campaign.
Rarely has a modern president confronted so many crises and controversies across so many fronts at the same time. After 13 months in office, there’s little expectation among many White House aides and outside allies that Trump can quickly find his footing or attract new, top-flight talent to the West Wing. And some Republican lawmakers, who are eying a difficult political landscape in November’s midterm elections, have begun to let private frustrations ooze out in public.
“There is no standard operating practice with this administration,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. “Every day is a new adventure for us.”
Thune’s comments described the White House’s peculiar rollout Thursday of controversial new aluminum and steel tariffs. White House aides spent Wednesday night and Thursday morning scrambling to steer the president away from an announcement on an unfinished policy, with even Kelly in the dark about Trump’s plans. Aides believed they had succeeded in getting Trump to back down and hoped to keep television cameras away from an event with industry executives so the president couldn’t make a surprise announcement. But Trump summoned reporters into the Cabinet Room anyway and declared that the U.S. would levy penalties of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports.
Some of Trump’s populist supporters cheered the move. The stock market, which Trump looks to for validation for his economic policies, plunged.
Some officials are bracing for more departures. On Thursday, NBC News reported that the White House was preparing to replace national security adviser H.R. McMaster as early as next month.
White House Sarah Huckabee Sanders told “Fox & Friends” on Friday that “Gen. McMaster isn’t going anywhere.”
As for talk of a White House in upheaval, Sanders pointed out the tax cuts passed late last year: “If they want to call it chaos, fine, but we call it success and productivity and we’re going to keep plugging along.”
For those remaining on the job, the turbulence has been relentless. Just two weeks ago, Kelly, the general brought in to bring order, was himself on the ropes for his handling of the domestic violence allegations against a close aide, Rob Porter. Trump was said to be deeply irritated by the negative press coverage of Kelly’s leadership during the controversy and considering firing him. But first, the president planned to give his chief of staff a chance to defend himself before reporters in the briefing room and gauge the reaction, according to two people with knowledge of the episode. The briefing, however, was canceled after the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Kelly’s standing has stabilized somewhat as media attention to the Porter issue has waned.
Graphic shows key departures from Trump administration.
One Kelly backer said the chief of staff’s standing remains tenuous, in part because of his clashes with Kushner over policy, personnel and White House structure. The tensions were exacerbated by Kelly’s decision to downgrade Kushner’s security clearance because the senior adviser had not been permanently approved for the highest level of access.
Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who also serves as a senior White House adviser, have been frustrated by Kelly’s attempt to restrict their access to the president, and they perceive his new crackdown on clearances as a direct shot at them, according to White House aides and outside advisers. Kelly, in turn, has grown frustrated with what he views as the couple’s freelancing. He blames them for changing Trump’s mind at the last minute and questions what exactly they do all day, according to one White House official and an outside ally.
The ethics questions dogging Kushner relate to both his personal financial interests and his dealings in office with foreign officials. Intelligence officials expressed concern that Kushner’s business dealings were a topic of discussion in conversations he was having with foreign officials about foreign policy issues of interest to the U.S. government, a former intelligence official said. Separately, The New York Times reported that two companies made loans worth more than half a billion dollars to Kushner’s family real estate firm after executives met with Kushner at the White House.
Allies of Kushner and Ivanka Trump insist they have no plans to leave the White House in the near future. As for Kelly, he appeared to hint at his tough spot during an event Thursday at the Department of Homeland Security, where he served as secretary before departing for the White House.
“The last thing I wanted to do was walk away from one of the great honors of my life, being the secretary of homeland security,” he said at the agency’s 15th anniversary celebration in Washington. “But I did something wrong and God punished me, I guess.”
___
Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Catherine Lucey contributed to this report.
Story 1: Who Won The Third 2016 Presidential Debate? Trump — Who Will Be Elected President of The United States? — Who Do You Trust The Most? — Trump — Verdict On Hillary Clinton’s Criminal Activities Given By American People on Election Day, November 8 — Videos
As we head into the final presidential debate, and with just under three weeks to go until the 2016 presidential election, here’s the state of the race from the viewpoint of 14 forecasters. You can find all the associated maps, as well as a few others, on our2016 Presidential Election Forecasts page.
Since our last update on October 13th, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s average total electoral votes are little changed. Clinton is at 300, Trump 187. Within Trump’s average, however, we are beginning to see an erosion in states where the Republican nominee is favored vs. those that are leaning in his direction. For example, a couple forecasters have moved Texas from favored to leaning.
Note that the statistical projections (shaded in gray) in the table may change several times a day as new input data (e.g., polls released that day) are processed by the models. This will lead to more variability vs. the other forecasters.
Full. Third Presidential Debate. Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton. October 19, 2016
LIVE: Third Presidential Debate (C-SPAN)
Social media mocks Hillary Clinton’s ‘creepy grandma’ grin
Hillary Clinton ~~ Pure Evil Devil Laugh (Remix)
Trump: Clinton such a nasty woman
Donald Trump: We need to get out ‘bad hombres’
Trump: Justice Ginsburg apologized to me
TRUMP RESPONDS! Project Veritas Action – Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies
UPDATE , A MUST WATCH Project Veritas #3
Fox & Friends 10/15/16 NEW Wikileaks Bombshell Hillary Clinton Open Border
WikiLeaks Doc Dump on Hillary! Calls for Open Borders in Leaked Emails! – 10/7/16
WikiLeaks Hits Hillary Clinton with a 9.0 Magnitude Earthquake | 08 Oct 2016
Michael Savage – If Trumps Wins Elite Will Blame Russia And Cancel Elections
RUSH: What In The World Happened To All The Trump Voters?
LIMBAUGH: Woman Who Claims Trump ‘OCTOPUSED’ Her Is MAKING IT UP!
Wikileaks Blows To Pieces Rigged Media, Project Veritas Destroys Democratic Party Operatives
Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies
Rigging the Election – Video II: Mass Voter Fraud
FOX NEWS ALERT 10/18/16 Trump On Clinton Email Scandal This Is Big Stuff. This Is Watergate.
Hillary Clinton The Movie Banned by the Courts in 2008
3 Reasons Not To Sweat The “Citizens United” SCOTUS Ruling
What You Probably Haven’t Heard About Citizens United
Justice Scalia on Citizens United (C-SPAN)
Crooked Hillary Threatens to Ban Gun Ownership With Supreme Court Nominations
Hillary Clinton Outlines Plan to Abolish the Second Amendment
The Heller Ruling, Five Years On (Robert Levy)
Dem Operative Who Oversaw Trump Rally Agitators Visited White House 342 Times
PETER HASSON
Reporter, Associate Editor
A key operative in a Democratic scheme to send agitators to cause unrest at Donald Trump’s rallies has visited the White House 342 times since 2009, White House records show.
Robert Creamer, who acted as a middle man between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and “protesters” who tried — and succeeded — to provoke violence at Trump rallies met with President Obama during 47 of those 342 visits, according to White House records. Creamer’s last visit was in June 2016.
Scott Foval, the national field director for Americans United for Change, explained how the scheme works.
“The [Clinton] campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, The Foval Group goes and executes the shit,” Foval told an undercover journalist.
One example of the “shit” Foval executes was an instance in which a 69-year-old woman garnered headlines after claiming to be assaulted at a Trump rally.
“She was one of our activists,” Foval said.
Creamer’s job was to “manage” the work carried out by Foval.
“And the Democratic Party apparatus and the people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign and my role with the campaign, is to manage all that,” Creamer told an undercover journalist.
“Wherever Trump and Pence are gonna be we have events,” he said.
denied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)[1]probable jurisdiction noted128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008).
Holding
The Freedom of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. And the provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
In the case, the conservativenon-profit organizationCitizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or “BCRA”.[4] Section 203 of BCRA defined an “electioneering communication” as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][5] The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and “electioneering communications”.[4] The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[6] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[7]
Background
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain–Feingold Act) – specifically §203, which modified the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C.§ 441b – prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund “electioneering communications” (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization named Citizens United filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration’s response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that broadcast advertisements for the film and featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made.[8] The FEC later dismissed a second complaint which argued that the movie itself constituted illegal corporate spending advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, which was illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. In dismissing that complaint, the FEC found that:
The complainant alleged that the release and distribution of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 constituted an independent expenditure because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush and that by being fully or partially responsible for the film’s release, Michael Moore and other entities associated with the film made excessive and/or prohibited contributions to unidentified candidates. The Commission found no reason to believe the respondents violated the Act because the film, associated trailers and website represented bona fide commercial activity, not “contributions” or “expenditures” as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act.[9]
In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial film maker, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007. By early 2008, it sought to run television commercials to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie and to air the movie on DirecTV.[10]
In the District Court
In December 2007 Citizens United filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of several statutory provisions governing “electioneering communications”.[11] It asked the court to declare that the corporate and union funding restrictions were unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Hillary: The Movie, and to enjoin the Federal Election Commission from enforcing its regulations. Citizens United also argued that the Commission’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements were unconstitutional as applied to the movie pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.. It also sought to enjoin the funding, disclosure, and disclaimer requirements as applied to Citizens United’s intended ads for the movie.
In accordance with special rules in section 403 of the BCRA, a three-judge court was convened to hear the case. On January 15, 2008, the court denied Citizens United’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the suit had little chance of success because the movie had no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote against Senator Clinton, that it was therefore express advocacy, not entitled to exemption from the ban on corporate funding of electioneering communications, and that television advertisements for the movie within 30 days of a primary violated the BCRA restrictions on “electioneering communications”.[12] The court held that the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC (2003) had found the disclosure requirements constitutional as to all electioneering communications, and Wisconsin RTL did not disturb this holding because the only issue of that case was whether speech that did not constitute the functional equivalent of express advocacy could be banned during the relevant pre-election period.
On July 18, 2008, the District Court granted summary judgement to the Federal Election Commission. In accordance with the special rules in the BCRA, Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court which docketed the case on August 18, 2008 and granted certiorari on November 14, 2008.[13]
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 24, 2009[10][14][15] and then asked for further briefs on June 29; the re-argument was heard on September 9, 2009.[13]
Before the Supreme Court
During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union.[16] In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book.[17]
According to a 2012 article in The New Yorker by Jeffrey Toobin, the Court expected after oral argument to rule on the narrow question that had originally been presented: could Citizens United show the film? At the subsequent conference among the justices after oral argument, the vote was 5–4 in favor of Citizens United being allowed to show the film. The justices voted the same as they had in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., a similar 2007 case, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito in the majority.[18]
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the initial opinion of the Court, holding that the BCRA allowed the showing of the film. A draft concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy argued that the court could and should have gone much further. The other justices in the majority began agreeing with Kennedy, and convinced Roberts to reassign the writing and allow Kennedy’s concurrence to become the majority opinion.[18]
On the other side, John Paul Stevens, the most senior justice in the minority, assigned the dissent to David Souter, who announced his retirement from the Court while he was working on it. The final draft went beyond critiquing the majority. Toobin described it as “air[ing] some of the Court’s dirty laundry,” writing that Souter’s dissent accused Roberts of having manipulated Court procedures to reach his desired result – an expansive decision that, Souter claimed, changed decades of election law and ruled on issues neither party to the litigation had presented.[18]
According to Toobin, Roberts was concerned that Souter’s dissent, likely to be his last opinion for the Court, could “damage the Court’s credibility.” He agreed with the minority to withdraw the opinion and schedule the case for reargument. However, when he did, the “Questions Presented” to the parties were more expansive, touching on the issues Kennedy had identified. According to Toobin, the eventual result was therefore a foregone conclusion from that point on.[18] Toobin’s account has been criticized for drawing conclusions unsupported by the evidence in his article.[19]
On June 29, 2009, the last day of the term, the Court issued an order directing the parties to re-argue the case on September 9 after briefing whether it might be necessary to overrule Austin and/or McConnell v. Federal Election Commission to decide the case.[20] Justice Stevens noted in his dissent that in its prior motion for summary judgment Citizens United had abandoned its facial challenge of BCRA §203, with the parties agreeing to the dismissal of the claim.[21]
Justice Sotomayor sat on the bench for the first time during the second round of oral arguments. This was the first case argued by then-Solicitor General and future Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson and First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams argued for Citizens United, and former Clinton Solicitor General Seth Waxman defended the statute on behalf of various supporters.[22] Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called it “one of the most important First Amendment cases in years”.[23]
Opinions of the Court
Majority opinion
Justice Kennedy, the author of the Court’s opinion.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion[24] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The majority wrote, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”[25]
Justice Kennedy’s opinion also noted that because the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations, the BCRA restrictions improperly allowed Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[4] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA’s restriction of corporate spending on “electioneering communications”. The Court’s ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on “electioneering communications” and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).
The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals therefore, have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation’s ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.
The decision overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity. Additionally, the decision said that Austinwas based on an “equality” rationale – trying to equalize speech between different speakers – that the Court had previously rejected as illegitimate under the First Amendment in Buckley. The Michigan statute at issue in Austin had distinguished between corporate and union spending, prohibiting the former while allowing the latter. The Austin Court, over the dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and O’Connor, had held that such distinctions were within the legislature’s prerogative. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the “marketplace of ideas” and “rationing” speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of “fairness” by restricting speech.[24]
The majority also criticized Austin’s reasoning that the “distorting effect” of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, the majority argued that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience’s perceptions, and that the type of “corruption” that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of “quid pro quo” transaction: “There is no such thing as too much speech.”[24] The public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of the information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny.
The Court’s opinion relied heavily on the reasoning and principles of the landmark campaign finance case of Buckley and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which the Court struck down a broad prohibition against independent expenditures by corporations in ballot initiatives and referenda.[24] Specifically, the Court echoed Bellotti’s rejection of categories based on a corporation’s purpose. The majority argued that to grant Freedom of the Press protections to media corporations, but not others, presented a host of problems; and so all corporations should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions.
The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311, provisions requiring disclosure of the funder, were valid as applied to the movie advertisements and to the movie itself.[24] The majority ruled for the disclosure of the sources of campaign contributions, saying that
…prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are “in the pocket” of so-called moneyed interests…This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.[26][27]
Roberts wrote to further explain and defend the Court’s statement that “there is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication.” Roberts explained why the Court must sometimes overrule prior decisions. Had prior Courts never gone against stare decisis, for example, “segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants”. Roberts’ concurrence recited a plethora of case law in which the court had ruled against precedent. Ultimately, Roberts argued that “stare decisis…counsels deference to past mistakes, but provides no justification for making new ones”.[28]
Justice Scalia joined the opinion of the Court, and wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justice Alito in full and by Justice Thomas in part. Scalia addressed Justice Stevens‘ dissent, specifically with regard to theoriginal understanding of the First Amendment. Scalia said Stevens’ dissent was “in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment…It never shows why ‘the freedom of speech’ that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form.” He further considered the dissent’s exploration of the Framers’ views about the “role of corporations in society” to be misleading, and even if valid, irrelevant to the text. Scalia principally argued that the First Amendment was written in “terms of speech, not speakers” and that “Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker.”[29] Scalia argued that the Free Press clause was originally intended to protect the distribution of written materials and did not only apply to the media specifically. This understanding supported the majority’s contention that the Constitution does not allow the Court to separate corporations into media and non-media categories.[24]
Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion concurring in all but the upholding of the disclosure provisions. In order to protect the anonymity of contributors to organizations exercising free speech, Thomas would have struck down the reporting requirements of BCRA §201 and §311 as well, rather than allowing them to be challenged only on a case-specific basis. Thomas’s primary argument was that anonymous free speech is protected and that making contributor lists public makes the contributors vulnerable to retaliation, citing instances of retaliation against contributors to both sides of a then recent California voter initiative. Thomas also expressed concern that such retaliation could extend to retaliation by elected officials. Thomas did not consider “as-applied challenges” to be sufficient to protect against the threat of retaliation.[30]
Justice Stevens, the author of the dissenting opinion.
A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens[31] was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. To emphasize his unhappiness with the majority, Stevens read part of his 90-page dissent from the bench.[32] Stevens concurred in the Court’s decision to sustain BCRA’s disclosure provisions, but dissented from the principal holding of the Court. He argued that the Court’s ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” He added: “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”[33]
Stevens also argued that the Court addressed a question not raised by the litigants when it found BCRA §203 to be facially unconstitutional, and that the majority “changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law”.[24] He argued that the majority had expanded the scope beyond the questions presented by the appellant and that therefore a sufficient record for judging the case did not exist. Stevens argued that at a minimum the Court should have remanded the case for a fact-finding hearing, and that the majority did not consider other compilations of data, such as the Congressional record for justifying BCRA §203.
Stevens referenced a number of major cases to argue that the Court had long recognized that to deny Congress the power to safeguard against “the improper use of money to influence the result [of an election] is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection”.[34] After recognizing that in Buckley v. Valeo the Court had struck down portions of a broad prohibition of independent expenditures from any sources, Stevens argued that nevertheless Buckley recognized the legitimacy of “prophylactic” measures for limiting campaign spending and found the prevention of “corruption” to be a reasonable goal for legislation. Consequently, Stevens argued that Buckley left the door open for carefully tailored future regulation.[24] Although the majority echoed many of the arguments in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Stevens argued that the majority opinion contradicted the reasoning of other campaign finance cases – in particular, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission – and found it telling that the majority, when citing such cases, referenced mainly dissenting opinions.
Stevens’ dissent specifically sought to address a number of the majority’s central arguments:
First, Stevens argued that the majority failed to recognize the possibility for corruption outside strict quid pro quo exchanges. He referenced facts from a previous BCRA challenge to argue that, even if the exchange of votes for expenditures could not be shown, contributors gain favorable political access from such expenditures.[24] The majority considered access to be insufficient justification for limiting speech rights.
Stevens, however, argued that in the past, even when striking down a ban on corporate independent expenditures, the Court “never suggested that such quid pro quo debts must take the form of outright vote buying or bribes” (Bellotti). Buckley, he said, also acknowledged that large independent expenditures present the same dangers as quid pro quo arrangements, although Buckley struck down limits on such independent expenditures. Using the record from a previous BCRA §203 challenge, he argued that independent expenditures were sometimes a factor in gaining political access and concluded that large independent expenditures generate more influence than direct campaign contributions.[24] Furthermore, Stevens argued that corporations could threaten Representatives and Senators with negative advertising to gain unprecedented leverage. Stevens supported his argument by citing Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,[35] where the Court held that $3 million in independent expenditures in a judicial race raised sufficient questions about a judge’s impartiality to require the judge to recuse himself in a future case involving the spender. Stevens argued that it was contradictory for the majority to ignore the same risks in legislative and executive elections, and argued that the majority opinion would exacerbate the problem presented in Caperton because of the number of states with judicial elections and increased spending in judicial races.
Second, Stevens argued that the majority did not place enough emphasis on the need to prevent the “appearance of corruption” in elections. Earlier cases, including Buckley and Bellotti, recognized the importance of public confidence in democracy. Stevens cited recent data indicating that 80% of the public view corporate independent expenditures as a method used to gain unfair legislative access.[24] Stevens predicted that if the public believes that corporations dominate elections, disaffected voters will stop participating.
Third, Stevens argued that the majority’s decision failed to recognize the dangers of the corporate form. Austin held that the prevention of corruption, including the distorting influence of a dominant funding source, was a sufficient reason for regulating corporate independent expenditures. In defending Austin, Stevens argued that the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process.
Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not “We the People” for whom our Constitution was established.[24] Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, he argued, protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas. Corporate spending is the “furthest from the core of political expression” protected by the Constitution, he argued, citing Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont,[36] and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending “more transactional than ideological”. Stevens also pointed out that any member of a corporation may spend personal money on promoting a campaign because BCRA only prohibited the use of general treasury money.
Fourth, Stevens attacked the majority’s central argument: that the prohibition of spending guards free speech and allows the general public to receive all available information. Relying on Austin, Stevens argued that corporations “unfairly influence” the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match, which distorts the public debate. Because a typical voter can only absorb so much information during a relevant election period, Stevens described “unfair corporate influence” as the potential to outspend others, to push others out of prime broadcasting spots and to dominate the “marketplace of ideas”.[24] This process, he argued, puts disproportionate focus on this speech and gives the impression of widespread support regardless of actual support. Thus, this process marginalizes the speech of other individuals and groups.
Stevens referred to the majority’s argument that “there is no such thing as too much speech” as “facile” and a “straw man” argument. He called it an incorrect statement of First Amendment law because the Court recognizes numerous exceptions to free speech, such as fighting words, obscenity restrictions, time, place and manner restrictions, etc. Throughout his dissent, Stevens said that the majority’s “slogan” ignored the possibility that too much speech from one source could “drown out” other points of view.
Fifth, Stevens criticized the majority’s fear that the government could use BCRA §203 to censor the media. The focus placed on this hypothetical fear made no sense to him because it did not relate to the facts of this case – if the government actually attempted to apply BCRA §203 to the media (and assuming that Citizens United could not constitute “media”), the Court could deal with the problem at that time. Stevens described the majority’s supposed protection of the media as nothing more than posturing. According to him, it was the majority’s new rule, announced in this case, that prohibited a law from distinguishing between “speakers” or funding sources. This new rule would be the only reason why media corporations could not be exempted from BCRA §203. In this, Stevens and the majority conceptualize the First Amendment’s protection of “the press” quite differently. Stevens argues that the “Press” is an entity, which can be distinguished from other persons and entities which are not “press”. The majority opinion viewed “freedom of the press” as an activity, applicable to all citizens or groups of citizens seeking to publish views.
Sixth, Stevens claimed that the majority failed to give proper deference to the legislature. Stevens predicted that this ruling would restrict the ability of the states to experiment with different methods for decreasing corruption in elections. According to Stevens, this ruling virtually ended those efforts, “declaring by fiat” that people will not “lose faith in our democracy”.[24] Stevens argued that the majority’s view of a self-serving legislature, passing campaign-spending laws to gain an advantage in retaining a seat, coupled with “strict scrutiny” of laws, would make it difficult for any campaign finance regulation to be upheld in future cases.
Seventh, Stevens argued that the majority opinion ignored the rights of shareholders. A series of cases protects individuals from legally compelled payment of union dues to support political speech.[37] Because shareholders invest money in corporations, Stevens argued that the law should likewise help to protect shareholders from funding speech that they oppose. The majority, however, argued that ownership of corporate stock was voluntary, and that unhappy shareholders could simply sell off their shares if they did not agree with the corporation’s speech. Stevens also argued that Political Action Committees (PACs), which allow individual members of a corporation to invest money in a separate fund, are an adequate substitute for general corporate speech and better protect shareholder rights. The majority, by contrast, had argued that most corporations are too small and lack the resources and raw number of shareholders and management staff necessary to cover the compliance, accounting, and administrative costs of maintaining a PAC. In this dispute, the opposing views essentially discussed differing types of entities: Stevens focused his argument on large, publicly held corporations, while the justices in the majority, and particularly Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion, placed an emphasis on small, closely held corporations and non-profits.
Stevens called the majority’s faith in “corporate democracy” an unrealistic method for a shareholder to oppose political funding. A derivative suit is slow, inefficient, risky and potentially expensive. Likewise, shareholder meetings only happen a few times a year, not prior to every decision or transaction. Rather, the officers and boards control the day-to-day spending, including political spending. According to Stevens, the shareholders have few options, giving them “virtually nonexistent” recourse for opposing a corporation’s political spending.[24] Furthermore, most shareholders use investment intermediaries, such as mutual funds or pensions, and by the time a shareholder may find out about a corporation’s political spending and try to object, the damage is done and the shareholder has funded disfavored speech.
Stevens concluded his dissent:
At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.[25]
Subsequent developments
There was a wide range of reactions to the case from politicians, academics, attorneys, advocacy groups and journalists.
Support
Politicians
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a plaintiff in the earlier related decision McConnell v. FEC, said:[38][39]
For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day. By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers. Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all.
Republican campaign consultant Ed Rollins opined that the decision adds transparency to the election process and will make it more competitive.[40]
Advocacy groups
Citizens United, the group filing the lawsuit, said, “Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Citizens United to air its documentary films and advertisements is a tremendous victory, not only for Citizens United but for every American who desires to participate in the political process.”[41] During litigation, Citizens United had support from the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association.[42]
Campaign finance attorney Cleta Mitchell, who had filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of two advocacy organizations opposing the ban, wrote that “The Supreme Court has correctly eliminated a constitutionally flawed system that allowed media corporations (e.g., The Washington Post Co.) to freely disseminate their opinions about candidates using corporate treasury funds, while denying that constitutional privilege to Susie’s Flower Shop Inc. … The real victims of the corporate expenditure ban have been nonprofit advocacy organizations across the political spectrum.”[43]
Heritage Foundation fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, said “The Supreme Court has restored a part of the First Amendment that had been unfortunately stolen by Congress and a previously wrongly-decided ruling of the court.”[44]
Libertarian Cato Institute analysts John Samples and Ilya Shapiro wrote that restrictions on advertising were based on the idea “that corporations had so much money that their spending would create vast inequalities in speech that would undermine democracy”. However, “to make campaign spending equal or nearly so, the government would have to force some people or groups to spend less than they wished. And equality of speech is inherently contrary to protecting speech from government restraint, which is ultimately the heart of American conceptions of free speech.”[45]
The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief that supported the decision,[46] saying that “section 203 should now be struck down as facially unconstitutional”, though membership was split over the implications of the ruling and its board sent the issue to its special committee on campaign finance for further consideration.[47] On March 27, 2012, the ACLU reaffirmed its stance in support of the Supreme Court’sCitizens United ruling.[48]
Academics and attorneys
Bradley A. Smith, professor of law at Capital University Law School, former chairman of the FEC, founder of the Center for Competitive Politics and a leading proponent of deregulation of campaign finance, wrote that the major opponents of political free speech are “incumbent politicians” who “are keen to maintain a chokehold on such speech”. Empowering “small and midsize corporations – and every incorporated mom-and-pop falafel joint, local firefighters’ union, and environmental group – to make its voice heard” frightens them.[49] In response to statements by President Obama and others that the ruling would allow foreign entities to gain political influence through U.S. subsidiaries, Smith pointed out that the decision did not overturn the ban on political donations by foreign corporations and the prohibition on any involvement by foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending by U.S. subsidiaries, which are covered by other parts of the law.[50][51][52]
Campaign finance expert Jan Baran, a member of the Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform, agreed with the decision, writing that “The history of campaign finance reform is the history of incumbent politicians seeking to muzzle speakers, any speakers, particularly those who might publicly criticize them and their legislation. It is a lot easier to legislate against unions, gun owners, ‘fat cat’ bankers, health insurance companies and any other industry or ‘special interest’ group when they can’t talk back.” Baran further noted that in general conservatives and libertarians praised the ruling’s preservation of the First Amendment and freedom of speech, but that liberals and campaign finance reformers criticized it as greatly expanding the role of corporate money in politics.[53]
Attorney Kenneth Gross, former associate general counsel of the FEC, wrote that corporations relied more on the development of long-term relationships, political action committees and personal contributions, which were not affected by the decision. He held that while trade associations might seek to raise funds and support candidates, corporations which have “signed on to transparency agreements regarding political spending” may not be eager to give.[43]
The New York Times asked seven academics to opine on how corporate money would reshape politics as a result of the court’s decision.[54] Three of the seven wrote that the effects would be minimal or positive: Christopher Cotton, a University of Miami School of Business assistant professor of economics, wrote that “There may be very little difference between seeing eight ads or seeing nine ads (compared to seeing one ad or two). And, voters recognize that richer candidates are not necessarily the better candidates, and in some cases, the benefit of running more ads is offset by the negative signal that spending a lot of money creates.[54]Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, stated that the “most influential actors in most political campaigns” are media corporations which “overtly editorialize for and against candidates, and also influence elections by choosing what to cover and how to cover it”. Holding that corporations like Exxon would fear alienating voters by supporting candidates, the decision really meant that voters would hear “more messages from more sources”.[54] Joel Gora, a professor at Brooklyn Law School who had previously argued the case of Buckley v. Valeo on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the decision represented “a great day for the First Amendment” writing that the Court had “dismantled the First Amendment ‘caste system’ in election speech”.[54]
Journalists
The Editorial Board of the San Antonio Express-News criticized McCain–Feingold’s exception for media corporations from the ban on corporate electioneering, writing that it “makes no sense” that the paper could make endorsements up until the day of the election but advocacy groups could not. “While the influence of money on the political process is troubling and sometimes corrupting, abridging political speech is the wrong way to counterbalance that influence.”[55]
Anthony Dick in National Review countered a number of arguments against the decision, asking rhetorically, “is there something uniquely harmful and/or unworthy of protection about political messages that come from corporations and unions, as opposed to, say, rich individuals, persuasive writers, or charismatic demagogues?” He noted that “a recent Gallup poll shows that a majority of the public actually agrees with the Court that corporations and unions should be treated just like individuals in terms of their political-expenditure rights”.[56] A Gallup poll taken in October 2009 and released soon after the decision showed 57 percent of those surveyed agreed that contributions to political candidates are a form of free speech and 55 percent agreed that the same rules should apply to individuals, corporations and unions. Sixty-four percent of Democrats and Republicans believed campaign donations are a form of free speech.[57]
Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman wrote “If corporate advocacy may be forbidden as it was under the law in question, it’s not just Exxon Mobil and Citigroup that are rendered mute. Nonprofit corporations set up merely to advance goals shared by citizens, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association, also have to put a sock in it. So much for the First Amendment goal of fostering debate about public policy.”[58]
Opposition
Politicians
President Barack Obama stated that the decision “gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington – while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates”.[59] Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, “this ruling strikes at our democracy itself” and “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest”.[60]On January 27, 2010, Obama further condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law[61] to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.” On television, the camera shifted to a shot of the SCOTUS judges in the front row directly in front of the President while he was making this statement, and Justice Samuel Alito was frowning, shaking his head side to side while mouthing the words “Not true”.[62][63][64][65][66][67]
Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, a lead sponsor of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, stated “This decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president.”[68]RepresentativeAlan Grayson, a Democrat, stated that it was “the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case, and that the court had opened the door to political bribery and corruption in elections to come.[69] Democratic congresswoman Donna Edwards, along with constitutional law professor and Maryland Democratic State Senator Jamie Raskin, have advocated petitions to reverse the decision by means of constitutional amendment.[70] Rep. Leonard Boswell introduced legislation to amend the constitution.[71] Senator John Kerry also called for an Amendment to overrule the decision.[72] On December 8, 2011, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed the Saving American Democracy Amendment, which would reverse the court’s ruling.[73][74]
Republican Senator John McCain, co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, said “there’s going to be, over time, a backlash … when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that’s going to go into political campaigns”.[75] McCain was “disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions” but not surprised by the decision, saying that “It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA.”[68] Republican Senator Olympia Snowe opined that “Today’s decision was a serious disservice to our country.”[76]
Although federal law after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission still prohibited corporate contributions to all political parties, Sanda Everette, co-chair of the Green Party, stated that “The ruling especially hurts the ability of parties that don’t accept corporate contributions, like the Green Party, to compete.” Another Green Party officer, Rich Whitney, stated “In a transparently political decision, a majority of the US Supreme Court overturned its own recent precedent and paid tribute to the giant corporate interests that already wield tremendous power over our political process and political speech.”
Ralph Nader condemned the ruling,[77] saying that “With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars.” He called for shareholder resolutions asking company directors to pledge not to use company money to favor or oppose electoral candidates.[78]Pat Choate, former Reform Party candidate for Vice President, stated, “The court has, in effect, legalized foreign governments and foreign corporations to participate in our electoral politics.”[79]
Senator Bernie Sanders, a contender in the 2016 Democratic Primary, has filed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Decision.[80] Further, both Sanders and Hillary Clinton have said that, if elected, they will only appoint Supreme Court Justices who are committed to the repeal of Citizens United.[81] In September 2015, Sanders said that “the foundations of American Democracy are being undermined” and called for sweeping campaign finance reform.[82]
International
Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, speaking for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe‘s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (which has overseen over 150 elections) said the ruling may adversely affect the organization’s two commitments of “giving voters a genuine choice and giving candidates a fair chance” in that “it threatens to further marginalize candidates without strong financial backing or extensive personal resources, thereby in effect narrowing the political arena”.[83]
The constitutional law scholar Laurence H. Tribe wrote that the decision “marks a major upheaval in First Amendment law and signals the end of whatever legitimate claim could otherwise have been made by the Roberts Court to an incremental and minimalist approach to constitutional adjudication, to a modest view of the judicial role vis-à-vis the political branches, or to a genuine concern with adherence to precedent” and pointed out, “Talking about a business corporation as merely another way that individuals might choose to organize their association with one another to pursue their common expressive aims is worse than unrealistic; it obscures the very real injustice and distortion entailed in the phenomenon of some people using other people’s money to support candidates they have made no decision to support, or to oppose candidates they have made no decision to oppose.”[85]
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, whose opinions had changed from dissenting in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce to co-authoring (with Stevens) the majority opinion in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission twelve years later, criticized the decision only obliquely, but warned, “In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending, the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon.”[86]
Richard L. Hasen, professor of election law at Loyola Law School, argued that the ruling “is activist, it increases the dangers of corruption in our political system and it ignores the strong tradition of American political equality”. He also described Justice Kennedy’s “specter of blog censorship” as sounding more like “the rantings of a right-wing talk show host than the rational view of a justice with a sense of political realism”.[87]
Kathleen M. Sullivan, professor at Stanford Law School and Steven J. Andre, adjunct professor at Lincoln Law School, argued that two different visions of freedom of speech exist and clashed in the case. An egalitarian vision skeptical of the power of large agglomerations of wealth to skew the political process conflicted with a libertarian vision skeptical of government being placed in the role of determining what speech people should or should not hear.[88][89] Wayne Batchis, Professor at the University of Delaware, in contrast, argues that the Citizens United decision represents a misguided interpretation of the non-textual freedom of association.[90]
The four other scholars of the seven writing in the aforementionedNew York Times article were critical.[54]Richard L. Hasen, Distinguished Professor of election law at Loyola Law School argued differently from his Slate article above, concentrating on the “inherent risk of corruption that comes when someone spends independently to try to influence the outcome of judicial elections”, since judges are less publicly accountable than elected officials. Heather K. Gerken, Professor of Law at Yale Law School wrote that “The court has done real damage to the cause of reform, but that damage mostly came earlier, with decisions that made less of a splash.” Michael Waldman, director of the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law, opined that the decision “matches or exceeds Bush v. Gore in ideological or partisan overreaching by the court”, explaining how “Exxon or any other firm could spend Bloomberg-level sums in any congressional district in the country against, say, any congressman who supports climate change legislation, or health care, etc.” andFred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21 considered that “Chief Justice Roberts has abandoned the illusory public commitments he made to ‘judicial modesty’ and ‘respect for precedent’ to cast the deciding vote for a radical decision that profoundly undermines our democracy,” and that “Congress and presidents past have recognized this danger and signed numerous laws over the years to prevent this kind of corruption of our government.”[54]
Journalists
The New York Times stated in an editorial, “The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.”[91]Jonathan Alter called it the “most serious threat to American democracy in a generation”.[92] The Christian Science Monitor wrote that the Court had declared “outright that corporate expenditures cannot corrupt elected officials, that influence over lawmakers is not corruption, and that appearance of influence will not undermine public faith in our democracy”.[93]
Business leaders
In 2012, Ben Cohen, the co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, founded Stamp Stampede, a sustained protest to demonstrate widespread support for a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The campaign encourages people to rubber stamp messages such as “Not To Be Used for Bribing Politicians” on paper currency. In 2014, Cohen told Salon, “As long as the Supreme Court rules money is speech, corporations and the wealthy are using it by giving piles of it to politicians to pass or not pass laws that they want. Now, the rest of the people, [those] who don’t have that money, can actually make their voice heard by using money to stamp a message out.”[94]
Media coverage
Political blogs
Most blogs avoided the theoretical aspects of the decision and focused on more personal and dramatic elements, including the Barack Obama–Samuel Alito face-off during the President’s State of the Union address.[95] There, President Obama argued that the decision “reversed a century of law” (the federal ban on corporate contributions dates back to the 1907 Tillman Act, and the ban on union and corporate expenditures dates from 1947) and that it would allow “foreign corporations to spend without limits in our elections”, during which Justice Alito, in the audience, perceptibly mouthed the words “not true”. This event received extensive comment from political bloggers, with a substantial amount of the coverage concentrated on whether or not foreign corporations would be able to make substantial political contributions in US elections. In the opinion, the Court had specifically indicated it was not overturning the ban on foreign contributions.
Opinion polls
ABC-Washington Post poll results.
An ABC–Washington Post poll conducted February 4–8, 2010, showed that 80% of those surveyed opposed (and 65% strongly opposed) the Citizens United ruling, which the poll described as saying “corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections”. Additionally, 72% supported “an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns”. The poll showed large majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.[96][97][98]
A Gallup Poll conducted in October 2009, after oral argument, but released after the Supreme Court released its opinion, found that 57 percent of those surveyed “agreed that money given to political candidates is a form of free speech” and 55 percent agreed that the “same rules should apply to individuals, corporations and unions”. However, in the same poll respondents by 52% to 41% prioritized limits on campaign contributions over protecting rights to support campaigns and 76% thought the government should be able to place limits on corporation or union donations.[99][100]
Separate polls by various conservative organizations, including the plaintiff Citizens United and the Center for Competitive Politics, found support for the decision.[101] In particular, the Center for Competitive Politics poll[102] found that 51% of respondents believed that Citizens United should have a right to air ads promoting Hillary: The Movie. The poll also found that only 22 percent had heard of the case.
SpeechNow is a nonprofit, unincorporated association organized as a section 527 entity under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The organization was formed by individuals who seek to pool their resources to make independent expenditures expressly advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates. SpeechNow planned to accept contributions only from individuals, not corporations or other sources prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act. On February 14, 2008, SpeechNow and several individual plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act provisions governing political committee registration, contribution limits and disclosure. The plaintiffs contended that the Act unconstitutionally restricts their association guaranteed under the First Amendment. By requiring registration as a political committee and limiting the monetary amount that an individual may contribute to a political committee, SpeechNow and the other plaintiffs asserted that the Act unconstitutionally restricted the individuals’ freedom of speech by limiting the amount that an individual can contribute to SpeechNow and thus the amount the organization may spend. SpeechNow also argued that the reporting required of political committees is unconstitutionally burdensome.[103]
On March 26, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in SpeechNow.org. v. FEC that the contribution limits of 2 U.S.C. §441a were unconstitutional as applied to individuals’ contributions to SpeechNow. The court also ruled that the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. §§432, 433 and 434(a) and the organizational requirements of 2 U.S.C. §431(4) and §431(8) can be constitutionally applied to SpeechNow.[103] A unanimous nine-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals[104] struck down the federal limits on contributions to federal political committees that make only independent expenditures and do not contribute to candidates or political parties. This type of “independent expenditure committee” is inherently non-corruptive, the Court reasoned, and therefore contributions to such a committee can not be limited based on the government’s interest in preventing political corruption.[105] In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, in which the Supreme Court held that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting independent expenditures, the appeals court ruled that “contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption.” As a result, the court of appeals held that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to an independent group such as SpeechNow. Contribution limits as applied to SpeechNow “violate the First Amendment by preventing [individuals] from donating to SpeechNow in excess of the limits and by prohibiting SpeechNow from accepting donations in excess of the limits.” The court noted that its holding does not affect direct contributions to candidates, but rather contributions to a group that makes only independent expenditures.[103] The appeals court held that, while disclosure and reporting requirements do impose a burden on First Amendment interests, they “‘impose no ceiling on campaign related activities'” and “‘do not prevent anyone from speaking.'” Furthermore, the court held that the additional reporting requirements that the Commission would impose on SpeechNow if it were organized as a political committee are minimal, “given the relative simplicity with which SpeechNow intends to operate.” Since SpeechNow already had a number of “planned contributions” from individuals, the court ruled that SpeechNow could not compare itself to “ad hoc groups that want to create themselves on the spur of the moment.” Since the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate and who is funding that speech, the court held that requiring such disclosure and organization as a political committee are sufficiently important governmental interests to justify the additional reporting and registration burdens on SpeechNow.[103]
On June 27, 2011, ruling in the consolidated cases of Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (No. 10-238) and McComish v. Bennett (No. 10-239), the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional an Arizona law that provided extra taxpayer-funded support for office seekers who have been outspent by privately funded opponents or by independent political groups. A conservative 5–4 majority of justices said the law violated free speech, concluding the state was impermissibly trying to “level the playing field” through a public finance system. Arizona lawmakers had argued there was a compelling state interest in equalizing resources among competing candidates and interest groups.[106] Opponents said the law violated free-speech rights of the privately financed candidates and their contributors, inhibiting fundraising and spending, discouraging participation in campaigns and limiting what voters hear about politics.[107] Chief Justice John Roberts said in the court’s majority opinion that the law substantially burdened political speech and was not sufficiently justified to survive First Amendment scrutiny.[107]
As a consequence of the decision, states and municipalities are blocked from using a method of public financing that is simultaneously likely to attract candidates fearful that they will be vastly outspent and sensitive to avoiding needless government expense. “The government can still use taxpayer funds to subsidize political campaigns, but it can only do that in a manner that provides an alternative to private financing” said William R. Maurer, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented several challengers of the law. “It cannot create disincentives.”[108] The ruling meant the end of similar matching-fund programs in Connecticut, Maine and a few other places according to David Primo, a political science professor at the University of Rochester who was an expert witness for the law’s challengers.[109]
Despite the Citizens United ruling, In December 2011, the Montana Supreme Court, in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana, upheld that state’s law limiting corporate contributions. Examining the history of corporate interference in Montana government that led to the Corrupt Practices Law, the majority decided that the state still had a compelling reason to maintain the restrictions. It ruled that these restrictions on speech were narrowly tailored and withstood strict scrutiny and thus did not contradict Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
While granting permission to file a Certiorari petition, the US Supreme Court agreed to stay the Montana ruling, although Justices Ginsburg and Breyer wrote a short statement urging the Court “to consider whether, in light of the huge sums of money currently deployed to buy candidate’s allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway”.[110] In June 2012, over the dissent of the same four judges who dissented in Citizens United, the Court simultaneously granted certiorari and summarily reversed the decision in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 567, U.S. __ (2012).[111] The Supreme Court majority rejected the Montana Supreme Court arguments in a two paragraph, twenty line per curiam opinion, stating that these arguments “either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.”[112] The ruling makes clear that states cannot bar corporate and union political expenditures in state elections.[113]
In addition to limiting the size of donations to individual candidates and parties, the Federal Election Campaign Act also includes aggregate caps on the total amount that an individual may give to all candidates and parties. In 2012, Shaun McCutcheon, a Republican Party activist,[114][115] sought to donate more than was allowed by the federal aggregate limit on federal candidates.[116] McCutcheon et al filed suit against theFederal Election Commission (FEC).[117] In 2014, the US Supreme Court reversed a ruling of the DC District Court‘s dismissal of McCutcheon v. FEC and struck down the aggregate limits. The plurality opinion invalidated only the aggregate contribution limits, not limits on giving to any one candidate or party. The decisive fifth vote for McCutcheon came from Justice Thomas, who concurred in the judgment on the grounds that all contribution limits are unconstitutional.[118]
Legislative responses
Legislative impact
The New York Times reported that 24 states with laws prohibiting or limiting independent expenditures by unions and corporations would have to change their campaign finance laws because of the ruling.[119]
After Citizens United and SpeechNow.org numerous state legislatures raised their limits on contributions to candidates and parties.[120] At the federal level, lawmakers substantially increased contribution limits to political parties as part of the 2014 budget bill.[121] Such changes are widely perceived as efforts to place candidates and parties on something closer to equal footing with organizations making independent expenditures.[121]
While many states and the federal government have raised contribution limits in response to Citizens United, proposals aimed at discouraging political spending, or providing for public financing of campaigns, have been less successful.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) proposed that candidates who sign up small donors receive $900,000 in public money, but the proposal has not been acted on by Congress. Others proposed that laws on corporate governance be amended to assure that shareholders vote on political expenditures.[92]
In February 2010, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, immediate past Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, outlined legislation aimed at undoing the decision.[122] In April 2010, they introduced such legislation in the Senate and House, respectively.[123] On June 24, 2010, H.R.5175 (The DISCLOSE Act) passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate. It would have required additional disclosure by corporations of their campaign expenditures. The law, if passed, would also have prohibited political spending by U.S. companies with twenty percent or more foreign ownership, and by most government contractors.[124] The DISCLOSE Act included exemptions to its rules given to certainspecial interests such as the National Rifle Association and the American Association of Retired Persons. These gaps within the proposal attracted criticism from lawmakers on both political parties. “They are auctioning off pieces of the First Amendment in this bill… The bigger you are, the stronger you are, the less disclosure you have,” said Republican Congressman Dan Lungren of California. Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California commented, “I wish there had been no carve-outs”.[125] The bill was criticized as prohibiting much activity that was legal before Citizens United.[126]
The DISCLOSE Act twice failed to pass the U.S. Senate in the 111th Congress, in both instances reaching only 59 of the 60 votes required to overcome a unified Republican filibuster.[127][128] A scaled down version of the DISCLOSE Act was reintroduced in both the House and Senate in 2012 but did not pass.[citation needed]
Some have argued for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision. Although the decision does not address “corporate personhood,” a long-established judicial and constitutional concept,[129] much attention has focused on that issue. Move to Amend, a coalition formed in response to the ruling,[130] seeks to amend the Constitution to abolish corporate personhood, thus stripping corporations of all rights under the Constitution.[131][132] In an online chat with web community Reddit, President Obama endorsed further consideration of a constitutional amendment and stated “Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court Doesn’t revisit it)”.[133] He further elaborated that “Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight on the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.”[133]
Legislative reactions by state and local lawmakers
Members of 16 state legislatures have called for a constitutional amendment to reverse the court’s decision: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia.[134][135]
Most of these are non-binding resolutions. However, three states – Vermont, California, and Illinois – called for an Article V Convention to draft and propose a federal constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.[136] In Minnesota, the Minnesota Senate passed a similar resolution, “Senate File No. 17,” on May 2, 2013, but the House of Representatives returned the measure to the General Calendar (meaning the measure did not pass) on May 15, 2013.[137] Thirty-four states are needed to call an Article V convention.
On a local level, Washington D.C. and 400 other municipalities passed resolutions requesting a federal constitutional amendment.[138]
Since Citizens United, however, 13 states have actually raised their contribution limits.[120]
Political impact
The Citizens United ruling “opened the door” for unlimited election spending by corporations, but most of this spending has “ended up being funneled through the groups that have become known as super PACs”.[139]While critics predicted that the ruling would “bring about a new era of corporate influence in politics” allowing companies and businesspeople to “buy elections” to promote their financial interests, as of 2016, in fact large corporations still play a “negligible role” in presidential election spending. Instead large expenditures, usually through “Super PACS,” have come from “a small group of billionaires”, based largely on ideology. This has shifted power “away from the political parties and toward the … donors themselves. In part, this explains the large number and variety of candidates fielded by the Republicans in 2016.”[139] The ability of individuals to spend unlimited sums was first affirmed by the Supreme Court, however, not in Citizens United, but in Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976.
Super PACs
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has often been credited for the creation of “super PACs“, political action committees which make no financial contributions to candidates or parties, and so can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions. Certainly, the holding in Citizens United helped affirm the legal basis for super PACs by deciding that, for purposes of establishing a “compelling government interest” of corruption sufficient to justify government limitations on political speech, “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption”.[140]
However, it took another decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, to actually authorize the creation of super PACs. While Citizens United held that corporations and unions could make independent expenditures, a separate provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act, at least as long interpreted by the Federal Election Commission, held that individuals could not contribute to a common fund without it becoming a PAC. PACs, in turn, were not allowed to accept corporate or union contributions of any size or to accept individual contributions in excess of $5,000. In Speechnow.org, the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, held 9–0 that in light of Citizens United, such restrictions on the sources and size of contributions could not apply to an organization that made only independent expenditures in support of or opposition to a candidate, but not contributions to a candidate’s campaign.
Citizens United and SpeechNOW left their imprint on the 2012 United States presidential election, in which single individuals contributed large sums to “super PACs” supporting particular candidates. Sheldon Adelson, the gambling entrepreneur, gave approximately fifteen million dollars to support Newt Gingrich. Foster Friess, a Wyoming financier, donated almost two million dollars to Rick Santorum’s super PAC. Karl Rove organized super PACs that spent over $300 million in support of Republicans during the 2012 elections.[141]
In addition to indirectly providing support for the creation of super PACs, Citizens United allowed incorporated 501(c)(4) public advocacy groups (such as the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club, and the group Citizens United itself) and trade associations to make expenditures in political races. Such groups may not, under the tax code, have a primary purpose of engaging in electoral advocacy. These organizations must disclose their expenditures, but unlike super PACs they do not have to include the names of their donors in their FEC filings. A number of partisan organizations such as Karl Rove‘s influential conservative Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies and the liberal 21st Century Colorado have since registered as tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups (defined as groups promoting “social welfare”) and engaged in substantial political spending.[142][143] This has led to claims[144][145][146] of large secret donations, and questions about whether such groups should be required to disclose their donors. Historically, such non-profits have not been required to disclose their donors or names of members. See National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama.
In an August 2015 essay in Der Spiegel, Markus Feldkirchen wrote that the Citizens United decision was “now becoming visible for the first time” in federal elections as the super-rich have “radically” increased donations to support their candidates and positions via super PACs. Feldkirchen also said in the first six months of 2015 the candidates and their super PACs received close to $400 million: “far more than in the entire previous campaign.” He opined that super-rich donating more than ever before to individual campaigns plus the “enormous” chasm in wealth has given the super-rich the power to steer the economic and political direction of the United States and undermine its democracy.[147] In October 2015, the New York Times observed that just 158 super-rich families each contributed $250,000 or more, while an additional 200 families gave more than $100,000 for the 2016 presidential election. Both groups contributed almost half of the “early money” for candidates in the 2016 presidential election as of June 30, 2015 through channels like super PACs legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.[148][149]
Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 362, the leading case in Europe held that the UK’s total ban on political advertising was compatible with freedom of expression “given the danger of unequal access based on wealth and to political advertising” which goes “to the heart of the democratic process.”[150]
Provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual’s right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmarkcase in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are “arms” for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock“. Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
Lower court background
In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[5] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[6]
Shelly Parker
A software designer and former nurse who had been active in trying to rid her neighborhood of drugs. Parker is a single woman whose life had been threatened on numerous occasions by drug dealers who had sometimes tried to break into her house.[7][8]
A colleague of Robert A. Levy at the Cato Institute and the only plaintiff that Levy knew before the case began.[6] Palmer, who is gay, defended himself with a 9mm handgun in 1982. While walking with a friend in San Jose, California, he was accosted by a gang of about 20 young men who used profane language regarding his sexual orientation and threatened his life. When he produced his gun, the men fled. Palmer believes that the handgun saved his life.[9][10]
Gillian St. Lawrence
A mortgage broker who lives in the Georgetown section of D.C. and who owns several legally registered long guns which she uses for recreation in nearby Chantilly, Virginia. It had taken St. Lawrence two years to complete the registration process. She wanted to be able to use these guns to defend herself in her home and to be able to register a handgun.[11][12]
Tracey Ambeau (now Tracey Hanson)
An employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Originally from St. Gabriel, Louisiana, she lives in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. with her husband, Andrew Hanson, who is from Waterloo, Iowa. They live in a high-crime neighborhood near Union Station in D. C. She grew up around guns and wanted one to defend her home.[13][11]
George Lyon
A communications lawyer who had previously contacted the National Rifle Association about filing a lawsuit to challenge the D.C. gun laws. Lyon held D.C. licenses for a shotgun and a rifle, but wanted to have a handgun in his home.[14]
Dick Anthony Heller
A licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia. For his job, Heller carried a gun in federal office buildings, but was not allowed to have one in his home.[15] Heller had lived in southeast D.C. near the Kentucky Courts public housing complex since 1970 and had seen the neighborhood “transformed from a child-friendly welfare complex to a drug haven”. Heller had also approached the National Rifle Association about a lawsuit to overturn the D.C. gun ban, but the NRA declined.[11]
Previous federal case law pertaining to the question of an individual’s right to bear arms included United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), which supported the right and Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), which opposed the right. The Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was interpreted to support both sides of the issue.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal in a 2–1 decision. The Court of Appeals struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act as unconstitutional. JudgesKaren L. Henderson, Thomas B. Griffith and Laurence H. Silberman formed the Court of Appeals panel, with Senior Circuit Judge Silberman writing the court’s opinion and Circuit Judge Henderson dissenting.
The court’s opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Heller – who applied for a handgun permit but was denied – had standing.
The court then held that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms”, saying that the right was “premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).” They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, “the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” The court determined that handguns are “Arms” and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia.
The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense:[17]
Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.
Henderson’s dissent
In her dissent, Circuit Judge Henderson stated that Second Amendment rights did not extend to residents of Washington D.C., writing:
To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment’s declaration and guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.[18]
Petition for rehearing
In April 2007, the District and Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the ruling creates inter- and intra-jurisdictional conflict.[19] On May 8, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6–4 vote.
Supreme Court
The defendants petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. The plaintiffs did not oppose but, in fact, welcomed the petition. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on November 20, 2007.[20]The court rephrased the question to be decided as follows:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
This represented the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.[16]
Amicus curiae briefs
Because of the controversial nature of the case, it garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of those groups filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.[21]
A majority of the states signed the brief of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, authored by Abbott’s solicitor general, Ted Cruz,[25] advising that the case be affirmed, while at the same time emphasizing that the states have a strong interest in maintaining each of the states’ laws prohibiting and regulating firearms.[26][27][28] Law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, also filed a brief urging that the case be affirmed.[29]
A number of organizations signed friend of the court briefs advising that the case be remanded, including the United States Department of Justice[30] and Attorneys General of New York, Hawaii, Maryland,Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico.[31] Additionally, friend of the court briefs to remand were filed by a spectrum of religious and anti-violence groups,[32] a number of cities and mayors,[33] and many police chiefs and law enforcement organizations.[34]
A collection of organizations and prominent scholars, represented by Attorney Jeffrey Teichert, submitted an “errors brief” arguing that many of the common historical and factual “myths and misrepresentations” generally offered in favor of banning handguns were in error. Teichert’s errors brief argued from a historical perspective that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms.[dead link][35]
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 18, 2008. Both the transcript[36] and the audio[37] of the argument have been released. Each side was initially allotted 30 minutes to argue its case, with U.S. Solicitor GeneralPaul D. Clement allotted 15 minutes to present the federal government’s views.[38] During the argument, however, extra time was extended to the parties, and the argument ran 23 minutes over the allotted time.[39]
Alan Gura, of the D.C.-based law firm Gura & Possessky, was lead counsel for Heller, and argued on his behalf before the Supreme Court.[41] Robert Levy, a senior fellow at theCato Institute, and Clark Neily, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, were his co-counsel.[42][43]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation.United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever “in-depth examination” of the second amendment’s meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (id. at 592); that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense”(id. at 628); that “the home” is “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” (id. at 628); and that, “above all other interests,” the second amendment elevates “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[46]
Issues addressed by the majority
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court’s opinion that the “people” to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: “‘The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.’ United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings….”
With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.
The Court applies as remedy that “[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.” The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: “Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not ‘have a problem with … licensing’ and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is ‘not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.’ Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.”
In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”[47]
The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”), which may not by itself protect machine guns: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”[48]
The Court did not address which level of judicial review should be used by lower courts in deciding future cases claiming infringement of the right to keep and bear arms: “[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.” The Court states, “If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.”[49] Also, regarding Justice Breyer’s proposal of a “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry,'” the Court states, “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.”[50]
Dissenting opinions
In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court’s judgment was “a strained and unpersuasive reading” which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had “bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law”.[51] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the “omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense” which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[51]
The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”
Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.
The Breyer dissent looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms. The dissent argues the public safety necessity of gun-control laws, quoting that “guns were responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day.'”
With these two supports, the Breyer dissent goes on to conclude, “there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.” It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., “‘interest-balancing’ approach”) of Second Amendment protections against the government’s compelling interest of preventing crime.
The Breyer dissent also objected to the “common use” distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machineguns: “But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun…There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning.”[52]
Non-party involvement
National Rifle Association
Attorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term “sham litigation” to describe the NRA’s attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that “the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case”.[53] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers’ assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[54]Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs “faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation.”[55] He also stated that “The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship.”[5]
Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA’s misgivings. “There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written,” Mr. LaPierre said.[5] Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy’s team were now on good terms.[5]
Elaine McArdle wrote in the Harvard Law Bulletin: “If Parker is the long-awaited “clean” case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment – including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case – have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review.” The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.[56]
Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, had indicated support of federal legislation which would repeal the D.C. gun ban. Opponents of the legislation argued that this would have rendered the Parker case moot, and would have effectively eliminated the possibility that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court.[57]
Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign, suggested to D.C. before the Court granted certiorari that it modify its gun laws rather than appeal to the Supreme Court.[59] Helmke has written that if the Supreme Court upholds the Circuit court ruling, it “could lead to all current and proposed firearms laws being called into question.”[60]
After the ruling, Paul Helmke stated that, “the classic ‘slippery slope’ argument”, “that even modest gun control would lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership”, “is now gone.” Helmke added that, “The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws.”[61]
Various experts expressed opinions on the D.C. Circuit’s decision.
Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe contended that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and predicted that if Parker is reviewed by the Supreme Court “there’s a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed.”[56] However, Professor Tribe has also argued that the District’s ban on one class of weapons does not violate the Second Amendment even under an individual rights view.[62]
Erwin Chemerinsky, then of Duke Law School and now dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, argued that the District of Columbia’s handgun laws, even assuming an “individual rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment, could be justified as reasonable regulations and thus upheld as constitutional. Professor Chemerinsky believes that the regulation of guns should be analyzed in the same way “as other regulation of property under modern constitutional law” and “be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose.”[63] However, the dicta in Heller suggests that applying a mere rational basis analysis is an incorrect reading of the Constitution and would, in fact, defeat the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.[49]
To the Supreme Court rulings
Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, agreed with the court’s ruling but describes that his interpretation of the Second Amendment would not preclude all governmental regulation of private ownership of weapons:
Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.[64]
Clark Neily, an attorney for Dick Heller in this case, has said regarding Heller:
America went over 200 years without knowing whether a key provision of the Bill of Rights actually meant anything. We came within one vote of being told that it did not, notwithstanding what amounts to a national consensus that the Second Amendment means what it says: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Taking rights seriously, including rights we might not favor personally, is good medicine for the body politic, and Heller was an excellent dose.[65]
The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property. It is doubtful that the amendment could even be thought to require that members of state militias be allowed to keep weapons in their homes, since that would reduce the militias’ effectiveness. Suppose part of a state’s militia was engaged in combat and needed additional weaponry. Would the militia’s commander have to collect the weapons from the homes of militiamen who had not been mobilized, as opposed to obtaining them from a storage facility? Since the purpose of the Second Amendment, judging from its language and background, was to assure the effectiveness of state militias, an interpretation that undermined their effectiveness by preventing states from making efficient arrangements for the storage and distribution of military weapons would not make sense.[66]
Heller thus represents the worst of missed opportunities—the chance to ground conservative jurisprudence in enduring and consistent principles of restraint. The Constitution expresses the need for judicial restraint in many different ways—separation of powers, federalism, and the grant of life tenure to unelected judges among them. It is an irony that Heller would in the name of originalism abandon insights so central to the Framers’ designs.[67]
Alan Gura, Lead Counsel for Respondent in Heller rejects Wilkinson’s criticism, stating that “Rather, the Court affirmed the Second Amendment’s original public meaning, as confirmed by its plain text. Having determined the Amendment’s meaning, the Court showed the proper level of deference to the D.C. City Council’s outright repudiation of the constitutional text: none.”[68]
Since the June 2008 ruling, over 80 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.[69][70] These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.[69][70] Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing “straw” purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.[69][70]
The courts have upheld most of these laws as being constitutional.[70] The basis for the lower court rulings is the paragraph near the end of the Heller ruling that states:
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.[71]
Consistently since the Heller ruling, the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: “What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories.”[69]
Robert Levy, the executive director of the Cato Institute who funded the Heller litigation has commented on this passage describing constitutionally acceptable forms of prohibitions of firearms: “I would have preferred that that not have been there,” and that this paragraph in Scalia’s opinion “created more confusion than light.”[69]
Similar to the lifting of gun bans mentioned previously in the settlements of lawsuits filed post-Heller, in US v. Arzberger, also decided post-Heller, it was noted:
To the extent, then, that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm.[72]
District of Columbia
The D.C. government indicated it would continue to use zoning ordinances to prevent firearms dealers from operating and selling to citizens residing in the District, meaning it would continue to be difficult for residents to legally purchase guns in the District.[73] Additionally, the District enacted new firearms restrictions in an effort to cure the constitutional defects in the ordinance that the Supreme Court had identified in Heller. The new provisions were: (1) the firearms registration procedures; (2) the prohibition on assault weapons; and (3) the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices. In response, Dick Heller challenged these new restrictions filing a civil suit named Heller v. District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25) where he requested a summary judgment to vacate the new prohibitions. On March 26, 2010, the D.C. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied Dick Heller’s request and granted the cross motion, stating that the court “concludes that the regulatory provisions that the plaintiffs challenge permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home. “[74]
Dick Heller’s application to register his semi-automatic pistol was rejected because the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to the District’s interpretation, all bottom-loading guns, including magazine-fed non-assault-style rifles, are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.[75]Revolvers will likely not fall under such a ban.[76]
On December 16, 2008 the D.C. Council unanimously passed the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008[77] which addresses the issues raised in the Heller Supreme Court decision, and also puts in place a number of registration requirements to update and strengthen the District’s gun laws.[78]
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority provided Second Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms used for unlawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: “Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” “We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.” “We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.”[79]
On July 24, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled, in Palmer v. District of Columbia, that the District’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns is unconstitutional.[80][81] In its decision, the Court stated: “[ . . . ] the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.”[82]
New York
Mayor of New York CityMichael Bloomberg said that “all of the laws on the books in New York State and New York City” would be allowed by the ruling as “reasonable regulation.”[83] Robert Levy has stated that the current New York City gun laws are “not much different” from the D.C. ban that has been overturned.[84] The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates have not ruled out suing New York City, especially over the definition of “reasonable regulation”.[85]
Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge James Francis has said that, prior to Heller, it would not have been considered unreasonable to require a defendant to surrender a firearm as a condition of pretrial release. Specifically, according to Judge Francis:[86]
This all changed, with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), where the court changed the course of Second Amendment jurisprudence by creating what he said was a “protectible liberty interest” in the possession of firearms. Thus, in the absence of an individualized determination at a bail hearing, requiring the defendant to give up any firearms violates due process.
Maloney v. Rice (a.k.a. Maloney v. Cuomo and Maloney v. Spitzer), 554 F.3d 56 (2d. Cir. 2009) originally held that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states in the Second Circuit. The case involved a state ban on Nunchaku sticks (a martial arts weapon) in New York. In a memorandum opinion dated June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit decision in Maloney and remanded for further consideration in light of the holding in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. The Second Circuit has remanded the case to the trial court.
Illinois
The NRA has filed five related lawsuits since the Heller decision.[87] In four Illinois lawsuits, the NRA sought to have the Second Amendment incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, causing the Second Amendment to apply to state and local jurisdictions and not just to the federal government.[88] Three Illinois lawsuits have been negotiated and settled out of court involving agreements that repeal gun ban ordinances and did not result in incorporation of the Second Amendment to state and local jurisdictions. The fourth NRA lawsuit against Chicago was rejected.[89] The NRA appealed the case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 2, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, based on the theory that Heller applied only to the Federal Government (including the District of Columbia), and not to states or their subordinate jurisdictions.[citation needed] This opinion directly conflicts with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’s earlier decision, holding that Heller applies to states as well.[citation needed]
Similarly, three Illinois municipalities with gun control measures on the books that previously had banned all handguns have rescinded their handgun bans.[91][92][93][94] These cities were Morton Grove, Illinois,[95]Wilmette, another Illinois village,[96] and Evanston, Illinois which enacted a partial repeal of its handgun ban.
In Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision that the post-McDonald measures adopted by the City of Chicago were constitutional. The Chicago law required firearms training in a shooting range in order to obtain a gun permit, but also banned shooting ranges within the City of Chicago. The City had argued that applicants could obtain their training at gun ranges in the suburbs. The opinion noted that Chicago could not infringe Second Amendment rights on the grounds that they could be exercised elsewhere, any more than it could infringe the right to freedom of speech on the grounds that citizens could speak elsewhere.
California
On January 14, 2009, in Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority, the San Francisco Housing Authority reached a settlement out of court with the NRA, which allows residents to possess legal firearms within a SFHA apartment building. The San Francisco lawsuit resulted in the elimination of the gun ban from the SF Housing Authority residential lease terms. Tim Larsen speaking for the Housing Authority said that they never intended to enforce its 2005 housing lease gun ban against law-abiding gun owners and have never done so.[97]
On February 13, 2014, in Peruta v. San Diego, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the San Diego policy to disallow both concealed carry, and the State of California law that disallowsopen carry anywhere in the state, were not acceptable under Supreme Court precedent in Heller and McDonald. A “responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.” More specifically, “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”(italics in original) … and “carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms.”[98] The case was remanded to the district court because “San Diego County’s ‘good cause’ permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.”[98]
Idaho
On January 10, 2014, in Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the District Court struck down a Corps of Engineers regulation barring possession of loaded guns in recreation areas surrounding Corps dams. The court held that tents are akin to homes, and under Heller, Second Amendment rights are protected.[99]
Legacy
This article’s factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(September 2011)
Initial reaction has deemed the Heller ruling to be of great significance, though it remains too soon to tell what the long-term effects may be.[100]Sanford Levinson has written that he is inclined to believe that the Hellerdecision will be relatively insignificant to the practice of law in the long run but that it will have significance to other groups interested in cultural literacy and constitutional designers.[100]
In 2009, both Levinson and Mark Tushnet speculated that it is quite unlikely that the case would be studied as part of casebooks of future law schools.[100] As was predicted,[101] a large surge of court cases was seen in lower federal courts in the aftermath of the 2008 ruling. As of March 2009, over 80 cases had been filed seeking to overturn existing gun laws.[102][needs update]
The decision in McDonald v. Chicago, which was brought in response to Heller and decided in 2010, did invalidate much of Chicago’s gun purchase and registration laws, and has called into question many other state and local laws restricting purchase, possession and carry of firearms.
In 1993, the film was deemed “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry.
Plot
In 1963, Oregon, recidivist criminal Randle McMurphy is moved to a mental institution after serving a short sentence on a prison farm after raping a teenager. Though not actually mentally ill, McMurphy hopes to avoid hard labour and serve the rest of his sentence in a relaxed environment. Upon arriving at the hospital, he finds the ward run by the steely, strict Nurse Ratched, who subtly suppresses the actions of her patients through a passive-aggressive routine, intimidating the patients.
The other patients include anxious, stuttering Billy Bibbit; Charlie Cheswick, who is prone to childish tantrums; delusional Martini; the well-educated, paranoid Dale Harding; belligerent Max Taber; epileptic Jim Sefelt; and “Chief” Bromden, a tall Native American believed to be deaf and mute. Ratched soon sees McMurphy’s lively, rebellious presence to be a threat to her authority, confiscating the patients’ cigarettes and rationing them. During his time in the ward, McMurphy gets into a battle of wits with Ratched. He steals a hospital bus, escaping with several patients to go on a fishing trip, encouraging his friends to become more self-confident.
McMurphy learns his sentence may become indefinite, and he makes plans to escape, exhorting Chief to throw a hydrotherapy cart through a window. He, Chief, and Cheswick get into a fight with the orderlies after the latter becomes agitated over his stolen cigarettes. Ratched sends them to the “shock shop”, and McMurphy discovers Chief can actually speak, feigning illness to avoid engaging with anyone. After being subjected to electroconvulsive therapy, McMurphy returns to the ward pretending to have brain damage, but reveals the treatment has charged him up even more. McMurphy and Chief make plans to escape, but decide to throw a secret Christmas party for their friends after Ratched leaves for the night.
McMurphy sneaks two women, Candy and Rose, into the ward and bribes the night guard. After a night of partying, McMurphy and Chief prepare to escape, inviting Billy to come with them. He refuses, not ready to leave the hospital. McMurphy instead convinces him to have sex with Candy. Ratched arrives in the morning to find the ward in disarray and most of the patients unconscious. She discovers Billy and Candy together, the former now free of his stutter, until Ratched threatens to inform his mother about his escapade. Billy is overwhelmed with fear and locks himself in the doctor’s office and commits suicide. The enraged McMurphy strangles Ratched, before being knocked out by an orderly.
Ratched comes back with a neck brace and a scratchy voice. Rumours spread that McMurphy escaped rather than be taken “upstairs”. Later that night, Chief sees McMurphy being returned to his bed. He discovers McMurphy has lobotomy scars on his forehead, and smothers his friend with a pillow. Chief finally throws the hydrotherapy cart through the window and escapes into the night, cheered on by the men.
Filming began in January 1975 and concluded approximately three months later,[4] and was shot on location in Salem, Oregon and the surrounding area, as well as on the Oregon coast.[5][6] It was also shot at Oregon State Hospital in Salem, Oregon, which was also the setting of the novel.[7]
Haskell Wexler was fired as cinematographer and replaced by Bill Butler. Wexler believed his dismissal was due to his concurrent work on the documentary Underground, in which the radical terrorist group The Weather Underground were being interviewed while hiding from the law. However, Miloš Forman said he had terminated Wexler over mere artistic differences. Both Wexler and Butler received Academy Awardnominations for Best Cinematography for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, though Wexler said there was “only about a minute or two minutes in that film I didn’t shoot.”[8]
According to Butler, Jack Nicholson refused to speak to Forman: “…[Jack] never talked to Milos at all, he only talked to me.”[1]
Reception
The film was met with overwhelming critical acclaim; Roger Ebert said “Miloš Forman’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a film so good in so many of its parts that there’s a temptation to forgive it when it goes wrong. But it does go wrong, insisting on making larger points than its story really should carry, so that at the end, the human qualities of the characters get lost in the significance of it all. And yet there are those moments of brilliance.”[9] Ebert would later put the film on his “Great Movies” list.[10] A.D. Murphy of Variety wrote a mixed review as well,[11] as did Vincent Canby: writing in The New York Times, Canby called the film “a comedy that can’t quite support its tragic conclusion, which is too schematic to be honestly moving, but it is acted with such a sense of life that one responds to its demonstration of humanity if not to its programmed metaphors.”[12]
The film opens with original music by composer Jack Nitzsche, featuring an eerie bowed saw (performed by Robert Armstrong) and wine glasses. Commenting on the score, reviewer Steven McDonald has said, “The edgy nature of the film extends into the score, giving it a profoundly disturbing feel at times — even when it appears to be relatively normal. The music has a tendency to always be a little off-kilter, and from time to time it tilts completely over into a strange little world of its own …”[13]
The film went on to win the “Big Five” Academy Awards at the 48th Oscar ceremony. These include the Best Actor for Jack Nicholson, Best Actress for Louise Fletcher, Best Direction for Forman, Best Picture, andBest Adapted Screenplay for Laurence Hauben and Bo Goldman. The film currently has a 95% “Certified Fresh” rating at Rotten Tomatoes with an average rating of 8.9/10.[14] Its consensus states “The onscreen battle between Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher serves as a personal microcosm of the culture wars of the 1970s — and testament to the director’s vision that the film retains its power more than three decades later.”
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is considered to be one of the greatest American films. Ken Kesey participated in the early stages of script development, but withdrew after creative differences with the producers over casting and narrative point of view; ultimately he filed suit against the production and won a settlement.[15] Kesey himself claimed never to have seen the movie, but said he disliked what he knew of it,[16] a fact confirmed by Chuck Palahniuk who wrote, “The first time I heard this story, it was through the movie starring Jack Nicholson. A movie that Kesey once told me he disliked.”[17]
In 1993, this film was deemed “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in their National Film Registry.[18]
With her opponent dogged by accusations of sexual assault, Hillary Clinton had strong odds as she entered the third presidential debate on Wednesday.
Only one thing seemed to threaten her chances of victory: her smile.
The Democratic candidate faced a flood of insults as she took to the stage at the University of Las Vegas, with many viewers confessing they were ‘creeped out’ by her stubborn grin.
Hundreds took to Twitter to describe her smile as ‘scary’ and ‘creepy’.
Hillary Clinton’s unrelenting smile at Wednesday’s presidential debate made for uncomfortable viewing for some voters
Social media mocks Hillary Clinton’s ‘creepy grandma’ grin
Others questioned why, when being slammed with insults from her opponent, her expression did not drop.
‘Hillary Clinton’s smile is the scariest thing I’ve ever seen in my life,’ said one observer.
‘When Hillary smiles she looks like an evil snake,’ another commented.
‘What to do when you don’t have a response? Smile like a chipmunk,’ remarked another.
‘Whoever told Hillary Clinton to smile less since the first debate gave great advice,’ mused a different viewer.
Others, ever-so-slightly more charmed by her cheerful demeanor, likened her to a happy grandmother.
The Democratic candidate beamed as she listened to Donald Trump slam her political record and campaign policies
Her glee remained written all over her face as Trump continued to slate her, much to viewers’ confusion
Twitter users were quick to mock her expression as they watched the debate on Wednesday
e
Clinton’s happy expression became a talking point at earlier debates. It continued to peak viewers’ interests at her final showdown with Trump on Wednesday (above)
‘Hillary Clinton is so cute it’s something about her I just want her to tuck me in and give me a kiss with her coffee breath,’ one commented.
It was not the first time her facial expression sparked interest among voters.
After the first presidential debate on September 26, political commentators shared some free advice with the candidate online.
‘Who told Hillary Clinton to keep smiling like she’s at her granddaughter’s birthday party?’ said David Frum, senior editor of The Atlantic, at the time.
The discussion had the same hallmarks of bizarre criticisms made earlier this month about Donald Trump’s incessant sniffing.
Story 1: Socialist Democratic Party Candidate — Hillary Clinton — The CLIPPER — Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist — CLIPPER Hillary — Videos
FULL HQ | Hillary Clinton’s Full Acceptance Speech At The Democratic National Convention 7/28/2016
Queen – We Will Rock You (Official Video)
Pepsi Commercial HD – We Will Rock You (feat. Britney Spears, Beyonce, Pink & Enrique Iglesias)
Democratic Debate Cold Open – SNL
“I’d Organize Hell” – Saul Alinsky TV interview 1966
Hillary & Obama Using Alinsky Divide and Conquer Tactic #Dallas #blacklivesmatter
What Has Obama Accomplished As President?
Collapsing U.S. GDP Growth Belies Rosey Forecasts
Peter Schiff & Stefan Molyneux : WARNING Economic Collapse in JULY 2016
U.S. Economy Growth Slows Down in Second Quarter
Is Economic Stagnation Our Future?
Poor Quality of Life: Wage stagnation in the U.S. economy
Labor participation rate is down to unprecedented levels
Why Is Hillary Clinton Blamed For The Benghazi Attack?
Why Is Hillary Clinton So Controversial?
Bill O’Reilly Says Obama Will Be the Worst President Ever
Obama Does It Again: Fourth Worst Economy In U.S. History
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
Malzberg | John Lott: Yes, Mr. President, More Guns Equals Less Less Crime
John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime
Crime Expert John Lott Discusses Obama’s College Years & Gun Control
JOHN LOTT: MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME – Gun Control Myths
Clinton Foundation questions hang over Dem. convention start, pols seek probe
Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight–Updated
Megyn Kelly Exposes Hillary Clinton Lying About Benghazi
Rep. Susan Brooks BUSTS Hillary Clinton In BLATANT Lie During Benghazi Hearing! Wow!!!
Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters Full Movie
Hillary Clinton: Republican For President (Documentary)
CLINTON CASH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY MOVIE ( FULL )
Death of Vince Foster – The Murder Of Hillary Clintons Lover
The Clinton Crime Family – The “Vince” Foster Affair
Requiem for the Suicided: Vince Foster
65 Outrageous Lies by President Obama
70 minutes of Hillary Clinton lies!!!!!
Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder
Planned Parenthood Exposed
Barack Obama Addresses Planned Parenthood
FULL: Hillary Clinton Speech at Planned Parenthood Action Fund (6-10-16)
MAAFA 21 [A documentary on eugenics and genocide]
People Who Control America ? Mind Blowing Documentary HQ
“Hillary’s America” Trailer | Official Teaser Trailer HD
Mariah Carey – Obsessed
HILLARY CLINTON PRAISES WOMAN WHO TRIED TO “EXTERMINATE” BLACKS
Do you recognize the woman in the picture above? Her name is Margaret Sanger.
Today, liberals praise Sanger for pushing birth control and creating Planned Parenthood. What they fail to mention, though, is that she was an outspoken racist and eugenicist. She wanted to “exterminate” blacks and was an advocate of late-term abortions and forced sterilization.
Planned Parenthood was created by Sanger for the singular purpose of killing black babies and other “non-whites.” To this day, Planned Parenthood performs abortions on black women at a higher rate than any other race.
Even though they account for only 13% of American women, black women submit to 35% of all abortions performed by Planned Parenthood.
Do you know who one of Hillary Clinton’s heroes is? Yep, you guessed it… Margaret Sanger. But don’t take our word for it. Here’s Hillary in her own words…
So please tell me again: Why would blacks or whites or anybody vote for Hillary Clinton?
Be afraid: The Clinton-Trump general election begins
This will be one of the ugliest, most divisive elections in American history.
For four days here in this city of brotherly love and the nation’s founding, Democrats wrapped themselves in the language of patriotism and positivity, declaring the country would be “stronger together” as they nominated Hillary Clinton to serve as the first woman president.
“Love trumps hate,” came the cheers from the crowd, only days after Donald Trump’s Republican convention echoed with chants of “Lock her up!”
But as the 102-day general election starts, the reality is that both parties, saddled with two of the most unpopular presidential nominees ever, are bracing for one of the ugliest and most divisive races in modern history. And with Trump’s penchant for the unpredictable, a contest that has already stretched the boundaries of traditional American political discourse is unlikely to become more civil.
For all the talk of hope and optimism in Philadelphia, fear remains the most potent emotion stirring the base — of both parties. President Barack Obama warned pointedly of “homegrown demagogues” this week in the same breath as “fascists” and “jihadists.”
Clinton and the Democrats are selling the fear of what America would look like under a President Donald Trump to gin up turnout, just as Trump is selling fear of a dangerous, diminished and diversifying America under Obama, and himself as the lone man who can “make America great again.”
In her acceptance speech Thursday, Clinton urged the public to “imagine, imagine” the idea of a Trump presidency, calling him temperamentally unfit. “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man you can trust with nuclear weapons,” she said
“I alone can fix it,” Trump said a week ago.
But the back-to-back conventions portrayed two parties that seemed at times as though they were speaking to and about entirely different countries. The Republicans featured families of people killed by illegal immigrants; the Democrats featured the children of the undocumented who live in fear in the shadows. The Republicans complained of a rising tide of crime; Democrats bragged about a rising tide of health care coverage. Democrats embraced “black lives matter”; Republicans celebrated “blue lives matter.”
Trump, whose latest book was called “Crippled America,” said in a statement Thursday that, “Democrats have been speaking about a world that doesn’t exist.”
“A world where America has full employment, where there’s no such thing as radical Islamic terrorism, where the border is totally secured, and where thousands of innocent Americans have not suffered from rising crime in cities like Baltimore and Chicago,” he said.
Democrats are thrilled to be occupying sunnier high ground.
“When I look at our American history, hope has always trumped fear,” Tom Perez, the secretary of labor who was considered by the Clinton campaign as a potential running mate, said in an interview. “His campaign is to prey on people’s fears and that doesn’t work.”
The strategy is not without risk.
While Obama’s approval rating hovers above 50 percent — far higher than Trump’s or Clinton’s — many Democrats are burdened with the nagging concern that 2016 could ultimately be about upending the status quo, and that Trump, for all his flaws, is a vessel better suited to that aggrieved cause than Clinton, no matter how many “change maker” signs delegates waved this week.
Still, the nation’s shifting demographics give the Democrats a head start on the path to 270 Electoral College votes this year. If Clinton wins Florida, she can take the White House simply by carrying all the states that Democrats have won in every election since 1992, plus the District of Columbia and New Mexico, which they’ve carried in five of the past six races.
“I sleep really well at night in this campaign unless I’ve had coffee in the afternoon,” Chris Lehane, a longtime Democratic strategist who worked in the Clinton White House in the 1990s, said of the 2016 landscape. “He has a math problem. I don’t think you can be where he is with millennials, women, married women, people of color, particularly Hispanics, and have it work out.”
Trump, in contrast, is trying to create an entirely new political map and coalition anchored by disaffected blue-collar white voters, flipping back Pennsylvania after nearly three decades in the Democratic column and states across the industrial Midwest.
Marlon Marshall, director of state campaigns for Clinton, told POLITICO, that the 2012 reelection map for Obama “begins to set the tone for what a map could look like” in 2016.
In Obama’s valedictory address on Wednesday, he gave what amounted to a plea for his coalition of minorities, young voters and women to come out again for Clinton, praising her as his rightful successor. “You can’t afford to stay home,” he urged them. And when Clinton emerged to hug her ex-rival afterward, it was the starkest representation yet that she has embraced the notion that she is campaigning for Obama’s third term.
And with that comes the weight of owning the current state of affairs.
“America is already great,” as Obama himself said. “America is already strong.”
But Democrats are nervous that even while Trump has failed to build a modern political organization, squandered most the past two months, been accused of racism by his own party, neither aired TV ads nor reserved time for the fall, has praised foreign strongmen including Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin, the race is essentially tied.
Trump has taken the lead in some surveys after the GOP convention, despite the disunity and disorganization on display in Cleveland. He has inflamed controversy almost daily, the latest this week with his public call for Russia to “find the 30,000 emails that are missing” of Clinton’s from her private server, essentially inviting a foreign nation to hack correspondence from her time as as the country’s top diplomat.
Inside the Clinton campaign, campaign sources say there are ongoing conversations about just how much to focus on Trump’s clear vulnerabilities versus trying to sell Clinton’s strengths to a skeptical public.
“People don’t know how much she’s accomplished and how big an effect it’s had on people’s lives,” Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, said to Politico’s On Message podcast this week. “But here’s what I will say. I don’t think people will fully appreciate who she is until, knock on wood, she’s elected president.”
Of course, that would be too late for the campaign. So far, she and her super PAC have had the airwaves in the battleground states virtually to themselves as they’ve run in heavy rotation ads featuring Trump mocking a disabled reporter that strategists said has tested off the charts with voters.
But the concern is that a relentlessly negative fall campaign could depress turnout this fall. Obama himself summed up the challenge as he hammered Trump in his speech amid boos from the audience.
U.S. Border Protection Agcy. Advertises SAFE ZONES for Illegal Aliens
Craig Bannister | 4 hours ago
Just about any illegal alien can avoid arrest by following these simple rules, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) advertises in a post on its website’s homepage.
Providing a virtual “how-to” guide for illegal aliens in its“Sensitive Locations FAQs,” CBP explains that immigration laws are not to be enforced at any of a wide range of designated “sensitive locations” – so that illegal aliens may be “free” to live their lives “without fear or hesitation”:
“The policies provide that enforcement actions at or focused on sensitive locations such as schools, places of worship, and hospitals should generally be avoided, and that such actions may only take place when (a) prior approval is obtained from an appropriate supervisory official, or (b) there are exigent circumstances necessitating immediate action without supervisor approval. The policies are meant to ensure that ICE and CBP officers and agents exercise sound judgment when enforcing federal law at or focused on sensitive locations, to enhance the public understanding and trust, and to ensure that people seeking to participate in activities or utilize services provided at any sensitive location are free to do so, without fear or hesitation.”
“This policy is designed to ensure that these enforcement actions do not occurat nor are focused on sensitive locations such as schools and churches” without meeting special exceptions, the ICE Sensitive Locations Policy states.
Locations covered by these policies include, but not be limited to:
Schools, such as known and licensed daycares, pre-schools and other early learning programs; primary schools; secondary schools; post-secondary schools up to and including colleges and universities; as well as scholastic or education-related activities or events, and school bus stops that are marked and/or known to the officer, during periods when school children are present at the stop;
Medical treatment and health care facilities, such as hospitals, doctors’ offices, accredited health clinics, and emergent or urgent care facilities;
Places of worship, such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples;
Religious or civil ceremonies or observances, such as funerals and weddings; and
During public demonstration, such as a march, rally, or parade.
So, just almost any illegal alien can escape arrest by either walking with a second person (a march), attending some type of class, or finding a nearby church, medical facility or school bus stop.
“The enforcement actions covered by this policy are (1) arrests; (2) interviews; (3) searches; and (4) for the purposes of immigration enforcement only, surveillance,” the ICE policy says.
Each “FAQ” answer is accompanied by a translation for Spanish-speaking illegal aliens – but, not in any other foreign language.
The CBP website also provides a toll-free number and email address to enable illegal aliens report immigration enforcement efforts taking place at any of the “sensitive locations.”
Story 1: American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Bill of Rights vs. Tyrant Obama Breaking Immigration Laws and Betraying His Oath of Office — Democrats Gun Grabbers Want To Repeal The Second and Fifth Amendments — Tiny Tyrants Temper Tantrum — Publicity Stunt To Raise Money — Criminals and Terrorists Target Gun Free Zones With Unarmed Americans — Fire All Democrat Tyrants in November — The Best Protection Against Criminals, Terrorists, and Tyrants Is Well Armed American Citizens — Videos
Presidential Oath of Office
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,and
will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;
and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law
Article II, Section 3 of U. S. Constitution
“take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Paul Ryan: Gun sit-in a publicity stunt
House Democrats shout Paul Ryan down as he tries to stop #NoBreakNoBill sit-in
GOP Representatives Attemptig To Thwart Democratic Gun Control Sit-In
Penn & Teller Explain The Second Amendment
Reality Check: The True Intent Of The Second Amendment
YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT
The Judge on no-fly list gun ban push
Is a no-fly list gun ban legal?
Tom McClintock Trashes Leftist No Fly List Gun Control
Trey Gowdy questions DHS official, No Fly List
No Fly List, No Guns?
Federal Judge Rules No-Fly List is Unconstitutional
No Fly But You Can Buy Called ‘Insane’ By Obama
U.S. to Tell Americans Why They’re on No-Fly List
An “Assault” Weapons Ban Will Do Nothing to Prevent Murders & Simply Allows the Terrorists a Victory
Analyzing Obama’s response to the Supreme Court immigration ruling
Trump Endorses No Fly List Gun Ban
John Lott, Sheriff David Clarke, Bo Dittle on Hannity to discuss new push for gun control
John Lott on One America News Network to discuss Senate votes on gun control after Orlando
CPRC on the Glenn Beck TV Show to discuss debate over banning AR-15s
How’s It Goin’, Eh? With guests comedian Ian Bagg and gun expert John Lott
John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime
John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime
John Lott: At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?
John Lott: “When Countries Impose Gun Bans Murder Rates Go Up”
John Lott: Myths of gun crime
Napolitano on constitutionality of Obama immigration actions
President Obama slams GOP for blocking Supreme Court nominee
Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama’s Immigration Plan
Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama Immigration Plan
Obama Expresses Disapointment In Supreme Court’s Immigration Ruling
President Obama on Supreme Court Immigration Executive Actions Ruling (C-SPAN)
President Obama Delivers a Statement on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immigration
WATCH: Paul Ryan Says Democrats #NoBillNoBreak Sit-In Was Publicity Stunt to Raise Money
Rep. John Lewis Leads Sit-In on House Floor
House Democrats shout Paul Ryan down as he tries to stop #NoBreakNoBill sit-in
U. S. Supreme Court immigration decision: what you need to know
Significant blow to president’s immigration policies enacted after Congress did nothing.
The Supreme Court split 4-4 over whether the Obama administration could implement two immigration programs offering deportation halts to up to 4 million unauthorized immigrants.
The main initiative would have protected the foreign-born parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents. The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, known as DAPA, included renewable work permits.
The Obama administration also extended a 2012 executive action to cover more unauthorized immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. The initiatives were the most sweeping immigration actions taken by President Obama in his two terms — and executed without a vote from Congress.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) againstdomestic Violence.”
Unfortunately, efforts of states to recoup costs resulting from the current invasion of illegal aliens have so far failed. An Arizona case on this matter was rejected in 1997. The Arizona Republic article Justices reject state bid to recoup costs of illegals, Oct. 7, 1997 states:
Arizona officials filed the lawsuit in 1994 to recover more than $121 million that they said the state was owed for illegal immigrants serving time in prison…
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider arguments that the U.S. government must pay up because it has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to protect states from an “invasion” of illegal border crossers…
“Although the federal government may have the luxury of abdicating its constitutional duty to protect Arizona’s borders, Arizona cannot solve the problems that this abdication causes by following the federal government’s example and abdicating its duty to prosecute and incarcerate illegal aliens who commit felonies within Arizona’s unprotected borders,” Arizona argued in its high court appeal.
An October 7, 1997 LA Times article Court Rejects Claim That U.S. Is Liable for Immigrant Costs states:
The lawsuit cited Article 4 of the Constitution, which says that the United States “shall protect each of [the states] against invasion.” But U.S. District Judge Judith Keep in San Diego and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out the lawsuit on grounds that California and Arizona are not being “invaded” by a hostile, foreign power.
The issue of who pays… is a political issue, not a legal one, they said.
It is abundantly clear that our politicans lack the will to honor our Constitution. We encourage you to ask your public officials, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution:
if they support this provision;
what they plan to do to ensure implementation of this provision;
Earlier this week, The Intercept published a 166-page document outlining the government’s guidelines for placing people on an expansive network of terror watch lists, including the no-fly list. In their report, Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux highlighted the extremely vague and loosely defined criteria developed by 19 federal agencies, supposedly to fight terrorism.
Using these criteria, government officials have secretly characterized an unknown number of individuals as threats or potential threats to national security. In 2013 alone, 468,749 watch-list nominations were submitted to the National Counterterrorism Center. It rejected only 1 percent of the recommendations.
Critics say the system is bloated and imprecise, needlessly sweeping up thousands of people while simultaneously failing to catch legitimate threats, like Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
While some individuals are surely placed on these watch lists for valid reasons, the murky language of the guidelines suggests that innocent people can get caught up in this web, too, and be subjected to the same possible restrictions on travel and other forms of monitoring. Here are several ways you could find yourself on a terror watch list, even if you aren’t a terrorist:
1. You could raise “reasonable suspicion” that you’re involved in terrorism. “Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required.
This guidance addresses how to place people in the broader Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), of which the no-fly list and the selectee lists — which cover those selected for enhanced screenings before boarding flights — are both subsections.
In determining whether a suspicion about you is “reasonable,” a “nominator” must “rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,” can link you to possible terrorism. As Scahill and Devereaux noted, words like “reasonable,” “articulable” and “rational” are not expressly defined. While the document outlines the need for an “objective factual basis,” the next section clarifies that “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary” to make a final determination as to whether a suspicion is “reasonable.” So how could intelligence officials be led to put you on the watch list?
2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”
According to the document, “postings on social media sites … should not be discounted merely because of the manner in which it was received.” Instead, those investigating the individual should “evaluate the credibility of the source” and, if they judge the content to pose a “reasonable suspicion” of a link to terrorism, nominate the person to the watch list, even if that source is “uncorroborated.” If this sounds disturbing, don’t worry: There’s a sentence that explicitly prohibits listing an individual “for engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities.” So as long as your free speech isn’t accompanied by any other “suspicious” behavior, you should be fine, maybe.
3. Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.
The guidelines also consider the use of “walk-in” or “write-in” information about potential candidates for the watch list. Nominators are encouraged not to dismiss such tips and, after evaluating “the credibility of the source,” could opt to nominate you to the watch list.
4. You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.
The document explains that you could be put on a suspected-terrorist watch list if you are determined to be a “representative” of a terrorist group, even if you have “neither membership in nor association with the organization.” Individuals accused of being involved with a terrorist organization, but who later are acquitted in a court of law or saw their charges dropped, are still potential nominees for watch-listing, so long as “reasonable suspicion” is established.
5. Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.
Scahill and Devereaux reported that the immediate family of a suspected terrorist — including spouse, children, parents and siblings — may be added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), a broad terror database that feeds into the TSDB, “without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity.” According to the document, “associates or affiliates” of known or suspected terrorists, or just those somehow “linked to” them, can also be nominated to the TSDB watchlist, so long as the relationship is defined and constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” of a connection to terrorist activity. The document states that “individuals who merely ‘may be’ members, associates or affiliates of a terrorist organization” may not be put into the latter database, unless that suspicion can be backed by “derogatory information.”
But there’s also a more nebulous connection that could prompt your placement in the TIDE database. The document specifically provides for nominating “individuals with a possible nexus to terrorism … but for whom additional derogatory information is needed to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.”
6. And if you’re in a “category” of people determined to be a threat, your threat status could be “upgraded” at the snap of a finger.
The watch-list guidelines explain a process by which the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism can move an entire “category of individuals” to an elevated threat status. It’s unclear exactly how these categories are defined, but according to the document, there must be “current and credible intelligence information” suggesting that the group is a particular threat to conduct a terrorist act. Such determinations can be implemented and remain in place for up to 72 hours before a committee convenes to decide whether the watch-list upgrade should be extended.
7. Finally, you could just be unlucky.
The process of adding people to the terror watch lists is as imperfect as the intelligence officials tasked with doing so. There have been reports of “false positives,” or instances in which an innocent passenger has been subject to treatment under a no-fly or selectee list because his or her name was similar to that of another individual. In one highly publicized incident in 2005, a 4-year-old boy was nearly barred from boarding a plane to visit his grandmother.
The watch-list guidance was supposedly revised in part to prevent incidents like these, but with more than 1.5 million people added to the lists in the last five years, mistakes are always inevitable. Just ask Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford University student who ended up on a no-fly list in 2004 after an FBI agent accidentally checked the wrong box on a form.
But then if you were to be mistakenly added to a list, you probably wouldn’t know — unless it stopped you from flying. The government has been extremely secretive about the names on the various watch lists. If you were to learn that you were wrongly placed on a watch list, good luck getting off it. As Scahill and Devereaux reported, you can file a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, which begins a review “that is not subject to oversight by any court or entity outside the counterterrorism community.”
And if you were to get your name removed from the watch list, the intelligence agencies aren’t even obligated to inform you of your updated status. Helpful.
The secretive nature of the terror watch lists has come under court scrutiny recently. A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process “wholly ineffective.”
The No Fly List is a list, created and maintained by the United States government‘s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), of people who are prohibited from boarding a commercial aircraft for travel in or out of theUnited States. The list has also been used to divert aircraft away from U.S. airspace that is not flying to or from the U.S. The number of people on the list rises and falls according to threat and intelligence reporting.[citation needed] There were 10,000 names on the list in 2011, 21,000 in 2012, and 47,000 in 2013.
The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. As of June 2016 the Terrorist Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities.[2][3]
History
Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. federal government had a list of 16 people deemed “no transport” because they “presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation.”[4][5] The list grew in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, reaching more than 400 names by November 2001, when responsibility for keeping it was transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).[5] In mid-December 2001, two lists were created: the “No Fly List” of 594 people to be denied air transport, and the “Selectee” list of 365 people who were to be more carefully searched at airports.[4][5] By 2002, the two lists combined contained over a thousand names, and by April 2005 contained about 70,000 names.[4] For the first two and a half years of the program, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) denied that the program existed.[4]
The No Fly List program came to public light “when prominent antiwar activists, such as Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordan, and political opponents of the Bush administration, such as Senator Edward Kennedy and the civil rights attorney David Cole, found themselves included.”[4] In October 2006, CBS News‘s 60 Minutes reported on the program after it obtained a March 2006 copy of the list containing 44,000 names.[6]
Many individuals were “caught in the system” as a result of sharing the exact or similar name of another person on the list;[7] TSA officials said that, as of November 2005, 30,000 people in 2005 had complained that their names were matched to a name on the list via the name matching software used by airlines.[8] In January 2006, the FBI and ACLU settled a federal lawsuit, Gordon v. FBI, brought by Gordon and Adams under the Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain information about how names were added to the list.[8] Under the settlement, the government paid $200,000 in the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.[9] A separate suit was brought as a class action “filed by people caught in the name game.”[7] In response, “TSA created an ombudsperson process, whereby individuals now can download and print out a Passenger Identity Verification Form and mail it, along with certain notarized documents, to the TSA “so the agency can differentiate the individual from others who may be on the list.”[7]
In April 2007, the United States government “terrorist watch list” administered by the Terrorist Screening Center, which is managed principally by the FBI,[10] contained 700,000 records.[11] A year later, the ACLUestimated the list to have grown to over 1,000,000 names and to be continually expanding.[12][13][14] However, according to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, in October 2008 the No Fly list contained only 2,500 names, with an additional 16,000 “selectees” who “represent a less specific security threat and receive extra scrutiny, but are allowed to fly.”[15]
As of 2011, the list contained about 10,000 names.[16][17] In 2012, the list more than doubled in size, to about 21,000 names.[18] In August 2013, a leak revealed that more than 47,000 people were on the list.[19][20]
Weapons purchases by listed persons
In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that “Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law,” and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns.[21] According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).[22]
Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, a Democrat, repeatedly introduced legislation to bar individuals on the terror watch lists (such as the No Fly List) from buying firearms or explosives, but these efforts did not succeed.[21][22][23]Dianne Feinstein of California, also a Democrat, revived the legislation after the November 2015 Paris attacks, and President Barack Obama has called for such legislation to be approved.[21]
The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced opposition to barring weapons sales to individuals listed on the current form of the No-Fly List, stating that: “There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform.”[25] Specifically, the ACLU’s position is that the government’s current redress process—the procedure by which listed individuals can petition for removal from the list—does not meet the requirements of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause because the process does not “provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.”[25]
In December 2015, Feinstein’s amendment to bar individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms failed in the Senate on a 45-54 vote.[26] Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, put forth a competing proposal to “give the attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window.”[26] The measure, too, failed, on a 55-45 vote (60 votes were required to proceed).[26] The votes on both the Feinstein measure and the Coryn measure were largely along party lines.[26]
Vulnerabilitie
False positives
A “false positive” occurs when a passenger who is not on the No Fly List has a name that matches or is similar to a name on the list. False positive passengers will not be allowed to board a flight unless they can differentiate themselves from the actual person on the list, usually by presenting ID showing their middle name or date of birth. In some cases, false positive passengers have been denied boarding or have missed flights because they could not easily prove that they were not the person on the No Fly List.[citation needed]
When an airline ticket is purchased, the reservation system uses software to compare the passenger’s name against the No Fly List. If the name matches, or is similar to a name on the No Fly List, a restriction is placed in the reservation that prevents the passenger from being issued a boarding pass until the airline has determined whether or not he or she is the actual person whose name is on the No Fly List. Passengers are not told when a restriction has been placed on their reservation, and they normally do not find out that anything is unusual until they attempt to check in. “False positive” passengers cannot use Internet check-in or the automatic check-in kiosks in airports. Any attempt to use either check-in method will normally result in a message that the check-in cannot be completed and that the passenger needs to see a live check-in agent.[citation needed]
In order to be issued a boarding pass, “false positive” passengers must present identification that sufficiently differentiates them from the person on the No Fly List. This can include, but is not limited to, date and place of birth, middle name, citizenship, passport number, etc. Depending on the airline, this clearance can be done either electronically, with the check-in agent keying the information into the system, or a manual procedure where the agent telephones a centralized security office to obtain clearance. Once a “false positive” passenger has been cleared for a flight, the clearance will usually, but not always, apply to the remaining flights on that reservation, including the return. However, the next time this passenger purchases an airline ticket, he or she will have to be cleared all over again. If a passenger’s identification is insufficient to differentiate that passenger from a name on the No-Fly List, the airline will refuse to issue a boarding pass and tell the passenger to contact the TSA.[citation needed]
Policies vary from airline to airline as to whether a check-in agent will tell passengers why they must always have additional steps performed when they check in, or why they are unable to check in via Internet, kiosk, or at curbside. In some cases, check-in agents will incorrectly tell passengers that they must be cleared because they are “on the No Fly List”, when in fact they are simply a “false positive” (having the same name as someone on the No Fly List). False positive passengers who are ultimately issued boarding passes are not on the No Fly List. In the majority of instances, passengers are not told anything, and it is only through the repeated experience of needing to be cleared or being unable to use curbside, Internet or automatic check-in that they come to suspect that they are “false positives”.[citation needed]
In an effort to reduce the number of false positives, DHS announced on April 28, 2008 that each airline will be permitted to create a system to verify and store a passenger’s date of birth, to clear up watch list misidentifications. Passengers can voluntarily provide this information to the airline, which would have to be verified by presenting acceptable ID at the ticket counter. Once this data has been stored, travelers that were previously inconvenienced on every trip would be able to check in online or at remote kiosks.[27] It will be up to each individual airline to choose whether they wish to implement such a system.[citation needed]
Notable cases
False positives and abuses that have been in the news include:
Numerous children (including many under the age of five, and some under the age of one) have generated false positives.[28][29][30]
Daniel Brown, a United States Marine returning from Iraq, was prevented from boarding a flight home in April 2006 because his name matched one on the No Fly List.[31]
David Fathi, an attorney for the ACLU of Iranian descent and a plaintiff in an ACLU lawsuit, has been arrested and detained because his name was on the No Fly List.[32]
Asif Iqbal, a management consultant and legal resident of the United States born in Pakistan, plans to sue the U.S. government because he is regularly detained when he tries to fly. He has the same name as a former Guantanamo detainee.[33][34] Iqbal’s work requires a lot of travel, and, even though the Guantanamo detainee has been released, his name remains on the No Fly List, and Iqbal the software consultant experiences frequent, unpredictable delays and missed flights.[35] He is pushing for a photo ID and birthdate matching system, in addition to the current system of checking names.[36]
Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as aDemocrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, “This could just be a government screw-up, but I don’t know, and they won’t tell me.”[37] Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple in Toronto.[6]
In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security SecretaryTom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name “T Kennedy” was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to “T Kennedy”. (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom “Ted” was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of “ordinary citizens”: “How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?”[38] Former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani pointed to this incident as an example for the necessity to “rethink aviation security” in an essay on homeland security published while he was seeking the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[39]
Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass “because I [Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list.” The airline employee asked, “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” Replied Murphy, “I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution.” To which the airline employee responded, “That’ll do it.”[43]
David Nelson, the actor best known for his role on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, is among various persons named David Nelson who have been stopped at airports because their name apparently appears on the list.[44][45]
In September 2004, former pop singer Cat Stevens (who converted to Islam and changed his name to “Yusuf Islam” in 1978) was denied entry into the U.S. after his name was found on the list.[47]
In February 2006, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) stated in a committee hearing that his wife Catherine had been subjected to questioning at an airport as to whether she was Cat Stevens due to the similarity of their names.[44][48]
U.S. Representative Don Young (R-AK), the third-most senior Republican in the House, was flagged in 2004 after he was mistaken for a “Donald Lee Young”.[49]
Some members of the Federal Air Marshal Service have been denied boarding on flights that they were assigned to protect because their names matched those of persons on the no-fly list.[50]
In August 2008, CNN reported that an airline captain and retired brigadier general for the United States Air Force has had numerous encounters with security officials when attempting to pilot his own plane.[51]
After frequent harassment at airport terminals, a Canadian businessman changed his name to avoid being delayed every time he took a flight.[52]
In October 2008, the Washington Post reported that Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent political activists as terrorists, and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases, with labels indicating that they were terror suspects. The protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations. During a hearing, it was revealed that these individuals and organizations had been placed in the databases because of a surveillance operation that targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war.[53]
In April 2009, TSA refused to allow an Air France flight from Paris to Mexico to cross U.S. airspace because it was carrying Colombian journalist Hernando Calvo Ospina. Air France did not send the passenger manifest to the US authorities; they did however send it to Mexico who forwarded it to the US.[54]
On 19 August 2009, Air France flight AF-438 was not allowed to cross into US airspace because of the presence on board of one Paul-Emile Dupret, a civil servant at the European Parliament for 18 years, who had written some articles criticizing the EU’s policies toward Latin America because they are aligned too closely with those of the United States.[55] Even though AF-438 did not cross into US airspace, Paul-Emile Dupret was not allowed to fly to Montreal, where he was to take part in an official delegation of the European Parliament in Ottawa and Montreal. On 20 March 2016 at Charles DeGaulle Airport, Air France prevented Mssr. Dupret from boarding and suggested that he speak with a US security agent in the airport.
Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan was held for extensive questioning by US Immigration and Customs officials in August 2009 because, as he reported, “his name came up on a computer alert list.” Customs officials claimed that he “was questioned as part of a routine process that took 66 minutes.” Khan was visiting the United States to promote his film My Name Is Khan, which concerns racial profiling of Muslims in the United States.[56]
In June 2010, The New York Times reported that Yahya Wehelie, a 26-year-old Muslim-American man, was being prevented from returning to the United States, and was stranded in Cairo. Despite Wehelie’s offer to FBI agents to allow them to accompany him on the plane, while shackled, he was not permitted to fly. The ACLU has argued that this constitutes banishment.[57] In July 2010, Wehelie was permitted to fly to New York under a federal waiver.[58]
A U.S. citizen, stranded in Colombia after being placed on the no-fly list as a result of having studied in Yemen, sought to re-enter the U.S. through Mexico but was returned to Colombia by Mexican authorities.[57]
Michael Migliore, a 23-year-old Muslim convert and dual citizen of the United States and Italy, was detained in the United Kingdom after traveling there from the U.S. by train and then cruise ship because he was not permitted to fly. He said that he believes he was placed on the no-fly list because he refused to answer questions about a 2010 Portland car bomb plot without his lawyer present.[59] He was released eight or ten hours later, but authorities confiscated his electronic media items, including a cell phone and media player.[60]
Abe Mashal, a 31-year-old Muslim and United States Marine Veteran, found himself on the No Fly List in April 2010 while attempting to board a plane out of Midway Airport. He was questioned by the TSA, FBI and Chicago Police at the airport and was told they had no clue why he was on the No Fly List. Once he arrived at home that day two other FBI agents came to his home and used a Do Not Fly question-and-answer sheet to question him. They informed him they had no idea why he was on the No Fly List. In June 2010 those same two FBI agents summoned Mashal to a local hotel and invited him to a private room. They told him that he was in no trouble and the reason he ended up on the No Fly List was because of possibly sending emails to an American imam they may have been monitoring. They then informed him that if he would go undercover at various local mosques, they could get him off the No Fly List immediately and he would be compensated for such actions. Mashal refused to answer any additional questions without a lawyer present and was told to leave the hotel. Mashal then contacted the ACLU and is now being represented in a class-action lawsuit filed against the TSA, FBI and DHS concerning the legality of the No Fly List and how people end up on it. Mashal feels as if he was blackmailed into becoming an informant by being placed on the No Fly List. Mashal has since appeared on ABC, NBC, PBS and Al Jazeera concerning his inclusion on the No Fly List. He has also written a book about his experience titled “No Spy No Fly.” [61]
In November 2002 Salon reported that the No-Fly program seemed “to be netting mostly priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups.” Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader’s Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2000, was prevented from flying to Europe on business in October 2002. He was repeatedly pulled out of line, held for questioning until his flight left, then told falsely he could take a later flight or depart from a different airport. Barbara Olshansky, then Assistant Legal Director for theCenter for Constitutional Rights, noted that she and several of her colleagues received special attention on numerous occasions. On at least one occasion, she was ordered to pull her trousers down in view of other passengers.[62]
DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program
The DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is a procedure for travelers who are delayed or denied boarding of an aircraft, consistently receive excess scrutiny at security checkpoints, or are denied entry to the U.S. because they are believed to be or are told that they are on a government watch list. The traveler must complete an online application at the Department of Homeland Security website, print and sign the application, and then submit it with copies of several identifying documents. After reviewing their records, DHS notifies the traveler that if any corrections of data about them were warranted, they will be made.
Travelers who apply for redress through TRIP are assigned a record identifier called a “Redress Control Number”. Airline reservations systems allow passengers who have a Redress Control Number to enter it when making their reservation.
DHS TRIP may make it easier for an airline to confirm a traveler’s identity. False-positive travelers, whose names match or are similar to the names of persons on the No Fly List, will continue to match that name even after using DHS TRIP, so it will not restore a traveler’s ability to use Internet or curbside check-in or to use an automated kiosk.[citation needed] It does usually help the airline identify the traveler as not being the actual person on the No Fly List, after an airline agent has reviewed their identity documents at check-in.
However, DHS TRIP has not been very helpful to travelers who accidentally end up on the No Fly List, as their efforts to clear their names are often futile to the extent that they are not told why they are on the list.[63]
Lawsuits
On April 6, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union “filed a nationwide class-action challenge to the government’s No Fly List”, in which they charge that “many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names.”[64] The case was settled in 2006, when “the federal government agreed to pay $200,000 in attorneys’ fees to the ACLU of Northern California” and to “[make] public, for the first time, hundreds of records about the government’s secret ‘no fly’ list used to screen airline passengers after September 11, 2001.”[8] On August 5, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 plaintiffs challenging their placement on the No Fly List.[65] and on June 24, 2014, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown ruled in favor of the plaintiffs saying that air travel is a “sacred” liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution[66] and ordered the government to change its system for challenging inclusion.[65]
A Malaysian academic has been the first to successfully bring a suit involving the No Fly List to trial. On August 18, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a ruling on behalf of Rahinah Ibrahim, overturning a lower court decision and allowing her case against inclusion in the No Fly List to proceed through the court system.[67] A public trial began on December 2, 2013 in San Francisco in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge William Alsup.[68] The judge frequently cleared the courtroom following the requests of government lawyers (even though the judge himself once declared that the reasons “don’t make much sense sometimes.”)[69][not in citation given] After the government revealed that Ibrahim had ended up on the list because of human error by the FBI,[70] Alsup ruled on January 14, 2014 “that Ibrahim did have the right to sue and ordered the government to tell Ibrahim whether she is still on the list.”[71]
Gulet Mohamed, a U.S. citizen from Virginia, was placed on the no-fly list as a teenager in 2011 while he was visiting family in Kuwait. Because he was on the no-fly list, he was unable to return to the U.S. before his visa expired.[72] He was taken into custody in Kuwait for overstaying his visa, where he alleges that he “was repeatedly beaten and tortured by his interrogators,” one of whom spoke “perfect American English.”[73]Kuwaiti authorities tried to deport him to the U.S., but the airline denied him boarding, presumably because he was on the U.S. no-fly list, and he was returned to prison. While he was imprisoned in Kuwait, a lawsuit was filed on his behalf in the Eastern District of Virginia by the Council on American Islamic Relations. After the lawsuit was filed, he was allowed to return to the U.S.; the U.S. government then moved to dismiss the lawsuit as moot.[74] On May 28, 2013, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s motion to dismiss Mohamed’s lawsuit.[75] On January 22, 2014, Judge Anthony J. Trenga denied most of another government motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.[76]
Controversy and criticism
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long criticized the No Fly List and similar list because of the lack of notification to persons included on such lists. The ACLU’s stance is that the government has not provided a constitutionally adequate means of allowing individuals to challenge their inclusion on the list[77] and that “constitutional rights are at stake when the government stigmatizes Americans as suspected terrorists and bans them from international travel.”[78]
Among the complaints about the No Fly List is the use of credit reports in calculating the risk score. In response to the controversy, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials said in 2005 that they would not use credit scores to determine passengers’ risk score and that they would comply with all rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments.[79]
The European Union and other non-U.S. government entities have expressed concern about allowing the CAPPS II proposal to be implemented within their borders. During the early testing of the No Fly List and CAPPS II, the TSA privately asked airlines to disclose massive amounts of personal information about their passengers. This action has been said[by whom?] to be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, which forbids the government to compile secret databases on U.S. citizens.
The No Fly List has been variously described as Orwellian and Kafkaesque. Individuals usually do not know they have been put on the list until they attempt to board a plane. Efforts to discover the reasons for being barred from flying meet with indeterminate responses from the authorities, which would neither confirm nor deny that a name is on the List.[69]
In the midst of this controversy, the Government Accountability Office of the U.S. Congress produced a report critical of the CAPPS II system. It characterized the proposal as incomplete and seriously behind schedule, and noted that the TSA had failed to address “developmental, operational, and privacy issues identified by Congress”. On July 14, 2004, TSA officials announced that CAPPS II was being pulled from consideration without proceeding to full testing. Critics have alleged that the TSA has merely chosen to start with a less controversial entry point that they are calling the “Registered Traveler” program.[80] TSA has also begun testing of another program called “Secure Flight“, which is supposed to solve some of the problems of CAPPS I while avoiding the privacy issues of CAPPS II.
In January 2009, Marcus Holmes[81] conservatively estimated the total cost of the program to be $536 million since 9/11, with a reasonable estimation range that approaches $1 billion, and he questioned whether the benefits of the list outweigh the costs.[82]
No fly lists in other countries
The government of Canada has created its own no fly list as part of a program called Passenger Protect.[83] The Canadian list incorporates data from domestic and foreign intelligence sources, including the U.S. No Fly List.[84] It contains between 500 and 2,000 names.[85]
Is It an Invasion? — Constitution’s Invasion Clause Won’t Work
By Barnaby Zall
Volume 11, Number 1 (Fall 2000)
In the recent movie Mars Attacks, President Jack Nicholson calls out the American military to battle aliens invading from Mars. The earthlings can’t do anything about the invasion for most of the movie. All their advanced technology is ineffective until a donut maker discovers that ancient recordings of yodeling literally explode the aliens. It may feel like the middle of that movie in some communities on our southern border.
Residents of southern border areas certainly feel that they are being invaded. At a July 24, 2000, meeting of the Cochise County (Arizona) Board of Supervisors, Chairman Mike Palmer estimated that 60 percent of the sheriff’s patrol division resources are spent responding to problems related to illegal immigration. Murphy, “Supes award grant funds to ease local border woes,” Sierra Vista [Arizona] News, Aug. 10, 2000, p.1, col. 2-3. The direct costs to the sheriff’s department were $2,900,798. Id. There were other costs in health care, legal defense for indigents, and additional firearms needed to deal with high-powered arsenals used by smugglers. Id.,p.3. With unreim-bursed health care costs driving her hospital into bankruptcy, one administrator reported that the costs to Copper Queen Community Hospital have tripled in less than a year. The federal government generously reimbursed the County only one-fifth of its costs a measly $778,000. Id.,p.1.
Perhaps Arizona ranchers beset by hordes of illegal immigrants crossing their lands could ask for federal assistance to set up huge speaker systems playing yodels or modern rock music? Music aside, it isn’t likely that the afflicted ranchers and counties can easily make a federal case of it. The courts have repeatedly held that immigration and border protection decisions are “political,” and they won’t interfere.
At first blush, it seems clear that the U.S. Constitution should protect the ranchers, health care workers, and county governments against this heavily-armed invasion. After all, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution known as the “Invasion Clause” says: “The United States … shall protect [the States] against Invasion.” So why doesn’t the Invasion Clause protect border areas from this invasion?
There are three highly-technical legal reasons:
1. It’s not the right kind of invasion;
2. The federal government can choose not to act; and
3. It’s a “political question” which the courts won’t touch.
INVASION
The Invasion Clause in the U.S. Constitution says “invasion,” but it doesn’t say what an invasion is. In a way this is odd, since, among the Founders, the topic of protection against invasion was one of the most important reasons to discard the old Articles of Confederation in favor of the new Constitution with a federal government. See, e.g., “Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 24 July 1788,” Elliot 4:15-26 (Statement of Mr. Davie: “The general objects of the union are, 1st, to protect us against foreign invasion; 2d, to defend us against internal commotions and insurrections; 3d, to promote the commerce, agriculture, and manufacturers, of America. These objects are requisite to make us a safe and happy people, and they cannot be attained without a firm and efficient system of union.”); Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Boston, 1833, � 481.
But the lack of a definition may have been because all the Founders knew, in the wake of the Revolutionary War and the predatory antics of States under the Articles of Confederation, what “invasion” meant. One of the few statements by the Founders about the Invasion Clause was by James Madison, in The Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788. Madison said:
“A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article.”
Thus, Madison included both invasions from foreign powers and from other States. This view was reiterated by Founder William Rawle, who used the example of a State which refused to “refer its controversies with another state to the judicial power of the Union.” Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1829.
Later the new Congress enacted a law providing for a militia, to be called up in the event of an invasion. Act of February 28, 1795, c. 101. That Act provided
“that whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion.” Id.
This description of invasion was more narrow, dealing only with foreign nations and Indian tribes.
The Supreme Court interpreted this Act, following the War of 1812, in Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19 (1827), a case brought by a man who refused to enter the militia as required, but the actual issues involved the declarations by the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut that they had the power to judge for themselves whether the militia should be called out. The Supreme Court held unanimously that
“the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. . . . The power itself is to be exercised upon sudden emergencies, upon great occasions of state, and under circumstances which may be vital to the existence of the Union.” Id.
The Supreme Court noted that any abuse of the President’s power would be corrected by elections or Congress’s “watchfulness.” Id. Thus, the definition of invasion was left to the President alone, and the Supreme Court said that any errors in judgment would have to be corrected by the political process.
Of course, not everyone is enamored of the views of the Founders. Some people believe that invasion includes pollution and “greed.” (See, e.g. http://www.article4.com, citing Diamond, “If You Can Keep It: A Constitutional Roadmap to Environmental Security,” Brass Ring Press, 1996.) Others believe that right now there is an “ongoing clandestine invasion” by space aliens who abduct and assault Arizonans. Citizens Against UFO Secrecy v. United States, U.S. District Court for Arizona, filed Sept. 1, 1999.
Courts, on the other hand, take a much more narrow view of the term “invasion,” usually referring to Madison’s Federalist No. 43. See, e.g., Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23 [2d Cir. 1996] (rejecting claim by New York for federal reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration: “In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state’s government.”); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, (3d Cir. 1996)(rejecting same claim by New Jersey: Invasion Clause “offers no support whatsoever for application of the Invasion Clause to this case or for its reading of the term �invasion’ to mean anything other than a military invasion.”); California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1997)(rejecting same claim by California: “there are no manageable standards to ascertain whether or when an influx of illegal immigrants should be said to constitute an invasion.”).
Thus, except as described below, it would be unlikely that the afflicted areas in Arizona could get courts to consider the tremendous influx of illegal immigrants as an “invasion.”
FEDERAL DECISION
As noted above, it is the President’s decision to call something an invasion. The Founders considered calling federal protection into a State to be such an important decision that it was to be left to the President alone. Martin v. Mott. Oversight was to be by Congress and the people (through an election) Id.
The President does have the power to stop the influx of illegal immigration. Although Congress has “plenary” (complete) power over immigration, Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977), it has delegated the administration of immigration policy to the President and the Attorney General, in the form of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. �� 1101 et seq. The Attorney General is principally charged with enforcing the immigration laws, with some duties undertaken by the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 8 U.S.C. � 1103. Under Section 212(f) of that Act, the President may “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds that the entry of any aliens … would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” 8 U.S.C. � 1182(f).
In 1997, Attorney General Reno announced a new policy to block illegal immigration by shifting more resources to border enforcement in “traditional illegal crossing and drug smuggling traffic patterns along the southern border.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, “Strategic Plan, 1997-2002,” September 1997, 17. The new policy was successful in blocking many traditional illegal entry patterns, but the policy did not provide enough resources to block nontraditional entry points. The results were that illegal migration shifted heavily to the ranches and deserts of southern Arizona.
But it’s not as if the federal government is doing nothing, or is doing the wrong thing in stopping illegal immigration. The budget for the Immigration and Naturalization Service is over three billion dollars a year, with much of that money going to the Border Patrol. And the new border control policy has reduced illegal immigration (though by how much is still a matter of some contention).
So it’s not likely that the border communities will be able to claim that the federal government is not doing anything to help them.
POLITICAL ISSUE
But the most important roadblock to using the Invasion Clause to force more federal assistance to border communities is the “political question” doctrine. Courts will not get involved in matters that are too political. And every court which has reviewed Invasion Clause claims has refused to intervene because the questions are too political.
At heart, the courts won’t consider political questions because of the constitutional structure separating the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative and judicial. Where the Constitution commits a policy area to the political branches of government, the courts won’t step in, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).
As noted above, immigration is committed to the political branches, Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. at 792. Every court to have considered whether immigration comes within the Invasion Clause has declared the question to be political and refused to step in. See, e.g., Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1199 (9th Cir. 1994)(rejecting claim that federal government permit-ted “economic invasion” of Hawaii by Japanese); Chiles v. U.S., 69 F.3d 1094, 1097 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1674 (1996)(rejecting Florida’s attempt at same claim for reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration as other states mentioned above).
IS THERE A WAY TO PROCEED?
So are the border communities simply out of luck? Can they ever get any relief from the federal government for the massive influx of illegal immigrants suddenly streaming across their property?
It would be a difficult road, but the way is not entirely blocked. There are two possible avenues available to them. The first, and most obvious, is political pressure. If, as the courts have decreed, this is a political question, then the solution is also political. There is no active constituency for illegal immigration in Washington (as opposed to those who either ignore or like illegal immigration or those who promote legal immigration), and a well-organized attempt to increase border resources might return some semblance of peace to the border communities.
The second method is to find a sympathetic judge who will let the border communities tell their tale and allow them some relief. This was the method used by the Haitian community in past years; the immigration laws blocked attempts by Haitian refugees themselves to get judicial review of federal policies requiring their deportation. But federal Judge James Lawrence King ignored the ban on judicial review on the basis of a fiction that he was really hearing the claims of American citizens whose constitutional rights were violated by low-level officials. Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846 (1985), aff’g, 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir.1984). Perhaps the border communities could convince another judge that their claims for violations are just as great as the Haitian communities’.
There are also legal grounds for this review which do not rely on the Invasion Clause. For example, the border communities might challenge the new enforcement policy as an illegal taking of their property, or as having failed a required procedural or environmental review. These constitutional or statutory rights will be mixed up with the political and policy questions which courts refuse to consider, but they might also entice an appropriate federal judge to take a chance on reviewing them. And a little-known secret of American constitutional law is that the choice of the original judge is critically important to establishing or contesting constitutional doctrines; federal judges’ decisions are usually sustained on appeal. Thus, if the border communities can craft an appropriate and appealing legal case and find a sympathetic judge, they may well find some relief in the courts.
But as for using the Invasion Clause itself, it’s not likely to be a fruitful exercise.
Finally, our trade policies do not discourage American employers from following a low-skill, low-wage strategy. We should imbed labor standards in all our trade rules, requiring nations that export to us to respect the freedom to organize and bargain collectively, to maintain a safe and healthful work place, to prohibit forced labor and the exploitation of children. These labor standards would put a floor under international wage competition and help US managers to manage better rather than trying to compete by reducing labor standards. We have inserted these standards in every US trade bill passed in the 1980s, but to be effective, we need to make them a part of the GATT system. ?
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, which is essential to a functioning democracy.
Presidents must not be allowed to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore
When the President fails to faithfully execute the laws, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President, but both houses of Congress must act together.
Congress may also hold the President accountable by asking the courts to call the fouls when the lines of constitutional authority have been breached.
The House of Representatives will bring a lawsuit challenging the President’s failure to enforce key provisions of Obamacare.
This lawsuit seeks to reaffirm constitutional principles, including the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws.
The President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The President must enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of the Administration’s view of their wisdom or policy. Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, which is essential to a functioning democracy. When the President fails to perform this duty, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President, but none of those powers can be exercised unless both houses of Congress work together. The most powerful means of solving this problem is the electoral process. Congress may also hold the President accountable by asking the courts to call the fouls when the lines of constitutional authority have been breached.
Abraham Lincoln is often paraphrased as saying, “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” While that paraphrase summarizes the gist of what Lincoln was saying, the full text of his remark is worth repeating.
In 1838, early in his career, Abraham Lincoln delivered an address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. It was entitled “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” In it, he said:
Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;—let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.
He went on to say:
When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws.… But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.
When Lincoln refers to religiously observing the law “for the sake of example,” he is referring also to the example of the American Republic itself as an example to the world. Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, and political accountability is essential to a functioning democracy.
We in the House of Representatives, who face reelection every two years under the Constitution, are perhaps reminded of that more often than others. And while there is at least one political branch willing to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through whatever means we can successfully avail ourselves of.
The President and the Take Care Clause
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause, known as the Take Care Clause, requires the President to enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of his own Administration’s view of their wisdom or policy. The clause imposes a duty on the President; it does not confer a discretionary power. The Take Care Clause is a limit on the Vesting Clause’s grant to the President of “the executive power.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an opinion handed down just last year striking down the President’s assertion of authority to disregard a federal statute, provided a succinct description of the President’s obligations under the Take Care Clause, as follows:
Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.[1]
When the President fails to perform his constitutional duty that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President, but none of those powers can be exercised unless both houses of Congress work together. Nor would the exercise of those powers solve the problem at hand, because they would not actually require the President to faithfully execute the laws.
Of course, the most powerful and always available means of solving the problem at hand is the electoral process. In the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence.
As Lincoln said, “Let reverence for the laws be … enforced in courts of justice.” It is the courts’ duty, too, to uphold reverence for the law, and it is the specific duty of the courts to call fouls when the lines of constitutional authority under the separation of powers established by the Constitution have been breached.
A lawsuit by the House of Representatives would grant no additional powers to the judicial branch over legislation. Indeed, what a statute says or doesn’t say would remain unaffected. But it would be the appropriate task of the federal courts to determine whether or not, whatever a statute says, a President can ignore it under the Constitution. Whatever the result of such a lawsuit, this President and, in all likelihood, future Presidents will continue to nullify Congress’s legislative power in the absence of our seeking now the establishment, in court, of a clear principle to the contrary.
Challenging the President’s Failure to Faithfully Execute the Laws
The stakes for inaction are high. The lawsuit will challenge the President’s failure to enforce key provisions of the law that has come to bear his name in the popular mind and was largely drafted in the White House.
Unlike any other piece of major federal legislation enacted in at least 100 years—including the Federal Reserve Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Tax Reform Act, and all other major federal legislation over the last century—the Obamacare law did not garner significant bipartisan support. Indeed, and uniquely, it had none. There was no bipartisan political compromise.
What provisions of Obamacare have been enforced have not proved popular, and what provisions the President has refused to enforce have been delayed until at least after the next federal elections: How convenient for the President, yet how devastating to accountability in our Republic.
Imagine the future if this new, unconstitutional power of the President is left to stand. Presidents today and in the future would be able to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore. The current President has even created entirely new categories of businesses to which his unilaterally imposed exemptions would apply.
In that future, if a bill the President signed into law was later considered to be bad policy and potentially harmful to the President’s political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy into law could be avoided by simply delaying enforcement until a more politically opportune time, if at all. No longer would presidential candidates running for reelection have to stand on their records, because their records could be edited at will.
Sign one bill into law; enforce another version of it in practice. Rinse and repeat—until the accumulation of power in the presidency is complete. Whatever the odds of preventing that nightmarish future through the reaffirming of constitutional principles in court, it would be our duty to pursue it.
Earlier this year, I joined with Representative Trey Gowdy (R–SC) to introduce H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act, to put a procedure in place, including expedited court procedures, for Congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for its failure to faithfully execute the laws. But while that legislation passed the House with bipartisan support, the Senate has failed to consider it. The House then considered and passed a resolution to authorize litigation by the House to restore political accountability and enforce the rule of law.
The Supreme Court and Presidential Power
The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the authority of the President to refuse to enforce constitutional laws. As early as the Court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Court recognized Congress’s authority to impose specific duties upon executive branch officials by law, as well as the official’s corresponding obligation to execute the congressional directive.
The Supreme Court articulated this principle again in an 1838 case, Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, involving the President’s refusal to comply with an act of Congress, observing that “[t]o contend that the obligations imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid their execution; is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible.”[2] The Court further noted that permitting executive branch noncompliance with the statute “would be vesting in the President a dispensing power, which has no countenance for its support in any part of the constitution; and is asserting a principle, which, if carried out in its results, to all cases falling within it, would be clothing the President with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.”[3]
A century later, in what has become the seminal case on executive power, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court reasoned as follows:
In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute…. The Constitution did not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential … supervision or control.… The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times.[4]
And as the Court stated just this past term in the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, “The power of executing the laws … does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.”[5]
While the constitutional case law regarding standing to bring a case can be murky, one thing is absolutely clear: The Supreme Court has never closed the door to the standing of the House of Representatives as an institution. It has had the opportunity to do so many times in the past, and each time it has refused.
Individual Members of Congress often have difficulty establishing standing to allege an injury, butRaines v. Byrd, the leading Supreme Court case on legislator standing, “does not stand for the proposition that Congress can never assert its institutional interests in court,” as it has been described by one federal district court judge.[6] Indeed, as another federal district court judge recently pointed out, “the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines was premised in part on the fact that the legislators in that case did not initiate their lawsuit on behalf of their respective legislative bodies.”[7]
In fact, the Supreme Court noted in Raines itself that it “attach[ed] some importance to the fact that [plaintiffs] have not been authorized to represent their respective Houses of Congress in this action, and indeed both Houses actively oppose their suits.”[8] In other words, the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines was premised in part on the fact that the Members in that case did not initiate the lawsuit on behalf of their respective house of Congress.
Further, the courts routinely hear lawsuits involving the enforcement of subpoenas approved by federal legislative bodies. They do so because the subpoena power of each house of Congress derives from its legislative powers under Article I of the Constitution, and if Congress is to have the power to legislate, it must have the power to collect the information necessary to inform that legislative power. When the executive branch refuses to give a congressional body the information it requests, it impedes the legislative power, and the federal courts hear those cases.
But today, the President is not only impeding the legislative power; he is negating it by failing to enforce clear, central provisions of major domestic legislation. And if the federal courts can hear cases in which Congress’s legislative power is hampered by the failure to comply with a subpoena, surely they should be able to hear cases in which its legislative power is completely nullified.
Finally, there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about federal courts’ weighing in on separation of powers disputes. As the Supreme Court has stated:
Our system of government requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch. The alleged conflict that such an adjudication may cause cannot justify the courts’ avoiding their constitutional responsibility.[9]
The Court has also stated that:
Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.[10]
The federal courts have a long history of resolving cases involving the allocation of power between the political branches and addressing important separation of powers concerns. Those cases include Bowsher v. Synar, regarding the execution of the laws; INS v. Chadha, regarding the legislative veto; Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, Morrison v. Olson, and Myers v. United States, regarding the removal of appointed officials; and NLRB v. Noel Canning, in which the Supreme Court just last term unanimously rejected the President’s recess appointments that occurred when the Senate had announced it was in session.[11]
Conclusion
The House of Representatives—the branch of our federal government closest to the people—has voted many times to repeal Obamacare, which remains as unpopular as ever, but the Senate and the President have ignored Americans’ dislike for the law. They have gotten away with ignoring it so far because the obverse of the paraphrase of Lincoln that “the best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly” is true as well and aptly summarizes the current danger to democratic government posed by the current Administration: The best way to keep a bad law on the books is to allow its selective enforcement. The House of Representatives will do everything it can to get bad laws off the books.
—The Honorable Bob Goodlatte represents the Sixth District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, where he serves as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
The U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked Thursday on an immigration plan implemented by President Obama that had shielded millions of undocumented immigrants and granted them the right to work legally in the United States.
The 4-4 vote leaves a lower court’s ruling in place, ending the plan Obama put into place by executive action after Congress failed, yet again, to pass a comprehensive immigration bill.
In a press conference, President Barack Obama expressed his disappointment at the SCOTUS deadlock that failed to yield a ruling.
“For more than two centuries, welcoming wave after wave of immigrants has kept us youthful and dynamic and entrepreneurial; it has shaped our character and it has made us stronger,” the president said. “But for more than two decades now, our immigration system, everybody acknowledges, has been broken. And the fact the Supreme Court wasn’t able to issue a decision today doesn’t just set the system back even further, it takes us further from the country we aspire to be.”
With the end of his second term in office on the horizon, Obama expressed frustration at today’s SCOTUS action (or inaction), coming at a time when his nominee to fill the vacancy on the court has been blocked and delayed by Republicans.
“Today’s decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring rationality to our immigration system and to allow people to come out of their shadows and left this perpetual cloud on them,” Obama said. “I think it is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who made their lives here, who’ve raised families here, who hoped for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, serve in the military and more fully contribute to this country we all love in a more open way.”
Five million unauthorized immigrants — all of them parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents — were eligible to apply for a program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. That program would spare them from deportation and provide them with work permits.
Obama’s executive action in trying to solve the status of millions of immigrants had been stridently opposed by Republicans, including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who categorized the president’s action as ruling by fiat. GOP opponents of the move took to social media to express their elation at the Supreme Court’s deadlock that effectively leaves millions of immigrants in limbo.
“Today’s decision keeps in place what we have maintained from the very start: one person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change the law,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a press release. “This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law.”
Abbott, too, reacted with glee while repeating his accusations that Obama acted more like a monarch than a president in issuing an executive action — despite it being a tactic that’s often been used by former presidents in times of Congressional inaction on matters of national importance.
“The action taken by the President was an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rightly denied the President the ability to grant amnesty contrary to immigration laws,” Abbott said in a statement. “As the President himself said, he is not a king who can unilaterally change and write immigration laws. Today’s ruling is also a victory for all law-abiding Americans—including the millions of immigrants who came to America following the rule of law.”
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan — on the heels of having endured an unprecedented, 26-hour sit-in by Democrats protesting the GOP majority’s inaction on helping enact gun control legislation — issued a statement saying the court’s ruling on immigration bolsters the idea that Congress, not the president, can enact laws.
“Today, Article I of the Constitution was vindicated. The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and void,” Ryan said in his statement. “The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws — only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.”
For Democrats, the decision is, naturally, a disappointment. But progressives view the issue as a cause to continue energizing their base. Up until Obama tried to fix the broken immigration system that forced millions into the shadows of society, Democrats had bemoaned the inaction of Congress to take on the issue.
The glimmer of hope for them in the wake of today’s SCOTUS action: It’s more of an indecision rather than a precedent-setting ruling, which means the immigration issue could be revisited down the road — although all but likely not during Obama’s presidency.
Still, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton blasted the SCOTUS impasse, reiterating a belief among progressives that Obama acted well within his discretion in taking executive action on the measure.
“Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election,” Clinton said in a statement. “As I have consistently said, I believe that President Obama acted well within his constitutional and legal authority in issuing the DAPA and DACA executive actions. These are our friends and family members; neighbors and classmates; DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents. They enrich our communities and contribute to our economy every day. We should be doing everything possible under the law to provide them relief from the specter of deportation.”
U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas echoed the sentiment, tweeting that today’s SCOTUS decision isn’t the death knell for DAPA nor does it affect another program intended for immigrant children — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a setback, but not the end of the road for #DAPA and expanded #DACA,” Castro said.
Established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but placed no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship was limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
Extended the duration of residence required for immigrants to become citizens to 14 years. Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was repealed in 1802.
Authorized the president to deport any resident immigrant considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” It was activated June 25, 1798, with a two-year expiration date.
Authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21
The first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as “undesirable”
The law classified as “undesirable” any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer
strengthen the ban against “coolie” laborers, by imposing a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States “without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service”
Imposed a 50 cent head tax to fund immigration officials.
The Supreme Court ruled that a child of Chinese descent born in the United States – whose parents at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China but who are domiciled in the United States as permanent residents; are carrying on business there; and are not employed in any diplomatic or other official capacity under the Emperor of China – is a citizen of the United States by virtue of having been born “in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” per the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Several years later, in the wake of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, a number of Chinese immigrants who were otherwise subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act were nonetheless able to claim American citizenship by alleging they were born in San Francisco, and that their birth certificates had been destroyed along with those of everyone else who had been born in San Francisco. “Papers for fictitious children were sold in China, allowing Chinese to immigrate despite the laws.” [1]
Restricted immigration from Asia by creating an “Asiatic Barred Zone” and introduced a reading test for all immigrants over fourteen years of age, with certain exceptions for children, wives, and elderly family members.
Limited the number of immigrants from any country to 3% of those already in the US from that country as per the 1910 census.
“An unintended consequence of the 1920s legislation was an increase in illegal immigration. Many Europeans who did not fall under the quotas migrated to Canada or Mexico, which [as Western Hemisphere nations] were not subject to national-origin quotas; [and] subsequently they slipped into the United States illegally.” [6]
1922
The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”)
Reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage, also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act. Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.
Total annual immigration was capped at 150,000. Immigrants fit into two categories: those from quota-nations and those from non-quota nations.
Immigrant visas from quota-nations were restricted to the same ratio of residents from the country of origin out of 150,000 as the ratio of foreign-born nationals in the United States. The percentage out of 150,000 was the relative number of visas a particular nation received.
Non-quota nations, notably those contiguous to the United States only had to prove an immigrant’s residence in that country of origin for at least two years prior to emigration to the United States.
Laborers from Asiatic nations were excluded but exceptions existed for professionals, clergy, and students to obtain visas.
Allowed foreign-born children of American mothers and alien fathers who had entered America before age 18 and lived in America for five years to apply for American citizenship for the first time.
Made the naturalization process quicker for American women’s alien husbands.
1930s
Federal officials deported “Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans… Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens.” [7] “Applications for legal admission into the United States increased following World War II — and so did illegal immigration.” [8] Some used fraudulent marriages as their method of illegal entry in the U.S. “Japanese immigration became disproportionately female, as more women left Japan as “picture brides”, betrothed to emigrant men into the U.S. whom they had never met.” [9]
The Supreme Court found, “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.
Cuban nationals who enter, or were already present in the United States, legal status.
1970s
The United States saw a total number of illegal immigrants estimated at 1.1 million, or half of one percent of the United States population.[11]
1980s
About 1.3 million illegal immigrants entered the US.[12]
1982
Plyler v. Doe,[13]457U.S.202 (1982)The court also stated that illegal immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of the states in which they reside and, therefore, receive 14th amendment protections and stated, “We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [457 U.S. 202, 212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.”
Over 5.8 million illegal immigrants entered the US in the 1990s.[15] Mexico rose to the head of the list of sending countries, followed by the Philippines, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and China.[16]
the court reiterated the finding of Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953), “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.Stated, “those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 .”
Phone verification for worker authentication by employers.
Access to welfare benefits more difficult for legal aliens.
Increased border enforcement.
Reed Amendment attempted to deny visas to former U.S. citizens, but was never enforced[19]
1999
Rodriguez v. United States, 169 F.3d 1342, (11th Cir. 1999)
Held that statutes which discriminate within the class of aliens comport with the Due Process Clause of theFifth Amendment (and the equal protection principles it incorporates) so long as they satisfy rational basis scrutiny.
Post 9/11/2001
An estimated 3.1 million immigrants entered the United States illegally between 2000 and 2005.[17]
From 1998 to 2001, Mexicans accounted for 68% of immigrants who entered the United States illegally. That percentage jumped to 78% for the years between 2001 and 2005, mostly due to stricter security measures that followed the September 11, 2001 Attacks upon the United States (which more efficiently prevented illegal entry from nations that did not share a land or maritime boundary with the United States).[20]
Story 1: Timeline of Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadist Shootings at Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida –The Missing 911 Transcript Pages, Audio and Videos Not Released — For Three Hours Victims Were Bleeding Out From Wounds — Do Not Depend On Government To Protect You!
“I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may Allah (God) protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.”
~Omar Marteen, Islamic Soldier
Judge Nap Blasts DOJ for ‘Trying to Rewrite History’ With Orlando Transcripts
Orlando nightclub shooting: Shooter used SIG Sauer MCX to kill 49 people and not a AR-15 – TomoNews
New Sig Sauer MCX 5.56 Rifle
ORLANDO SHOOTING – WEAPON USED – SIG SAUER MCX – BLACK MAMBA
What’s an ASSAULT RIFLE for DUMMIES
EDUCATE YOURSELF ~ Semi-Auto Firearms vs Fully-Automatic Firearms
AR-15 – The Beginner’s Guide – What to Know About the AR-15
ULTIMATE AR-15 MELTDOWN!
In this video we attempt to burn out an AR-15 upper on an M16 lower. We are testing the durability of not only the upper receiver assemby but few specific products as well including the SRC Relia-Bolt BCG, Geissele Super Gas Block, and one of the most affordable AR barrels on the market from Faxon Firearms.
The results may surprise you.
Tavor TAR-21 Assault Rifle
What rifle should I buy?
AR-15 Reliability Demonstration
AR vs AK: Practical Accuracy
The Truth About Wolf Ammo
Transcript of Orlando Police Department 911 Calls, June 12, 2016
Transcript of Orlando Police Department 911 Calls, June 12, 2016
2:35 a.m.: Shooter contacted a 911 operator from inside Pulse. The call lasted approximately 50 seconds, the details of which are set out below:
(OD) Orlando Police Dispatcher
(OM) Omar Mateen
OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.
OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent [Arabic]
OD: What?
OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [Arabic]. I wanna let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.
OD: What’s your name?
OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.
OD: Ok, What’s your name?
OM: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.
OD: Alright, where are you at?
OM: In Orlando.
OD: Where in Orlando?
[End of call.]
Patrial 911 transcript released by the FBI (including redacted material):
The following is based on Orlando Police Department (OPD) radio communication (times are approximate): 2:02 a.m.: OPD call transmitted multiple shots fired at Pulse nightclub. 2:04 a.m.: Additional OPD officers arrived on scene. 2:08 a.m.: Officers from various law enforcement agencies made entrance to Pulse and engaged the shooter. 2:18 a.m.: OPD S.W.A.T. (Special Weapons & Tactics) initiated a full call-out. 2:35 a.m.: Shooter contacted a 911 operator from inside Pulse. The call lasted approximately 50 seconds, the details of which are set out below:
Orlando Police Dispatcher (OD)
Shooter (OM)
OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.
OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficial [in Arabic]
OD: What?
OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [in Arabic]. I let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.
OD: What’s your name?
OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to [omitted].
OD: Ok, What’s your name?
OM: I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted].
OD: Alright, where are you at?
OM: In Orlando.
OD: Where in Orlando?
[End of call.]
(Shortly thereafter, the shooter engaged in three conversations with OPD’s Crisis Negotiation Team.) 2:48 a.m.: First crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately nine minutes. 3:03 a.m.: Second crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately 16 minutes. 3:24 a.m.: Third crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately three minutes.
In these calls, the shooter, who identified himself as an Islamic soldier, told the crisis negotiator that he was the person who pledged his allegiance to [omitted], and told the negotiator to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq and that is why he was “out here right now.” When the crisis negotiator asked the shooter what he had done, the shooter stated, “No, you already know what I did.” The shooter continued, stating, “There is some vehicle outside that has some bombs, just to let you know. You people are gonna get it, and I’m gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid.” Later in the call with the crisis negotiator, the shooter stated that he had a vest, and further described it as the kind they “used in France.” The shooter later stated, “In the next few days, you’re going to see more of this type of action going on.” The shooter hung up and multiple attempts to get in touch with him were unsuccessful. 4:21 a.m.: OPD pulled an air conditioning unit out of a Pulse dressing room window for victims to evacuate.
(While the FBI will not be releasing transcripts of OPD communication with victims, significant information obtained from those victims allowed OPD to gain knowledge of the situation inside Pulse.) 4:29 a.m.: As victims were being rescued, they told OPD the shooter said he was going to put four vests with bombs on victims within 15 minutes.
(An immediate search of the shooter’s vehicle on scene and inside Pulse ultimately revealed no vest or improvised explosive device.) 5:02 a.m.: OPD SWAT and OCSO Hazardous Device Team began to breach wall with explosive charge and armored vehicle to make entry. 5:14 a.m.: OPD radio communication stated that shots were fired. 5:15 a.m.: OPD radio communication stated that OPD engaged the suspect and the suspect was reported down.
American ISIS Video Praises Orlando & Threatens Euro 2016
Published on Jun 20, 2016
ISIS has released a new video in the wake of the mass shooting at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, which left 49 people dead. The video shows a man named Abu Isma’il Al-Amriki, who claims to be an American ISIS fighter, along with other alleged fighters identified as American, French, Russian and Uzbek. In the video, the fighters praise Orlando shooter Omar Mateen and urge other Muslims to follow his example by carrying out more “lone wolf” attacks on the US. One fighter also mentions a “surprise” operation at the Euro 2016 soccer tournament in France. We take a look at the video on the Lip News with Jo Ankier, Mark Sovel and Elliot Hill.
Orlando Shooting Video Inside Nightclub Bathroom
Orlando Shooting 911 Transcripts Reveal Timeline
Government Censors, Then Restores Terror Details of Orlando Shooting
How the Pulse nightclub shooting unfolded
Orlando nightclub survivor: He wanted to kill us all
From nightclub to room full of bodies: The Orlando shooting timeline
Orlando: New footage and survivor accounts
‘He was right next to me’: Orlando shooting survivor – BBC Newsnight
Extended cut: Orlando shooting survivor describes horror of attack
RAW VIDEO: Patience Carter recalls Orlando shooting massacre
Orlando Nightclub Massacre: A Timeline of What Happened
Orlando Shooting Latest: Unredacted Transcript of Gunman’s 911 Call Released [UPDATE]
The FBI has released transcripts of Omar Mateen’s conversation with a 911 operator the night of the Pulse Orlando massacre.
Just more than a week after Omar Mateen walked into a crowded Orlando nightclub and opened fire on those gathered there, the FBI has shed more light on just what happened during the early morning hours of June 12.
Ron Hooper, the FBI’s special agent in charge, on Monday spoke of Mateen’s 911 calls to Orlando dispatchers the night of the worst mass shooting in American history. Mateen, Hooper said, was “chilling, calm and deliberate” during those calls.
The FBI released transcripts of Mateen’s calls on Monday. The agency also provided a timeline of events that unfolded at the Pulse Orlando Night Club & Ultra Bar, a popular gay club. Audio of Mateen’s 911 calls and those placed by victims are not being released.
Initially, authorities released only a partial transcript of calls, redacting Mateen’s pledges of allegiance to the Islamic State. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in interviews on various news channels on Sunday that the purpose of redacting the transcripts was to not re-victimize those that lived through the attack.
Shortly after the transcripts were released, the government came under criticism for redacting the transcripts, prompting the FBI and the Department of Justice to release a joint statement with the full transcript from the 911 call.
“The purpose of releasing the partial transcript of the shooter’s interaction with 911 operators was to provide transparency, while remaining sensitive to the interests of the surviving victims, their families, and the integrity of the ongoing investigation. We also did not want to provide the killer or terrorist organizations with a publicity platform for hateful propaganda,” the joint FBI and DOJ statement said. “Unfortunately, the unreleased portions of the transcript that named the terrorist organizations and leaders have caused an unnecessary distraction from the hard work that the FBI and our law enforcement partners have been doing to investigate this heinous crime. As much of this information had been previously reported, we have re-issued the complete transcript to include these references in order to provide the highest level of transparency possible under the circumstances.”
The FBI’s investigation into Mateen’s past remains very much active, Hooper said. So does its probe into what motivated Mateen to kill 49 people and wound 53 others before he was shot and killed by authorities.
Hooper on Monday said the FBI has found no evidence that Mateen was connected to an Islamic terrorist group. Instead, he said, the 29-year-old was “radicalized domestically.”
Lynch is expected to visit Orlando on Tuesday. Lynch will be updated on the investigation and is expected to speak to survivors of the attack, authorities said Monday.
The timeline and transcripts of the calls are as follows, quoted directly from the FBI’s release of information. The transcript of the 911 call is not redacted, however the transcripts of the calls with hostage negotiators remain redacted:
2:35 a.m.: Shooter contacted a 911 operator from inside Pulse. The call lasted approximately 50 seconds, the details of which are set out below:
(OD) Orlando Police Dispatcher
(OM) Omar Mateen
OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.
OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent [Arabic]
OD: What?
OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [Arabic]. I wanna let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.
OD: What’s your name?
OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.
OD: Ok, What’s your name?
OM: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.
OD: Alright, where are you at?
OM: In Orlando.
OD: Where in Orlando?
[End of call.]
(Shortly thereafter, the shooter engaged in three conversations with OPD’s Crisis Negotiation Team.)
2:48 a.m.: First crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately nine minutes.
3:03 a.m.: Second crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately 16 minutes.
3:24 a.m.: Third crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately three minutes.
In these calls, the shooter, who identified himself as an Islamic soldier, told the crisis negotiator that he was the person who pledged his allegiance to [omitted], and told the negotiator to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq and that is why he was “out here right now.” When the crisis negotiator asked the shooter what he had done, the shooter stated, “No, you already know what I did.” The shooter continued, stating, “There is some vehicle outside that has some bombs, just to let you know. You people are gonna get it, and I’m gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid.” Later in the call with the crisis negotiator, the shooter stated that he had a vest, and further described it as the kind they “used in France.” The shooter later stated, “In the next few days, you’re going to see more of this type of action going on.” The shooter hung up and multiple attempts to get in touch with him were unsuccessful.
4:21 a.m.: OPD pulled an air conditioning unit out of a Pulse dressing room window for victims to evacuate.
(While the FBI will not be releasing transcripts of OPD communication with victims, significant information obtained from those victims allowed OPD to gain knowledge of the situation inside Pulse.)
4:29 a.m.: As victims were being rescued, they told OPD the shooter said he was going to put four vests with bombs on victims within 15 minutes.
(An immediate search of the shooter’s vehicle on scene and inside Pulse ultimately revealed no vest or improvised explosive device.)
5:02 a.m.: OPD SWAT and OCSO Hazardous Device Team began to breach wall with explosive charge and armored vehicle to make entry.
5:14 a.m.: OPD radio communication stated that shots were fired.
5:15 a.m.: OPD radio communication stated that OPD engaged the suspect and the suspect was reported down.
In a media release, the FBI noted that there were no reports of shots fired inside the Pulse nightclub between the initial exchange of gunfire with Mateen and the time of the final breach.
The FBI is still asking for anyone with information about Mateen to contact it by calling 1-800-CALL-FBI or by going to tips.fbi.gov.
730 mm (28.75 in) SBG
610 mm (24.0 in) stock extended
length
165 mm (6.5 in)
The SIG Sauer MCX is a gas-operated NATOSTANAG compatible semi-automatic rifle that is convertible to fire several ammunition sizes. Manufactured by SIG Sauer, it was designed for U.S. Special Forces and released to the general public in 2015. It features a SIG Sauer short stroke push-rod gas system to reduce recoil and improve the reliability of the weapon. The weapon features a system that allows for conversion between 300 AAC Blackout (7.62×35mm), 7.62×39mm or 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition, all using AR-15 compatible magazines with 30-round capacity.
The AR-15 comes in many sizes and has many options, depending on the manufacturer. The part shown bottom center is the lower receiver with pistol grip and trigger assembly.
The prototype AR-15 rifle was designed by ArmaLite as a selective fire weapon for military purposes. Armalite sold the design to Colt due to financial difficulties. After some modifications, the rifle eventually became the US Army’s M16 rifle.
The term “AR-15” signifies “Armalite rifle, design 15”.[8] Today, Colt uses “AR-15” for its semi-automatic civilian rifles, and thus many use the term only for Colt AR-15s and clones made by other manufacturers. This article discusses the original design intended for military users and its major variants.
AR-15 rifles are lightweight, gas-operated, magazine-fed, and air-cooled. They fire an intermediate cartridge, and are manufactured with extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. The design splits the rifle into two major components: the lower half, containing the trigger and buttstock, and the upper half, which contains the bolt and barrel. This approach allows modular replacement of components.
The name AR-15 remains a Colt registered trademark, but variants of the firearm are made, modified, and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers.
History
The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mmAR-10 designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild Armalite corporation.[9] The AR-15 was developed as a lighter, 5.56 mm version of the AR-10. The “AR” in all ArmaLite pattern firearms simply stands for “ArmaLite Rifle”,[10] and can be found on most of the company’s firearms: AR-5, a .22 caliber rifle; the AR-7, another .22 caliber; the AR-17shotgun; the AR-10 rifle; and the AR-24 pistol.[11][12]
1973 Colt AR-15 SP1 rifle with ‘slab side’ lower receiver (lacking raised boss around magazine release button) and original Colt 20-round box magazine
In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt. After a tour by Colt of the Far East, the first sale of AR-15s was made to Malaya on September 30, 1959, and Colt manufactured their first 300 AR-15s in December 1959.[13] Colt marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world. After modifications (most notably the relocation of the charging handle from under the carrying handle to the rear of the receiver), the redesigned rifle was adopted by the United States military as the M16 rifle.[14]
In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 for civilian use and the term has been used to refer to semiautomatic-only versions of the rifle since then.[15] Colt continued to use the AR-15 trademark for its semi-automatic variants (AR-15, AR-15A2) which were marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers. The original AR-15 was a very lightweight weapon, weighing less than 6 pounds with empty magazine. Later heavy-barrel versions of the civilian AR-15 can weigh upwards of 8.5 lb.[16]
Today, the AR-15 and its variations are manufactured by many companies and are popular among civilian shooters and law enforcement forces around the world due to their accuracy and modularity.[citation needed](For more history on the development and evolution of the AR-15 and derivatives, see M16 rifle.)
The trademark “AR15” or “AR-15” is registered to Colt Industries, which maintains that the term should only be used to refer to their products. Other AR-15 manufacturers make AR-15 clones marketed under separate designations, although colloquially these are sometimes referred to by the term AR-15.
Some notable features of the AR-15 include:
Aircraft-grade forged 7075-T6 aluminumreceiver that is lightweight, highly corrosion-resistant, and machinable.
Straight-line stock design that eliminates the fulcrum created by traditional bent stocks, reducing muzzle climb.
Small caliber, accurate, lightweight, high-velocity round (.223/5.56×45mm)
Support for numerous other rounds with easy conversions
Front sight adjustable for elevation
Rear sight that is adjustable for windage (most models) and elevation (some models)
Wide array of optical aiming devices available in addition to or as replacements of iron sights
Stoner gas system (as designed), with short or long stroke gas piston, or direct blowback operating systems available
Synthetic pistol grip and butt stock that do not swell or splinter (regulated in some states)
Various magazine capacities, ranging from 10 to 30-round or more
Ergonomic design that makes the charging handle, selector switch (which also engages the safety), magazine release, and bolt catch assembly easy to access.
Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. The design changes were done to satisfy United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to full-automatic. Even so, the full automatic M16 bolt carrier is now the most popular type, and is approved by ATF.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, items such as the “Drop In Auto Sear” or “lightning link,” made conversion to full automatic straightforward. In some cases such conversion did require machining the lower receiver with use of a mill, as well as the substitution of a M16 bolt carrier group.[17][18] Such modifications, unless made using registered and transferable parts prior to May 19, 1986, are illegal. The Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 has redefined a machine gun to include individual components with which a semi-automatic firearm can be converted to full-automatic, based on a 1981 ATF ruling on machine gun parts. Since 1993, the bolt carrier groups used in AR-15 type rifles for civilians have employed additional measures to prevent modification to full auto. Colt AR-15’s use a metal alloy wall separating the fire control group from the sear, preventing use of full automatic parts.
Automatic variants have a three-position rotating selective fire switch, allowing the operator to select between three modes: safe, semi-automatic, and either automatic or three-round burst, depending on model. Civilian Colt AR-15 models do not have three-round burst or automatic settings; they can only be fired as a semi-automatic, and are therefore not selective fire weapons. In semi-automatic-only variants, the switch only selects between safe and fire modes. Some other manufacturers may mark their rifles with three-positions for collectors and re-enactors, though the guns will not fire in those modes. Weapons modified to full automatic using a lightning-link are capable only of full automatic fire unless a special full automatic fire select mechanism and a modified selector-switch are substituted.[17] Many AR-15’s made before 1986 were converted to be M16’s by gunsmiths who legally turned them into Form One rifles in the U.S.[19] A converted AR will have an auto sear in a lower receiver marked as an AR-15.[19]
Today, while the civilian manufacture, sale, and possession of post-1986 select-fire AR-15 variants is prohibited, it is still legal to sell templates, tooling, and manuals to complete such conversion. These items are typically marketed as being “post-sample” materials for Federal Firearm Licensees, and are used in the manufacturing of select-fire variants of the AR-15 for law enforcement, military and overseas customers.[20]
U.S. Patent 2,951,424 describes the cycling mechanism used in the AR-15. The bolt carrier acts as a movable cylinder, and the bolt itself acts as a stationary piston. This mechanism is often called “direct gas impingement“, but it differs from prior gas systems.
direct impingement
Gas is tapped from the barrel as the bullet moves past a gas port located above the rifle’s front sight base. The gas rushes into the port and down a gas tube, located above the barrel, which runs from the front sight base into the AR-15’s upper receiver. Here, the gas tube protrudes into a “gas key” (bolt carrier key), which accepts the gas and funnels it into the bolt carrier.
At this point, the bolt is locked into the barrel extension by locking lugs, so the expanding gas forces the bolt carrier straight backward a short distance. As the bolt carrier moves toward the butt of the gun, the bolt cam pin, riding in a slot on the bolt carrier, forces the bolt to rotate and thus unlocks it from the barrel extension. Once the bolt is fully unlocked it begins its rearward movement along with the bolt carrier. The bolt’s rearward motion extracts the empty cartridge case from the chamber. As soon as the neck of the case clears the barrel extension, the bolt’s spring-loaded ejector forces it out the ejection port in the side of the upper receiver.
Behind the bolt carrier is a plastic or metal buffer, which rests in line with a return spring. The buffer spring begins to push the bolt carrier and bolt back toward the chamber once it is compressed sufficiently. A groove machined into the upper receiver guides the bolt cam pin and prevents it and the bolt from rotating into a closed position. The bolt’s locking lugs push a fresh round from the magazine as the bolt moves forward. The round is guided by feed ramps into the chamber. As the bolt’s locking lugs move past the barrel extension, the cam pin twists into a pocket milled into the upper receiver. This twisting action follows the groove cut into the carrier and forces the bolt to twist and “lock” into the barrel extension.
The AR-15 rifle is available in a wide range of configurations from a large number of manufacturers. These configurations range from short carbine-length models with features such as adjustable length stocks and optical sights, to heavy barrel models.
Colt AR-15 A3 Tactical Carbine. Rifle is shown with a CQB Tactical Sling and a Colt 4×20 scope.
When installing a new complete upper receiver, particularly one designed to handle a different caliber of ammunition (i.e., other than .223 Remington or 5.56×45mm NATO), some modification to the lower receiver may be required, depending on the particular conversion. For example, a conversion to 9 mm typically would involve the installation of a magazine well block (to accommodate a typical 9 mm magazine, such as Uzi or Colt SMG), replacing the .223 hammer with one designed for 9 mm ammunition, and depending on the original stock, replacing the buffer, action spring and stock spacer with those designed for the new 9 mm AR-15 configuration. The 9mm cartridge fires from an unlocked breech, or straight blow-back—rather than a locked breech, because the spring and bolt provide enough weight to allow this type of functioning. These guns do not utilize the direct gas impingement method of operation like the original.
Some AR-15s like the POF, LWRCI, H&K, Sturm Ruger, SIG Sauer, United Defense Manufacturing Corporation, CMMG, and Adams Arms offerings replace the DGI (direct gas impingement) operating system with a short stroke/long stroke gas piston system. These guns usually have modified bolt carriers, gas keys, and gas blocks. When fired, DGI systems dump high pressure hot gas through the gas tube to the bolt carrier key and into the bolt carrier group. This can rapidly heat up the bolt carrier group and cause excessive fouling, one of the main complaints about the design. Gas piston operating systems alleviate these problems, but can cause other issues, such as carrier tilt, which can lead to increased bolt fractures.
Some manufacturers offer upper and lower receivers machined from a solid billet (block) of aluminum as opposed to an aluminum forging. Forgings typically have a comparatively higher strength to weight ratio than billet-based receivers.
Upper receivers that combine a railed hand guard and upper receiver into one unit are made by companies like Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT MRP), POF-USA, and VLTOR. This is done to provide a continuous rail section that runs along the top of the gun from the weapon’s charging handle to the front sight/gas block. This rail section is used for the mounting of sights, laser aiming devices, night vision devices, and lighting systems.
A side charging upper receiver has been developed by LAR Grizzly. Blackwood Arms has also developed a side charging upper receiver.[24] The charging handle can be had in a left side, right side, or ambidextrous configuration. The side charging handle is attached to the bolt carrier, making it a reciprocating design. The handle thus can be used as a forward assist device.
Early models had a 1:14 rate of twist for the original 55 grain (3.6 g) bullets. This was changed to 1:12 when it was found that 1:14 was insufficient to stabilize a bullet when fired in cold weather. Most recent rifles have a 1:9 or 1:7 twist rate. There is much controversy and speculation as to how differing twist rates affect ballistics and terminal performance with varying loads, but heavier, longer projectiles tend to perform better with faster rifling rates.[25] Additionally, the various non .223 / 5.56 calibers have their own particular twist rate, such as 1:10, 1:11 and 1:12 for 6.8×43mm SPC, 1:10 for 7.62×39mm, 1:9 for the 6.5 Grendel, and 1:8 for .300 Blackout.
A Colt AR-15 on display at the National Firearms Museum. This example is fitted with an early waffle-patterned 20-round magazine.
Standard issue magazines are 20- or 30-round staggered-column magazines and traditional box magazines exist in 40- and 45-round capacities. Drum magazines with 90- and 100-round capacities, such as Beta C-Mags are available, as well. Low-capacity magazines, usually of a 5- or 10-round capacity, are available to comply with some areas’ legal restrictions, for hunting, and for benchrest shooting, where a larger magazine can be inconvenient. Surefire is now offering extended capacity magazines in 60- and 100-round capacity configurations. These are of a staggered column design, dubbed casket magazines due to their shape. Usable magazines have been constructed from a variety of materials including steel, aluminum, and high-impact plastics.
Muzzle devices
Most AR-15 rifles have a barrel threaded in 1⁄2″-28 threads to incorporate the use of a muzzle device such as a flash suppressor, sound suppressor or muzzle brake.[26] The initial design had three tines or prongs and was prone to breakage and getting entangled in vegetation. The design was later changed to close the end to avoid this problem. Eventually, on the A2 version of the rifle, the bottom port was closed to reduce muzzle climb and prevent dust from rising when the rifle was fired in the prone position.[27] For these reasons, the US military declared this muzzle device a compensator, but it is more commonly known as the “GI” or “A2” flash suppressor.[28]
Flash suppressors are designed to reduce the muzzle flash from the weapon to preserve the shooter’s night vision. A flash suppressor does not improve the ballistic performance of a rifle or make it more lethal, but some jurisdictions have banned or severely restrict usage of flash suppressors. In most of these areas, AR-15 shooters have installed muzzle brakes or compensators on their rifles.
The threaded barrel allows sound suppressors with the same thread pattern to be installed directly to the barrel, however this can result in complications such as being unable to remove the suppressor from the barrel.[29] A number of suppressor manufacturers have turned to designing “direct-connect” sound suppressors which can be installed over an existing flash suppressor as opposed to using the barrel’s threads.[29]
AR-15 rifles, like all semi-automatic rifles, are subject to strong restrictions on ownership in all states and territories in Australia. The only means of legally owning a functional AR-15-type rifle in Australia today (other than law enforcement uses) is to have a Category D Firearms License (e.g. a professional animal culler). Individuals with a Firearms Collector’s License may own a deactivated firearm (with the barrel plugged up and the action welded shut), and members of a military re-enactment organization may own rifles converted to firing only blanks.[citation needed]
Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles were introduced in 1996 in response to the Port Arthur massacre – one of the firearms used was an AR-15. Previously, AR-15 rifles were legal to own in Queensland and Tasmania.[citation needed]
Imported AR-15 rifles are too expensive for television and film production because the company must destroy or export semi-automatic rifles after use. Warwick Firearms & Militaria, a Melbourne prop maker, manufactures AR-15-type “WFM4” rifles locally,[30][31] with approximately three dozen having been sold.[32] They are fully functional, but may be purchased only with government permission.[citation needed]
Austria
In Austria, semi-automatic centerfire rifles have to be classified as sporting or hunting firearms in order to obtain civilian-legal status. After this classification, they are considered “category B” firearms, which means that holders of gun licenses may own them. These licenses are may-issue items if the applicant specifies a valid reason (self-defense at home for example is considered valid by law in any case), passes a psychological test and attends a gun-basics course.[citation needed]
Three AR-15 manufacturers (“Hera Arms”, “Schmeisser” and “Oberlandarms”), all producing in Germany have had versions of their AR-15 models successfully classified as class B weapons. These Austrian versions differ slightly from the original design in order to ensure that no military full-auto trigger, bolt and barrel may be installed. Additionally, bayonet lugs, flash hiders and weapon lights are prohibited on semi-automatic rifles while muzzle brakes and compensators are legal. There is no minimum length for barrels, therefore even barrel lengths as short as 7.5″ are possible, and there are no magazine capacity limits.[citation needed]
Belgium
Semi-automatic firearms and thus AR-15 type rifles are legal to own, if in possession of the correct license.[citation needed]
Canada
The Government of Canada classifies the AR-15 (and its variants) as a restricted firearm. For anyone wanting to lawfully own an AR-15, they must obtain a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) valid for restricted firearms (RPAL) and then each acquisition of a restricted class firearm is subject to approval by the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) of the would-be buyer’s province of residence.[33][34] With the introduction of strict gun control measures by former Prime MinisterJean Chretien (Bill C-68), the AR-15 had been intended to be classified as a prohibited firearm, making it impossible to privately own one. However, due to the presence of nationwide Service Rifle target shooting competitions, the AR-15 was granted a sporting exception.[citation needed]
As with all Restricted firearms (including most pistols, some shotguns, and some rifles) AR-15s are allowed to be fired only at certified firing ranges since the CFOs of all provinces and territories have agreed to issue ATTs (Authority To Transport) for these guns only to certified ranges. Since owners cannot legally take these guns anywhere else that shooting is allowed, they can in effect only shoot them on certain ranges. In order to legally own and transport a Restricted firearm, the firearm must be registered with the Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceCanadian Firearms Program and must apply for an Authorization to Transport (or ATT) from the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) for their province or territory. Additionally, the firearm must be unloaded, deactivated by a trigger or action lock, and be in a locked, opaque “hard to break into” container during transport.[35] (“Hard to break into” is not legally defined within the Canadian firearms act or the CCC.)
The issuance of ATTs varies considerably from province to province, and is generally reflective of a particular province’s political and social levels of acceptance of gun ownership. In Ontario the “policy” of the CFO (currently Chris Wyatt) for obtaining an ATT for restricted firearms is to become a member of a range. However policy is not law and when challenged they have no choice but to either issue the ATT requested or do a formal refusal which can be challenged (for free) in court since they must abide by the law. It is not legal for them to refuse on the phone since the only acceptable method for that is in writing as per FA s.72(1).[36]
The Czech Firearms Act categorizes semi-automatic rifles as “Class B” firearm. Class B firearms are available to anyone with a firearm license, which is shall issue (i.e. cannot be denied) subject to fulfillment of the act’s conditions (e.g. clean criminal record, no history of mental illness, no DUI in past three years, passing gun license exam). Prior to purchase, a licensed civilian needs to fill a permit to “buy, possess and carry”, which is also shall issue and takes about 15 minutes to process, with the local police station. The purchase permit is valid for one year. Any firearm must be registered with the police within ten days of purchase.[citation needed]
There is no magazine capacity limitation for sport or self-defense use. On the other hand, only magazines with maximum capacity of two rounds may be used for hunting. AR-15 as well as any other semi-automatic rifle may be carried loaded for self-defense only inconcealed manner. Hunters may carry the firearm openly to and from the area of a hunt in way preventing its immediate use (i.e. unloaded, with empty magazines). There are no limitations on flash suppressors and bayonets, while lasers and silencers fall into “Class A” category requiring a may-issue permit (usually difficult to obtain). Night vision falls also into “Class A” category; however, the permit process for it has been simplified since 2014 for hunters. Moreover, in 2015 the Ministry of Agriculture started subsidizing up to 80% of purchase price of night vision equipment to hunters who shoot more than 20 wild boar a year in order to cull boar infestation.[citation needed]
AR-15s are quite popular in the Czech Republic. As of 2015, there are three manufacturers of AR-15 in the Czech Republic: V-AR, Proarms Armory and LUVO.[citation needed]
Finland
In Finland, possession of semi-automatic rifles, including the AR-15, is legal, provided that the rifle’s owner acquires a permit for owning one. A license is required for each individual firearm and there needs to be a specific reason for ownership such as participation in the shooting sports and hunting. In Finland maximum magazine capacity in hunting is 3 rounds. But in addition a hunter can have 1 round chambered which brings their direct ammo capacity up to 4 rounds. There is no magazine capacity limit on guns for target or other sporting shooting.[citation needed]
Germany
The AR-15, like other semi-automatic rifles, is categorized as a “Class B” firearm. Possession of semi-automatic rifles, including the AR-15, is legal with a gun license (Waffenbesitzkarte). These licenses are shall-issue, if all criteria defined by the law are met. The applicant must specify a valid reason (collecting, hunting or sports shooting), have no criminal background and attend a gun-basics course.[citation needed]
While hunting in Germany, if a semi-automatic firearm is used, the magazine must be blocked to accept no more than two rounds of ammunition, meaning that when hunting game animals only three shots in total can be fired (as one additional round is loaded in the chamber) without reloading. This rule is stated in German hunting law and not in German gun law, and does not apply to handguns. Also, it is not allowed to use a magazine that is capable of accepting more than 10 rounds of ammunition while sports shooting in Germany; however, ownership of a magazine that can accept more than two rounds (for hunters) or ten rounds (for sports shooters) is legal in Germany without a license.[citation needed]
The acquisition and possession of ammunition requires a license in Germany, which is usually given with the gun license itself. When purchasing ammunition at a shooting range for immediate use, no license is required.[citation needed]
France
In France, any semi-automatic firearms using military calibers (9mm, 5.56 NATO, 7.62×39, 7.62 NATO, .45 ACP, .50 BMG, .50 AE.) are authorized as ‘B category’ weapons. While fully automatic ‘A category’ weapons are highly restricted, semi-automatic ones are legal for civilian possession. A hunting or sports shooting license is required to possess and purchase any firearm, as well as ammunition, in France.[citation needed]
Ireland
In Ireland, legal possession of a semi-automatic AR-15 requires a restricted firearms licence from the applicant’s local Garda chief superintendent, who has wide discretion to approve or deny the license. Semi-automatic centrefire rifles are generally may-issue items and the requirements to own one can vary greatly from province to province. Upgraded security measures may be a pre-condition of granting this licence.[37]
Italy
In Italy, the AR-15 rifle belongs to B7 class and can be owned by civilians, provided it is incapable of fully automatic fire. Like every other gun, it must be registered and to purchase it citizens must have a valid license, which is granted to every person who qualifies.[citation needed]
The rifles are chambered in .223 or 5.56×45 (M193 ball). NATO ammo in 5.56 mm is illegal for civilian use. Due to the Italian legal catalog of rifles, an AR-15 can be considered for hunting use or sports use. If the rifle is classified for hunting use, it is legal to own any number of AR-15s. If the rifle is classified for sporting use, it is possible to own only 6 guns with the same “sporting” classification.[citation needed]
New Zealand
The AR-15 rifle is treated like any other semi-automatic rifle. They are legal to own by individuals holding a firearms license; however, specific features (folding stock, pistol grip, magazines holding more than 7 rounds, etc.) will require it to be registered as a Military-Style Semi-Automatic (MSSA) requiring an ‘E Category’ endorsement on their license.[citation needed]
Poland
According to Polish laws on firearms, AR-15s and clones do not have any special status. Any civilian holder of firearm licence can purchase and use one without any restrictions, excluding full auto versions. Stock types, magazine capacity, and barrel length are not regulated, although hunting is allowed only with magazines holding six or fewer rounds.[citation needed]
Russia
Russian laws on weapons treat AR-15 rifles as any other rifle. In general, semi-auto only versions with magazine capacity not exceeding 10 rounds are legal for civilians to own, provided that a special “rifled firearm license” is acquired by that individual.[citation needed]
Sweden
The AR-15, like all other semi-automatic rifles, is legal for individuals who need one for competitive use (IPSC rifle or 3-gun matches). A valid competition license is required, and all weapons are registered with the police. The AR-15 is not allowed for hunting use.[citation needed]
South Africa
The AR-15 like any other semi-automatic long arm in South Africa, is legal for anyone who holds any of the following licenses:
Licence to possess firearm for dedicated hunting and dedicated sports-shooting
Licence to possess firearm for business purposes
Licence to possess restricted firearm for self-defence
While not prohibited, common citizens can only own semi-automatic AR-15s if they are members of a hunting or target club, and possess dedicated sport person or dedicated hunter status granted by organisations accredited by the South African Police Service(SAPS).[38][39] Other licenses allowing the possession of semi-automatic rifles are only available to people who require their use in the conduct of their business (e.g. security personnel), and citizens who can convincingly prove to the Registrar that non-restricted firearms are not sufficient to provide protection. The latter requires a specific motivation for the need of a restricted firearm for self-defence[38] and have been granted to rhino farmers.[40][41][42]
United Kingdom
As with all semi-automatic, centerfire rifles, AR-15s are classed as a Section 5 weapon (Prohibited), i.e., a person must provide an exceptional reason and gain permission from the Home Secretary, making ownership all but impossible for a private citizen. However, centerfire AR-15s in a manually operated straight pull configuration or semi-automatic AR-15s that are chambered to fire a .22 rimfire cartridge are legal and can be held on a standard Section 1 Firearms Certificate. There are no restrictions on assault weaponfeatures in the UK, and no restrictions on magazine capacity. There are a number of UK manufacturers of “straight-pull” AR-15 variants. Southern Gun Company has tried to introduce a 9mm “self-ejecting” variant for gallery rifle shooting nicknamed the “Unicorn” but, despite numerous units being sold on the understanding that the rifle was a compliant Section 1 firearm, the rifles were seized and subjected to stringent testing by the UK Forensic Science Service (FSS). A small number of pre-production models were found to be non-compliant with section 1 status. However, later models were deemed Section 1 compliant and were returned to their owners.[citation needed]
United States
At the federal level, AR-15s are legal and considered the same as any other rifle.
During the period 1994–2004, variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an accessory feature under the ban and was also subject to restrictions. Some rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with the restricted features, as well as the accompanying full capacity magazines, were stamped “Restricted Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only”. The restrictions only applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect. It was legal to own, sell, or buy any gun built before 1994. Hundreds of thousands of pre-ban ARs were sold during the ban as well as new guns redesigned to be legal.
Since the expiration of the Federal AWB in September 2004,[43] these features became legal in most states.[44] Also, the manufacture and sale of formerly-restricted rifles has resumed.
Six states, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Connecticut, heavily regulate possession of AR-15 type rifles either by the restriction of certain features or outright bans of certain manufacturers’ models. California residents may own certain AR-15 type rifles, but they are required to have a fixed magazine not exceeding 10 rounds. Massachusetts and New Jersey have essentially continued following the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban criteria on numerous semiautomatic rifles. New York, Maryland, and Connecticut enacted a ban on sales of AR-15 (and other types of firearms) in response to the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Massacre. These various state laws have been heavily criticized by many pro-gun organizations.
Under U.S. firearms laws, the lower receiver of the AR-15 is considered a firearm and is subject to purchasing restrictions. The AR-15 upper receiver assembly is considered a part, and may be purchased and mail-ordered in most locations. This is a desirable feature for enthusiasts, who can purchase a number of upper receivers (often in different calibers and barrel lengths) and interchange them with the same lower receiver.
Adding a shoulder stock to an AR-15 with a barrel shorter than 16″ would constitute constructing a Short-Barreled Rifle (SBR) under NFA rules, and thus is subject to a $200 tax stamp. The receiver, or serial-numbered part, is still considered a firearm, but a receiver has unique status assigned by the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended, and by ATF regulations or rulings. ATF ruling July 7, 2009 illustrates a receiver’s unique legal status even if the receiver can only be made into a rifle.[45] Under the United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company Supreme Court ruling, an individual can possess parts for both the rifle and pistol so long as they are not assembled improperly.[46] This ruling has been further clarified by the ATF Director in a ruling (ATF Ruling 2011-4[47]) dated July 25, 2011 which restates most of the findings in the Thompson case.
Following the 1992 ruling, the ATF claimed that the finding in United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company only applies to products of Thompson Contender, and not to any other companies’ products.[48] This has changed under ATF ruling 2011–4, which states
A firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they: (a) serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; or (b) convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm.[49] A firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is not made when parts within a kit that were originally designed to be configured as both a pistol and a rifle are assembled or re-assembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., as a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel or barrels of 16 inches or more in length).[49] A firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is not made when a pistol is attached to a part or parts designed to convert the pistol into a rifle with a barrel or barrels of 16 inches or more in length, and the parts are later unassembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., as a pistol).[49] A firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4), is made when a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length, is assembled or produced from a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle.[49] Such a weapon would not be a “pistol” because the weapon was not originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile by one hand.
Furthermore, adding a forward pistol grip to an AR-15 designated as a pistol constitutes manufacture of an AOW (any other weapon).[50] Both of these actions require an approved “Form 1” and payment of a $200 tax prior to the actual construction of the item. Current wait times for approval average 5–8 months, during which time no modifications or construction may be done.
As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5-3.7 million rifles from the AR-15 family in civilian use in the United States.[51][unreliable source?] They are favored for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection, and have become the most popular rifle in the U.S.[52]
The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 banned Colt AR-15 rifles by name in the State of California. California’s assault weapons ban following the Supreme Court of California‘s 2000 decision in Kasler v. Lockyer went further and banned AR-15s made by other manufacturers by name.[53] AR-15-style rifles that are not named specifically by the Roberti-Roos or other restricted lists can be purchased in the state with some major modifications. Since these are not on the various lists of prohibited firearms, their lower receivers (the part that is legally the firearm) are referred to as “Off List Lowers” (OLL). These OLLs are very common in California, and at least several hundred thousand of them have been sold in the state since the ban went into effect.[citation needed]
Reliability
This section may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia’s quality standards, as it is not written in encyclopedia prose, and has no article links. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions.(June 2016)
Early versions of the AR-15 were often considered unreliable due to problems encountered by American soldiers in Vietnam. At least part of the problems were due to the ammunition.[54] The choice of propellant (powder) went through a number of alternatives, starting with IMR 4475 for the Army, and WC 846 for the Air Force. Continued testing of WC 846 (a ball powder) showed problems with fouling and issues with the cyclic rate being too high.[55] Other powders showed problems, as well. The rifles were also issued without any cleaning kits, and many soldiers were not trained to use the M16s when they were first issued.[56]
Malfunctions
With the plethora of manufacturers of complete weapons and aftermarket barrels, there is a potential hazard associated with chamber specifications. Both civilian (SAAMI) specification .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO are available. Though the external dimensions of the two cases are the same and both chambers typically accept both types of ammunition, the firing of military specification ammunition in civilian specification chambers can produce chamber pressures greater than the barrel is designed to handle. Internally the 5.56×45mm case wall is identical to the .223, though the NATO round is typically loaded to produce higher pressure than the .223. The most common malfunction resulting from firing military 5.56×45mm ammunition in a .223 Remington chamber is that the primer can be forced out of the case by chamber pressure, often resulting in the primer becoming lodged somewhere in the action of the rifle. Disassembly of the rifle is often necessary to remove the jammed primer.[57]
A few AR-15 manufacturers incorporate the use of a hybrid chamber specification known as the Wylde chamber. Designed by and named after Bill Wylde of Greenup, Illinois, this chambering was designed to accurately shoot the military ball ammo of the day while still feeding reliably. Coincidentally, it shoots the longer 80 gr bullets commonly used in the sport of Highpower Rifle Competition very well and is one of the preferred chambers for that use. While the Wylde chamber allows for optimal seating depth of 80 grain bullets over .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO, it is capable of accepting both ammunition types. The Wylde chamber is used by many manufacturers who sell “National Match” configuration AR-15 rifle, barrels, and upper receivers. The type of chamber, manufacturer, and rifling twist in inches is typically found stamped into the barrel in front of the front sight assembly.
An additional point of concern in the design is the inertial firing pin. A lightweight firing pin rides in a channel inside the bolt unrestrained. When the bolt locks forward during loading, the firing pin typically rides forward and impacts the primer of the chambered round. In military specification ammunition and quality civilian ammunition, this is not normally enough to fire the round and only leaves a small “ding” on the primer. With more sensitive primers or improperly seated primers, this can cause a slamfire during loading.[58]Another type of malfunction, hammer follow, is also a potential problem for AR type rifles.
In addition, the AR-15 lower receiver can be used as a trigger mechanism for single shot or side-fed upper receivers for a variety of larger calibers, including .50 BMG[59] and crossbow[60] bolts.
Story 2: It is Jobs, The Economy and National Security — Stopping and Reversing The 30-50 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of The United States — Hillary Reads Prepared Speech On Economy and Attacks Trump To Small Ohio Audience — Indict Hillary and Vote Trump — Videos
Trump Fires Back at Hillary After She Bashes Him in Economic Speech
Hillary Clinton Columbus Ohio FULL Speech On Economy & Trump 6/21/16
DONALD TRUMP FULL INTERVIEW WITH BILL O’REILLY FOX NEWS (6/20/2016) [MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2016]
DONALD J TRUMP FULL INTERVIEW ON FOX & FRIENDS | FOX NEWS (6/21/2016)
Exclusive : Trump Insider On Lewandowski Firing and Future of Campaign
Story 1: Trump Targets Terrorist Control vs. Clinton and Obama Talk Gun Control — Lying Lunatic Left Losers — Americans Armed Against Gun Grabbing Government Tyrants — Defend The Second Amendment — Videos
Oath of office of the President of the United States
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”[1]
ARTICLE II, SECTION 3, United States Constitution
[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed….
John Lott on gun control: “The background check system itself is basically racist”
John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime
John Stossel -The Gun Violence Myth
Mark Levin discusses the gun control issue with John Lott (audio from 11-30-2015)
Trump threatens to run apart from GOP on gun control
Obama Calls for Assault Weapons Ban, New ‘No Fly, No Buy’ Law
Trump: People using PC terms against us to not report terror
Trump renews calls for Muslim ban, surveillance of mosques
Donald Trump Jr.: Extremists only understand force
Obama Criticises Donald Trump Over His Calls To Ban Muslims From US!!!!
CIA Director Warns of ISIS Using Refugee Streams to Move Operatives
Ben Shapiro: The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority
CIA DIRECTOR TESTIFIES AT SENATE HEARING ON NATIONAL SECURITY
Obama goes on tirade against Trump over ‘radical Isl…
Former intel chair rips Pres. Obama’s anti-Trump speech
The 2nd Amendment Explained
Donald Trump Rally Speech 6/15/16: Atlanta, GA: Trump Blasts Hillary
Second Amendment of United States Constitution
Trump vs. Clinton: Two views on Orlando terror
Paul Ryan Interview Bill O’Reilly Factor Fox News Regarding Donald Trump
FULL: Donald Trump Orlando Terrorism Speech 6/13/16
LGBT Nightclub Orlando Trump ISLAMIC terrorism VS Obama Clinton HomeGrown Hate CRIME
Background Checks? Shooter Had Them in Spades
Why restrict ‘good’ gun owners, resident asks President Obama at town hall
Gunning For Hillary – Trump Says Clinton Will Abolish 2nd Amendment – Fox & Friends
Hillary Clinton on Second Amendment Gun Rights – June 5, 2016 – ABC This Week
The Clintons Are Coming For Your Guns
Hillary Clinton, If President, Vows To ‘Get Those Guns’ Out Of People’s Hands
Hillary Clinton Outlines Plan to Abolish the Second Amendment
Ginny Simone Reporting | S7 E1: “Obama: Our Biggest Threat To National Security”
Judge Napolitano: Obama Doesn’t Believe in the 2nd Amendment
Judge Napolitano Reacts to NY Times Criticism “Either We Have a 2nd Amendment or We Don’t”
Barack Obama On 2nd Amendment Rights
Trump: We need strong surveillance, we need intelligence
AK47 versus M16 – R. Lee Ermey
EDUCATE YOURSELF ~ Semi-Auto Firearms vs Fully-Automatic Firearms
The Truth About AK-47 Firepower
Lock n’ Load with R. Lee Ermey – Machine Guns
MG42 Machine Gun – “Hitler’s Buzz Saw”
CIA chief: IS working to send operatives to the West
CIA Director John Brennan will tell Congress on Thursday that Islamic State militants are training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks on the West and will rely more on guerrilla-style tactics to compensate for their territorial losses.
CIA Director John Brennan will tell Congress on Thursday that Islamic State militants are training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks on the West and will rely more on guerrilla-style tactics to compensate for their territorial losses.
In remarks prepared for the Senate Intelligence Committee, Brennan says IS has been working to build an apparatus to direct and inspire attacks against its foreign enemies, as in the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels — ones the CIA believes were directed by IS leaders.
“ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West,” Brennan said, using another acronym for the group. He said IS probably is working to smuggle them into countries, perhaps among refugee flows or through legitimate means of travel.
Brennan also noted the group’s call for followers to conduct so-called lone-wolf attacks in their home countries. He called last week’s attack in Orlando a “heinous act of wanton violence” and an “assault on the values of openness and tolerance” that define the United States as a nation.
He said IS is gradually cultivating its various branches into an interconnected network. The branch in Libya is likely the most advanced and most dangerous, but IS is trying to increase its influence in Africa, he said. The IS branch in the Sinai has become the “most active and capable terrorist group in Egypt,” attacking the Egyptian military and government targets in addition to foreigners and tourists, such as the downing of a Russian passenger jet last October.
Other branches have struggled to gain traction, he says. “The Yemen branch, for instance, has been riven with factionalism. And the Afghanistan-Pakistan branch has struggled to maintain its cohesion, in part because of competition with the Taliban.”
He called IS a “formidable adversary,” but said the U.S.-led coalition has made progress combatting the group, which has had to surrender large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria and has lost some of its leaders in airstrikes. IS has struggled to replenish its ranks of fighters, Brennan said, because fewer of them are traveling to Syria and others have defected.
“The group appears to be a long way from realizing the vision that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi laid out when he declared the caliphate two years ago in Mosul,” Iraq, Brennan said.
He said the group’s ability to raise money has also been curtailed, although the group still continues to generate at least tens of millions of dollars in revenue each month, mostly from taxation and from sales of crude oil.
“Unfortunately, despite all our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach,” he said.
“In fact, as the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda.”
Story 1: Islamic State: Come or Kill — Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadi Targets and Kills 49 And Wounds 53 in Gay Club in Orlando, Florida — Laying Lunatic Left Blames Guns and American People — Home Grown Eugenics Racist Terrorist Organizations Planned Parenthood and Other Abortion Factories Will Kill About 3,000 Babies in The Womb Today — Guns Are Not The Problem — The Political Elitist Establishment Is The Problem — Importing Terrorists With Open Borders — Stand Up and Preserve, Protect and Defend The U.S. Constitution — Videos
Orlando Shooting | Video From Inside Pulse Nightclub
Faces of the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting victims
ORLANDO SHOOTING EYEWITNESSES at Florida Pulse Nightclub
Obama: Orlando Shooting a ‘Horrific Massacre’
FULL Fantastic Donald J. Trump Interview With Bill O’Reilly – 6/13/2016 – Must See!
Trump Criticizes Clinton After Orlando Shooting
Donald Trump Press Conference on American Safety after Orlando Florida incident
Obama Addresses Nation On The Orlando Mass Shooting
Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding Terrorist Attack in Orlando and Calls for Obama to Resign
Relatives and friends wait for news of Orlando shooting victims
Donald Trump On Orlando Shooting ‘We Need Much Better Intelligence’
Omar Mateen, Democrat, kills 50 at Orlando gay club!!!!
Donald Trump responds to LGBT Night Club Shooting Orlando Florida, Trump calls to ban muslims
Pulse Night Club Mass Shooting Orlando, FL June 2016
AJ Show (2nd HOUR VIDEO Commercial Free) Sunday 6/12/16: Orlando Nightclub Shooting Explained
Los Angeles: Pride attendees react to Orlando shooting
Gays Must Die Says Speaker At Orlando Mosque – WFTV 9 Orlando Report
What It’s Like To Be Gay Under ISIS Rule
Dr Zakir Naik – Why is Homosexuality condemned in Islam?
The president noted the man police have identified as the gunman, Omar S. Mateen, purchased a gun legally and was inspired by extremist information disseminated over the internet. Mr. Mateen pledged allegiance to Islamic State “at the last minute,” Mr. Obama said.
He added: “Countering this extremist ideology is increasingly going to be just as important as making sure that we are disrupting more extensive plots engineered from the outside.”
Meanwhile, investigators have found that Mr. Mateen previously visited Walt Disney Worldwhile searching for targets, according to two officials briefed on the probe. They added they don’t believe he examined the amusement park in the hours immediately before the nightclub shooting—and would not say which Disney World property was scouted.
In his Oval Office remarks, Mr. Obama also urged people considering how to respond to the attacks to avoid an “either/or” debate about terrorism or gun control and instead to consider addressing both.
The rampage has divided the two presumptive major-party presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton has called for an assault-weapons ban, while Donald Trump said American Muslims must be better scrutinized for signs of radicalization and that Muslim immigration should be stopped.
Witness: Omar Mateen drank alone at Pulse before attack
By Gal Tziperman Lotan , Paul Brinkmann and Rene StutzmanContact Reporters Staff Writers
t least four regular customers at the Orlando gay nightclub where a gunman killed 49 people said Monday that they had seen Omar Mateen there before.
“Sometimes he would go over in the corner and sit and drink by himself, and other times he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent,” Ty Smith said.
More details emerged Monday about the 29-year-old gunman and what he did in the days leading up to the massacre, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
He was at Walt Disney World in April, said a Disney manager who requested anonymity.
FBI Director James Comey said his agency was trying to nail down that report and the possibility that Mateen was scouting the amusement park as a potential target, the Associated Press reported.
Smith told the Orlando Sentinel that he saw Mateen inside at least a dozen times.
“We didn’t really talk to him a lot, but I remember him saying things about his dad at times,” Smith said. “He told us he had a wife and child.”
When asked about those sightings,Orlando Police Chief John Mina said he had no information.
Another Pulse regular, Kevin West, told the Los Angeles Times that Mateen messaged him on and off for a year using a gay chat app.
They had never met, West said, but he watched as Mateen entered the club about 1 a.m. Sunday, an hour before the shooting began.
Mateen was the security guard, born in New Hyde Park, NY., who walked into the club about 2 a.m. Sunday with a semiautomatic pistol and an assault rifle. While dance music blared, he opened fire, killing 49 people and injuring 53.
He died three hours later in a shootout with the Orlando Police Department SWAT team when it stormed the building.
During the standoff, Mateen proclaimed his allegiance to the Islamic State and his support for the Muslim brothers who set off two bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon, police said.
Late Monday came word that Mateen’s wife, Noor Zahi Salman, was not cooperating with authorities, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Investigators want to ask if she knew about his plans in advance or helped him scout out targets.
The official said they have talked extensively with Mateen’s ex-wife, Sitora Yusufiy, who told reporters Sunday that the gunman was bi-polar and sometimes violent.
Mateen bought the weapons he used — a 9-mm semiautomatic pistol and .223-caliber assault rifle — at St. Lucie Shooting Center a few days before the massacre. Owner Edward Henson on Monday said he “vaguely” remembered him.
“He’s a nobody,” said Henson. “He’s a customer. He came and purchased his guns, and he left.”
Although the FBI investigated Mateen for possible connections to Muslim terrorists in 2013 and 2014, they closed those cases, concluding he was not a threat, Comey said.
Nothing in Mateen’s background prohibited him from legally buying those guns, and the head of the state agency that oversees gun permits in Florida told reporters Monday that the system worked the way it was designed, The News Service of Florida reported.
Mateen applied for a state security guard license, the type that allows the holder to carry a firearm, and he got one, said Adam Putnam, state agriculture commissioner. Mateen was a U.S. citizen, had no criminal record and passed a psychological test.
He was eligible to buy as many guns as he liked because he was not a convicted felon, and was not facing a felony charge or a misdemeanor domestic violence charge. He was not a drug abuser, a fugitive, the subject of a domestic violence injunction, someone who was in the country illegally, someone who had been dishonorably discharged from the military or someone who had been found by a judge to be mentally incompetent.
“You cannot be deprived of rights because of an accusation,” said Eileen Rieg, a former gun shop owner in Orlando who now operates a security guard training company. She said she was troubled that the FBI had not earlier found enough evidence to make an arrest.
More details emerged Monday, too, about Maheen’s background, much of it related to law enforcement.
When he was 19, Mateen was injured when a St. Lucie County Sheriff’s deputy lost control of his cruiser while racing to the scene of an automobile crash, according to a report.
Mateen was a passenger in the patrol car, taking part in a citizen ride-along, according to Sheriff’s Office spokesman Bryan Beaty.
In 2006 he worked at a state prison — Martin Correctional Institution in Indiantown — for six months, according to Florida Department of Corrections.
That same year, he earned an associate’s degree in criminal justice from Indian River Community College, according to school spokesman Robert Lane. That’s a degree required to become a law enforcement officer in Florida.
In 2007, he was hired by G4S, a private security firm based in Jupiter. His assignment at the time of his death: working as a security guard at a gated retirement community in South Florida, the company reported.
Before that, G4S assigned him, for a time, to the St. Lucie County Courthouse in Fort Pierce, a gig that ended in 2013, according to court Administrator Thomas Genung.
Cord Cedeno and Chris Callen are other Pulse customers who told the Sentinel they had seen Mateen in the nightclub.
Callen said he had witnessed violent outbursts by Mateen.
“It was definitely him. He’d come in for years, and people knew him,” Cedeno said.
Staffers Lauren Ritchie, David Fleshler, Elyssa Cherney, David Harris and Brian Bennett contributed to this report. glotan@tribpub.com or 407-420-5774,gstutzman@tribpub.com or 407-650-6394
Orlando shooter was “cool and calm” at the end
At about 5 a.m. on Sunday, Omar Mateen was in the bathroom of Pulse nightclub in Orlando holding several hostages, the city’s top cop said.He had been making phone calls and spoken with hostage negotiators, seeming all the while to be “cool and calm,” said Orlando Police chief John Mina at a press conference Monday giving updates on the Orlando mass shooting that left 49 people dead, in addition to Mateen.Mina said it was then that he made the decision to send in the SWAT team.”We believed further loss of life was imminent” based on what Mateen was telling people, Mina said.As the country holds vigils for the dozens of the victims, questions about the 29-year-old shooter and the police decision to storm the club known for tolerance for all people are only beginning to find answers.
Mina said at first the SWAT team attempted to breach a wall of the club with an explosive, but didn’t succeed in fully knocking it down. So they sent in an armored vehicle to finish the job, rescued dozens of hostages, and engaged in a ferocious shootuout with Mateen.
The Pulse nightclub – which describes itself as Orlando’s hottest gay bar — had been hosting a Latin night. Mateen called 911 during his nearly three-hour, well-armed standoff inside the club and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS.)
While ISIS took credit for the attack, investigators have so far uncovered no clear links between the shooter and its Syria-based terrorist administrators.
“So far, we see no indication that this was a plot directed from outside the United States and we see no indication that he was part of any kind of network,” Comey told reporters.
The intelligence community, Comey said, is “highly confident that this killer was radicalized at least in part through the Internet.”
PlayVIDEO
FBI Director James Comey: We interviewed Orlando shooter Omar Mateen twice
Investigators have already seized electronics from the suspect’s residence, including a laptop computer, a Kindle and cell phones, a law enforcement source told CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton.
The electronic devices are being analyzed at the FBI lab in Quantico, Va., with the highest priority being what he was looking at on the Internet and who he was communicating with just prior to the attack. The source said that investigation indicates that the shooter heavily used the Internet and had a social media presence.
The source said the shooter left a footprint and doesn’t appear to have deleted files or scrubbed anything. The source noted this was different from the San Bernardino terrorists who left no footprints. His cell phone is posing noencryption issues as San Bernardino.
A law enforcement source said that the shooting suspect legally purchased recently the two weapons used in the attack at the shooting center in Port St. Lucie near his Fort Pierce home. He had a Glock 17 handgun purchased on June 5, a Sigsauer MCX assault rifle purchased on June 4 on his person during the shootout, and investigators later found a .38-caliber weapon in his vehicle.
Orlando shooting survivor: I can still hear everybody yelling, gunshots firing
The shooter had been contacted by U.S. law enforcement at least twice in recent years. He had traveled to Saudi Arabia at least twice – once in 2011 and again in 2012 – as part of a religious pilgrimage.
Mateen surfaced on the FBI’s radar in 2013, when coworkers said he’d made inflammatory remarks about terrorist ties.
“Mateen was interviewed twice,” said the FBI’s Ron Hopper, who is leading the investigation into the Orlando attack. “Ultimately we were unable to verify the substance of his comments and the investigation was closed.”
In 2014 he came to the FBI’s attention again, this time because of contact he had with Moner Abu-Salha, the first known American suicide bomber in Syria. But once again, Mateen was cleared of any wrongdoing
He was not on a current terror watchlist, a U.S. intelligence source tells CBS News’ Len Tepper. He was entered into a terrorist screening database during the time the FBI was questioning him, but he was removed when the FBI closed the investigation, Tepper reports.
Despite those two investigations, Mateen was not on any list that prevented him from purchasing a weapon.
Florida Governor Rick Scott many of the people who died in the Orlando gay bar were from Puerto Rico. So far, 48 of the 49 victims have been identified.
The Mexican Foreign Ministry said Monday that at least three of its country’s citizens were killed as well.
Tales of heroism emerge from Orlando mass shooting
Josh McGill and friend Ashley Summers fled the club and lost track of one another. McGill found shelter behind a car.
“I was about to run for it, to the safe zone,” McGill said. “And I hear someone kind of like mumbling, ‘Help! Help!'”
A few feet away, 27-year-old Rodney Sumter Jr. lay wounded and bleeding, shot in each arm and once in the back.
“I only saw the one bullet at first, and I was like, ‘We need to stop the bleeding.’ And he’s like, ‘Okay.’ So I took my shirt off and I tied it around as tight as I could and then I saw his other arm had been shot. So I took his shirt off, tied it around that one,” McGill recounted.
The two hobbled their way to police at the scene.
“So the police officer turned to me and said, ‘Okay, this is what the deal is. You’re going to lay down in the back of that cop car and he’s going to lay on top of you, and I want you to bear hug him and try to keep all the pressure on him as you can.’ So I did,” McGill said. “And they were like ‘Also, like keep him conscious.'”
FBI: ORLANDO GUNMAN HAD STRONG INDICATIONS OF RADICALIZATION
BY ERIC TUCKER AND JACK GILLUM
The gunman at the Orlando gay nightclub had “strong indications of radicalization” and was likely inspired by foreign terrorist organizations, the FBI director said Monday.
James Comey also said the man, who has been identified as 29-year-old Omar Mateen, spoke with a 911 operator three times during the deadly event. At one point, Comey said, he pledged loyalty on the call to the head of the Islamic State group.
Comey’s remarks offered further detail on the shootings that left 49 victims dead and more than 50 hurt, making it the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Mateen died in a gun battle with police.
President Barack Obama said Monday the killer was inspired by extremist information over the internet, calling it an apparent example of the “homegrown extremism” that U.S. officials have been worrying about for years.
Mateen had twice come to the FBI’s attention before Sunday’s shooting, the FBI said. It investigated him for 10 months, beginning in May 2013, because he had made “inflammatory and contradictory” statements about ties to terrorist groups that caught his coworkers’ attention.
Mateen was working at the time as a contract security guard at a local courthouse. He has held a Florida license to be an armed security officer since at least 2011, state records show.
The FBI director said that Mateen at the time claimed family connections to al-Qaida and said he was a member of Hezbollah, which Comey said “is a Shia terrorist organization that is a bitter enemy of the so-called Islamic State.”
Mateen had also told coworkers “he hoped that law enforcement would raid his apartment and assault his wife and child so that he could martyr himself,” Comey said.
The FBI’s Miami field office opened a preliminary investigation to determine whether Mateen was “possibly a terrorist.” The FBI began introducing him to confidential sources, following him, reviewing some details of his communications and running him through government databases looking for ties to terrorism.
Comey said Mateen admitted making the statements reported by his coworkers, but explained that he did it in anger because he thought they were discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim, Comey said.
Agents closed the first investigation in early 2014, but Mateen’s name came up in a separate FBI investigation a few months later, in July 2014.
This time, the FBI was investigating Moner Mohammad Abusalha, a Florida man who blew himself up in a suicide attack in Syria on behalf of the al-Qaida affiliated Nusra Front.
The FBI found Mateen and the man had attended the same mosque and knew each other casually. “But the investigation turned up no ties of any consequence between the two of them,” Comey said.
Comey said that one witness interviewed during the investigation into Abusalha brought up Mateen’s name when asked if the witness knew of anyone “who might be radicalizing.”
The witness said he worried about Mateen because he mentioned videos of Anwar al-Alwaki, an al-Qaida leader killed in 2011 by a U.S. drone strike. But the witness said his concerns had diminished after Mateen got married, had a child and got a job as a security guard.
Comey said that FBI agents interviewed Mateen again during the investigation, but found no “significant contacts with the suicide bomber for Al-Nusra” and moved on.
Three handwritten copies of a five-page Arabic document were found by the FBI after the September 11 attack: one in a car used by the hijackers and left outside Dulles International Airport, one in a piece of Mohammad Atta’s luggage that, by accident, did not get on the plane from Logan Airport, one in the wreckage of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Only a part of this document—pages two through five—is publicly available; it was posted on the FBI Web site on September 28, 2001.1 In view of the number of copies found, it is reasonable to assume that there were other copies in the luggage of the other hijackers. If so, it is unlikely that many of the hijackers did not know the suicidal nature of their mission, as some commentators have argued. Since one of the three copies was found in Mohammad Atta’s luggage, it also seems unlikely that the hijackers were trying, by leaving copies of the documents behind, to mislead the investigators who would retrace their steps after the event.2
We don’t know who wrote this document. From everything in it, the author seems to have been an organizer of the attacks. But the text contains a valuable record of the ideas that the hijackers would have been expected to accept. One of its underlying assumptions is that all its intended readers were going to die. It seems clearly intended for the eyes of the hijackers and no one else, and reads as if it were written to stiffen their resolve. One would expect each person to have studied his copy very carefully beforehand, reading it over many times before the mission.
The document is in effect an exacting guide for achieving the unity of body and spirit necessary for success. It is not a training manual of procedures, applicable to different situations; most of the sentences seem tailored to the particulars of the Septem- ber 11 operation. There are no technical instructions or operational instructions in the four pages, only a fairly obvious list of practical precautions:
[Check] the suitcase, the clothes, the knife, your tools, your ticket, …your passport, all your papers. Inspect your weapon before you leave…. Tighten your clothes well as you wear them. This is the way of the righteous predecessors, may God’s blessings be upon them. They tightened their clothes as they wore them prior to battle. And tighten your shoes well, and wear socks that hold in the shoes and do not come out of them.
In fact, it seems that an effort has been made to eliminate clues about the intended target should the document happen to fall into the wrong hands before the raid was carried out. No mention of the target is made throughout the document, and letters substitute for names or places. For example, “M” is used for matar, or airport, and “T” is used for ta’irah, or plane.
Page two begins abruptly, without the traditional basmallah, or invocation…
Religious Foundations of the Last Instructions of 9/11
Hans G. Kippenberg
The Writing and Its Authenticity
On September 28, 2001, the FBI distributed four pages of an Arabic document at a press conference and also published them on its website.1 The headline was spectacular: “Hijacking Letter Found at Three Locations.” Beneath the four pages of Arabic text, the website displayed three photos, surrounded by information about the hijackers, their flights, and the places where the documents were found. Mohamed Atta is connected with American Airlines #11 that crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:45 a.m.; underneath his photo appears: “Found in Atta’s suitcase.” The next photo shows Nawaf al-Hazmi; the text connects him with American Airlines #77, which crashed at 9:39 a.m. into the Pentagon, and the document is said to be “Found in Vehicle at Dulles International Airport.” Finally, a photo of the crash site of United Airlines #93 at Stony Creek Township is accompanied by the remark, “Found at Crime Scene.”
Figure 1. The Spiritual Manual as it was published by the FBI on its website on September 28, 2001.
Mohamed Atta, who navigated the first plane into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, originated his journey on September 11 in Portland, Maine, and changed planes in Boston. One piece of his luggage did not make it onto the plane from Logan Airport, whether by chance or not we do not know. When his suitcase was found, two documents were discovered. In a last will, written in English and laid down in 1996, Atta prescribed how his body should be handled after his death in order to prevent pollution. Much more spectacular is the handwritten Arabic text published by the FBI; English extracts were distributed during a FBI press conference on September 28. The text anticipates the stages of the attack and prescribes for each stage recitations of the Quran, prayers, and rituals. The British journal The Observerpublished an English translation of the four pages on September 30.2 An improved translation was later made by Hassan Mneimneh for The New York Review of Books.3
On September 28, The Washington Post published a leading article on the discovery, “In Hijacker’s Bags, a Call to Planning, Prayer and Death.” The article spoke about five pages instead of four, and later the same issue (p. A18) published two extracts in English:
In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate … In the name of God, of myself and of my family … I pray to you God to forgive me from all my sins, to allow me to glorify you in every possible way.
Remember the battle of the prophet … against the infidels, as he went on building the Islamic state.
Since neither extract is found in the four pages previously published, the authenticity of both is disputed. The second quotation perfectly fits the manual, since it conceives of the attacks in terms of the Prophet Muhammad’sghazwa when the Islamic polity was established in Medina. But the first of the sentences elicited serious doubts about its authenticity. What pious Muslim would dare to say: “In the name of God, of myself and of my family”? Since the Arabic original of this text has never been published, a mistranslation cannot be ruled out. It may have its roots in “family” (usra), referring not to kinship but to a religious brotherhood, small section of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The writing found in Mohamed Atta’s bag was not the only one. A second copy was found in the car used by Nawaf al-Hazmi and left at Dulles International Airport. CBS News published an English translation of it on October 1, 2001.4 It likewise consists of four pages, and the translation accords widely with that of Mohamed Atta’s text. Yet all scans available on the Internet reproduce one original, not two. Perhaps the CBS journalist misunderstood the law enforcement agents when they distributed copies during the press conference. The remnants of a third copy have not been published.
The document and all information about it derive from U.S. Secret Service sources—a fact that has given rise to speculations about a forgery. It is worthwhile to note, therefore, that independent evidence exists about the manual. This evidence derives from Yosri Fouda, reporter for Al Jazeera, who under conspiratorial circumstances met Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and Ramzi bin al-Shibh (Binalshibh) in Karachi.5 Binal-Shibh was the intermediary between the Hamburg group and the chief of the military committee of al-Qaeda, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. Fouda had an extensive interview with both men. He was told how the attacks were prepared. Bin al-Shibh showed him a suitcase with “souvenirs” from his stay in Hamburg, among them a booklet containing handwritten notes by Mohamed Atta in the margin. Since the handwriting differed from the document published by the FBI, bin al-Shibh explained to Fouda that “The Manual for a Raid” in Atta’s luggage had been written by Abdul Aziz al-Umari, who was highly respected in the group for his profound knowledge of Islam and his beautiful handwriting.6A video produced by the media outlet of al-Qaeda confirms this information. Osama bin Laden praised “Sheikh Abu al-‘Abbas, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-‘Umari al-Zahrani: an example for contemporary scholars and a vestige of the pious predecessors. The active scholar. He protected knowledge from the employ of the tyrants and prevented this knowledge from captivity to their salaries.”7
Though the find was spectacular, the manual had no major impact on the examination of the events and was widely ignored. What are the reasons for that? Immediately after its release, the well-known Middle East scholar Robert Fisk drew attention to statements in the document he found suspicious in the mouth of a Muslim. “What Muslim would write: ‘The time of fun and waste is gone’?” he asked in The Independent on September 29, 2001. As additional evidence he cited the expressions “100 per cent” and “optimistic,” too modern for Arabic theological language. Fisk, who at that time had seen only the English translation, drew a cautious conclusion about a possible Christian translator: “The translation, as it stands, suggests an almost Christian view of what the hijackers might have felt.”8
Fisk’s remark is ambiguous, since it refers to the translation. It gained additional weight in conjunction with conspiracy theories that started circulating soon after the events. Michael Barkun, who has studied the American culture of conspiracy for many years, pointed to certain American groups that did not attribute the attacks to Osama bin Laden and his organization but to the interests of the U.S. government in restricting the freedom of the citizens under the pretext of counterterrorism.9 Other conspiracy theories originated outside the United States. Rumors swept across the Muslim world that the attacks were perpetrated by the Secret Service of Israel and that four thousand Jews who normally worked in the WTC did not show up for work on September 11 because they had been tipped off by Mossad.10
Forgery is a common phenomenon in the history of religions. Well-known documents are ascribed to authorities who cannot have written them. Only after careful investigation and discussion can the suspicion of forgery become a plausible thesis. In the case of our document, no serious attempts have been made to prove it a forgery. It is an unfounded suggestion. Instead, despite all the doubts and uncertainties, qualified attempts have been made to take the document seriously. Hassan Mneimneh und Kanan Makiya published in January 2002, in The New York Review of Books, an examination of the “Manual for a ‘Raid,’” followed by the translation mentioned above.11 The authors explained the contents of the document in terms of Islamic literature, theology, theology, and history. In December 2002, the Martin Marty Center of the University of Chicago, a research institution for the study of religions, started on its website a debate about the document. Bruce Lincoln, following up on Mneimneh and Makiya, attempted to specify the worldview of the perpetrators by pointing to the Egyptian intellectual Sayyid Qutb, a spokesman for the militant wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s. Sayyid Qutb denounced the westernization of Egypt’s culture and society as a new era of ignorance (jahiliyya). He called upon the faithful Muslim to do the same as the Prophet had once done: to fight to overthrow the power of paganism along with a few dedicated men. Sayyid Qutb paid for his subversive version of Islam with his life and was executed by the Egyptian government in 1966.12 Bruce Lawrence and Mark Juergensmeyer also joined the debate on the Chicago website and by and large supported Lincoln’s approach.13 In 2006 David Cook published an extensive investigation of the document in the light of Islamic apocalypticism and jihad and added at the end a new English translation of “The Last Night,” as he called the document.14 We owe a comprehensive analysis of the attack to Stephen Holmes, who put together all bits and pieces of evidence relating to the perpetrators and the organization of the attack.15 A critical edition, translation, and analysis of the Arabic text was published in 2006.16
The more the document has been studied, the more it has turned out to be representative of a specific current in contemporary Islamic activism and the suspicion of forgery has lost credibility. The most recent and extensive critical reconstruction of 9/11 by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan integrated the manual and its ritual instructions into the series of events preceding the attack. Yet, astonishingly, something else has become utterly incomprehensible.
Seventeen days after the attacks, the FBI released four pages of Arabic script that had also been found in Atta’s bag … Neither the 9/11 Commission Report nor a Commission staff document … even mentions the find … The omission is extraordinary, unconscionable, for the telltale pages were important evidence.17
The Commission Report reconstructs with extreme precision the chain of events preceding the attack but ignores the manual and even seems intentionally to contradict its relevance to the attacks. The manual required that during the last night, all fighters should perform rituals, recitations, and prayers. According to the Commission Report, however, Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al-Umari that night pursued “ordinary activities: making ATM withdrawals, eating pizza, and shopping at a convenience store.”18 As we will see, this depiction was due to a political decision to portray the attackers as people devoid of any religious faith.
Muslims are the fastest-growing religious group in the world. The growth and regional migration of Muslims, combined with the ongoing impact of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other extremist groups that commit acts of violence in the name of Islam, have brought Muslims and the Islamic faith to the forefront of the political debate in many countries. Yet many facts about Muslims are not well known in some of these places, and most Americans – who live in a country with a relatively small Muslim population – say they know little or nothing about Islam.
Here are answers to some key questions about Muslims, compiled from several Pew Research Center reports published in recent years:
How many Muslims are there? Where do they live?
There were 1.6 billion Muslims in the world as of 2010 – roughly 23% of the global population – according to a Pew Research Center estimate. But while Islam is currently the world’s second-largest religion (after Christianity), it is the fastest-growing major religion. Indeed, if current demographic trends continue, the number of Muslims is expected to exceed the number of Christians by the end of this century.
Although many countries in the Middle East-North Africa region, where the religion originated in the seventh century, are heavily Muslim, the region is home to only about 20% of the world’s Muslims. A majority of the Muslims globally (62%) live in the Asia-Pacific region, including large populations in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Turkey.
Indonesia is currently the country with the world’s single largest Muslim population, but Pew Research Center projects that India will have that distinction by the year 2050 (while remaining a majority Hindu country), with more than 300 million Muslims.
According to our best estimate, Muslims make up just less than 1% of the U.S. adult population. Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study (conducted in English and Spanish) found that 0.9% of U.S. adults identify as Muslims. A 2011 survey of Muslim Americans, which was conducted in English as well as Arabic, Farsi and Urdu, estimated that there were 1.8 million Muslim adults (and 2.75 million Muslims of all ages) in the country. That survey also found that a majority of U.S. Muslims (63%) are immigrants.
Our demographic projections estimate that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country (not including people who say they have no religion).
A recent Pew Research Center report estimated that the Muslim share of immigrants granted permanent residency status (green cards) increased from about 5% in 1992 to roughly 10% in 2012, representing about 100,000 immigrants in that year.
Why is the global Muslim population growing?
There are two major factors behind the rapid projected growth of Islam, and both involve simple demographics. For one, Muslims have more children than members of other religious groups. Around the world, each Muslim woman has an average of 3.1 children, compared with 2.3 for all other groups combined.
Muslims are also the youngest (median age of 23 years old in 2010) of all major religious groups, seven years younger than the median age of non-Muslims. As a result, a larger share of Muslims already are, or will soon be, at the point in their lives when they begin having children. This, combined with high fertility rates, will fuel Muslim population growth.
While it does not change the global population, migration is helping to increase the Muslim population in some regions, including North America and Europe.
What do Muslims around the world believe?
Like any religious group, the religious beliefs and practices of Muslims vary depending on many factors, including where in the world they live. But Muslims around the world arealmost universally united by a belief in one God and the Prophet Muhammad, and the practice of certain religious rituals, such asfasting during Ramadan, is widespread.
In other areas, however, there is less unity. For instance, a Pew Research Center survey of Muslims in 39 countries asked Muslims whether they want sharia law, a legal code based on the Quran and other Islamic scripture, to be the official law of the land in their country. Responses on this question vary widely. Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of sharia law.
How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?
Recent surveys show that most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably. In some countries, considerable portions of the population do not offer an opinion about ISIS, including a majority (62%) of Pakistanis.
Favorable views of ISIS are somewhat higher in Nigeria (14%) than most other nations. Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably (compared with 7% of Nigerian Christians). The Nigerian militant group Boko Haram, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, has sworn allegiance to ISIS.
More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified, including 92% in Indonesia and 91% in Iraq. In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslimssay that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances.
In a few countries, a quarter or more of Muslims say that these acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 40% in the Palestinian territories, 39% in Afghanistan, 29% in Egypt and 26% in Bangladesh.
In many cases, people in countries with large Muslim populations are as concerned as Western nations about the threat of Islamic extremism, and have become increasingly concerned in recent years. About two-thirds of people in Nigeria (68%) and Lebanon (67%) said earlier this year they are very concerned about Islamic extremism in their country, both up significantly since 2013.
What do American Muslims believe?
Our 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.
Living in a religiously pluralistic society, Muslim Americans are more likely than Muslims in many other nations to have many non-Muslim friends. Only about half (48%) of U.S. Muslims say all or most of their close friends are also Muslims, compared with a global median of 95% in the 39 countries we surveyed.
Roughly seven-in-ten U.S. Muslims (69%) say religion is very important in their lives. Virtually all (96%) say they believe in God, nearly two-thirds (65%) report praying at least daily and nearly half (47%) say they attend religious services at least weekly. By all of these traditional measures, Muslims in the U.S. are roughly as religious as U.S. Christians, although they are less religious than Muslims in many other nations.
When it comes to political and social views, Muslims are far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (70%) than the Republican Party (11%) and to say they prefer a bigger government providing more services (68%) over a smaller government providing fewer services (21%). As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007.
What is the difference between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims?
Sunnis and Shias are two subgroups of Islam, just as Catholics and Protestants are two subgroups within Christianity. The Sunni-Shia divide is nearly 1,400 years old, dating back to a dispute over the succession of leadership in the Muslim community following the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632. While the two groups agree on some core tenets of Islam, there are differences in beliefs and practices, and in some cases Sunnis do not consider Shias to be Muslims.
With the exception of a few countries, including Iran (which is majority Shia) as well as Iraq and Lebanon (which are split), most nations with a large number of Muslims have more Sunnis than Shias. In the U.S., 65% identify as Sunnis and 11% as Shias (with the rest identifying with neither group, including some who say they are “just a Muslim”).
How do Americans and Europeans perceive Muslims?
A Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2014 asked Americans to rate members of eight religious groups on a “feeling thermometer” from 0 to 100, where 0 reflects the coldest, most negative possible rating and 100 the warmest, most positive rating. Overall, Americans rated Muslims rather coolly – an average of 40, which was comparable to the average rating they gave atheists (41). Americans view the six other religious groups mentioned in the survey (Jews, Catholics, evangelical Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Mormons) more warmly.
Republicans also are more likely than Democrats to say they are very concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in the world (83% vs. 53%) and in the U.S. (65% vs. 38%), according to a December 2015 survey. That survey also found that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers (68% vs. 30% of Democrats) and that Muslims should be subject to more scrutiny than people of other religions (49% vs. 20%). Overall, most Americans (61%) say Muslims should not be subject to additional scrutiny solely because of their religion, while U.S. adults are closely divided on the question of whether Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence. (Note: This paragraph was updated Dec. 17 to reflect a new survey.)
In spring 2015, we asked residents of some European countries a different question – whether they view Muslims favorably or unfavorably. Perceptions at that time varied across European nations, from a largely favorable view in France (76%) and the United Kingdom (72%) to a less favorable view in Italy (31%) and Poland (30%).
How do Muslims and Westerners perceive each other?
In a 2011 survey, majorities of respondents in a few Western European countries, including 62% in France and 61% in Germany, said that relations between Muslims and Westerners were bad, while about half of Americans (48%) agreed. Similarly, most Muslims in several Muslim-majority nations – including Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan – agreed that relations were bad, although fewer Muslims in Pakistan (45%) and Indonesia (41%) had this view.
The same survey also asked aboutcharacteristics the two groups may associate with one another. Across the seven Muslim-majority countries and territories surveyed, a median of 68% of Muslims said they view Westerners as selfish. Considerable shares also called Westerners other negative adjectives, including violent (median of 66%), greedy (64%) and immoral (61%), while fewer attributed positive characteristics like “respectful of women” (44%), honest (33%) and tolerant (31%) to Westerners.
Westerners’ views of Muslims were more mixed. A median of 50% across four Western European countries, the U.S. and Russia called Muslims violent and a median of 58% called them “fanatical,” but fewer used negative words like greedy, immoral or selfish. A median of just 22% of Westerners said Muslims are respectful of women, but far more said Muslims are honest (median of 51%) and generous (41%).
The Pronk Pops blog is the broadcasting and mass communication of ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, prosperity, truth, virtue and wisdom.
-large-picture.jpg)
e
_Fig_4-17.png)
Pronk Pops 
The Pronk Pops Show 1171, November 8, 2018, — Breaking News– Story 1: Mass Shooting in Thousand Oaks, California, Country and Western Night Club with 12 Killed — Videos — Story 2: If You Cannot Win An Election — Steal It — Florida Fake Votes — Voter Fraud? — Videos — Story 3, Government Dependency Rising — Welfare Generation –Videos
Posted on November 12, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Communications, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Environment, Federal Government, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Freedom of Speech, Government Dependency, Hate Speech, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Independence, Killing, Labor Economics, Law, Life, Lying, Media, Monetary Policy, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Networking, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Uncategorized, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: "horrific" scene inside California bar after mass shooting, 12 Dead, 51.7% Kids in 2017 Lived in Households Getting Govt Assistance, 8 November 2018, America, Articles, Audio, Borderline Bar shooting, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, Fiscal Policy, Florida Recount of Votes Expected, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Government Dependency, Governor Scott, Growth, Gun Control, Hope, Individualism, Knowledge, Lawsuit, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Mass Shooting, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, Prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, Second Amendment, Show Notes, Talk Radio, The Progressive Two Party Tyranny, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 1171, Thomas Sowell, Thousand Oaks Mass Shootings, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Welfare Generation, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1166 October 31, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1165 October 30, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1164 October 29, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1163 October 26, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1162 October 24, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1161 October 23, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1160 October 22, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1159 October 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1158 October 18, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1157 October 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1156 October 15, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1155 October 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1154 October 11, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1153 October 10, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1152 October 5, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1151 October 4, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1150 October 3, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1149, October 1, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1148, September 28, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1147, September 27, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1146, September 25, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1145, September 24, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1144, September 20, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1143, September 19, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1142, September 18, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018
Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018
— Breaking News — Story 1: Mass Shooting in Thousand Oaks, California, Country and Western Night Club with 12 Killed — Videos —
Press conference on Thousand Oaks bar shooting
BREAKING NEWS: Sheriff confirms 12 shot dead in California bar
What we’re learning about gunman in Borderline Bar shooting
Father Remembers Son Who Survived Las Vegas Shooting, Killed In Thousand Oaks | NBC News
VIDEO: Thousand Oaks shooting survivor also survived Las Vegas shooting | ABC7
Special Report: Shooting in Thousand Oaks, California
Witnesses on “utter chaos” and escape from California bar shooting
Sheriff describes “horrific” scene inside California bar after mass shooting
Pictured: An aspiring soldier, two bouncers and multiple students are among the 12 killed after California bar mass shooting
By KEITH GRIFFITH and EMILY CRANE FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 09:51 EST, 8 November 2018 | UPDATED: 12:11 EST, 9 November 2018
Eight of the 12 the victims shot dead in the crowded country music bar in California have now been identified.
Sean Adler, 48; Cody Coffman, 22; Blake Dingman, 23; Jake Dunham, 21; Justin Meek, 23; Daniel Manrique; Kristina Morisette; Telemachus Orfanos, 27; and Noel Sparks were among those killed in the massacre at the Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks on Wednesday night.
Alaina Housley, the 18-year-old niece of ‘Sister, Sister’ actress Tamera Mowry-Housley and her husband Adam Housley, was also killed.
Ventura County Sheriff’s Sergeant Ron Helus, who was first on the scene, was killed after being shot multiple times when he exchanged fire with the 28-year-old gunman, Ian David Long.
Sergeant on Brink of Retirement
Ventura County Sheriff Sgt. Ron Helus was among those killed. He was shot multiple times by the gunman after responding to the first 911 calls and later died in hospital
Ron Helus, 54, was set to retire from the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department next year after 29 years on the job.
He was among the first to respond to calls of a shooting at the Borderline Bar, and was shot multiple times as he and a California Highway Patrol officer exchanged fire with the gunman inside the bar.
Helus was speaking to his wife Karen when he received the call about a mass shooting.
The last thing he said to her was: ‘Hon, I got to go, I love you. I gotta go on a call’.
Devoted Son
Video playing bottom right…
Cody Coffman’s father Jason sobbed as he confirmed that authorities had told him on Thursday that his oldest son had died.
‘Oh Cody, I love you son,’ he said. ‘This is a heart I will never get back.’
He said he spoke to his son just before he went to the bar Wednesday night.
‘The first thing I said was ‘Please don’t drink and drive.’ The last thing I said was ‘Son, I love you’,’ he said.
Cody had plans to go into the military and was speaking with U.S. Army recruiters.
His father Jason had earlier rushed to the bar after hearing news of the shooting and calls to his son’s cellphone went unanswered. He feared the worst when a tracking app on his son’s phone indicated the device was still inside the venue.
Jason said he was alerted to the shooting when several of Cody’s friends started banged on their front door after 1am.
‘Some of his girlfriends got out but they didn’t know where Cody was,’ Jason said.
Barman Who Rushed to Save Others
Justin Meek was identified as one of the slain victims by his family and his former college.
The 23-year-old, who was a recent graduate of California Lutheran University, worked at the bar where he was killed.
Meek is believed to have heroically saved lives as the shooting unfolded, according to university president Chris Kimball.
‘Justin was a criminal justice and criminology major who had a passion for doing what was right,’ Jenn Zimmerman, Cal Lutheran’s veterans coordinator, said in a statement.
‘I’m not shocked he took action to protect the people at Borderline.’
During college, he worked in the school’s veteran resource office and often worked with the Veterans Club to plan events and help veteran students.
Meek also loved singing in choir and took part in the school’s Kingsmen Quartet.
He planned to join the US Coast Guard.
Las Vegas Shooting Survivor
Borderline employee Telemachus Orfanos was also among those confirmed dead. He survived the mass shooting that killed 58 at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas last year
Borderline employee Telemachus Orfanos, 27, was also among those confirmed dead.
In a cruel twist of fate, Orfanos was a survivor of the Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting massacre in Las Vegas last year.
An estimated 50 to 60 survivors of the Las Vegas shooting were at the Borderline Bar on Wednesday – they often met there for mutual support.
Orfanos was an Eagle Scout and served in the Navy.
His social media indicates he attended the local Thousand Oaks High School and Moorepark College.
Niece of Sitcom Actress
Alaina Housley, the 18-year-old niece of actress Tamera Mowry-Housley and her husband Adam Housley, died in the shooting
Actress Tamera Mowry-Housley and her husband Adam Housley (left) issued a statement saying their hearts were broken following her death
‘Sister, Sister’ actress Tamera Mowry-Housley and her husband Adam Housley revealed that their 18-year-old niece had also been killed.
The couple issued a statement, saying: ‘Our hearts are broken’.
‘We just learned that our Alaina was one of the victims of last night’s shooting at Borderline Bar in Thousand Oaks.
‘Alaina was an incredible young woman with so much life ahead of her and we are devastated that her life was cut short in this manner.’
Mowry-Housley posted this tribute to her slain niece on Instagram after the shooting
Her Apple Watch and iPhone showed her location as still inside the bar in the aftermath of the shooting.
Her uncle Adam, who is a former Fox News correspondent, had rushed to the hospital at 3.30am in search of his niece after hearing reports of the shooting.
‘My gut is saying she’s inside the bar, dead. I’m hoping I’m wrong,’ Adam had told the LA Times before her dead was confirmed.
Two of her friends jumped out of a broken window and ran for safety but say they lost Alaina in the mayhem. They are in hospital being treated for major injuries.
Waitress with Bright Smile
Kristina Kaylee Morisette, who worked as the cashier at Borderline Bar and Grill, was also confirmed dead in the shooting
Kristina Kaylee Morisette, who worked at Borderline Bar and Grill, was also confirmed dead in the shooting.
She attended Simi Valley High School.
Morisette was reportedly working the cash register at the front of the bar when the gunman stormed in and began shooting.
‘The worst things happen to the best people,’ a friend wrote on Twitter. She was such a sweet girl and cared for everyone.
Churchgoing College Student
Noel Sparks, a 21-year-old student at Moorpark College, was also confirmed dead
Noel Sparks’ final Snapchat post
Noel Sparks, a 21-year-old student at Moorpark College, was also confirmed dead.
The United Methodist Church in Westlake Village, of which she was a member, posted condolences to her parents on Facebook.
Sparks’ friends had been in tears throughout the day as they desperately searched for her in the aftermath of the shooting.
Her friend Madison Nenkervis posted a tribute to Sparks on Facebook, writing: ‘one of the Victims of the shooting was a dear Church friend of my families and Such a sweet Amazing soul.’
Nenkervis shared Sparks’ chilling final post on Snapchat from shortly before the shooting.
It showed the dance floor at Borderline half empty, with the caption ‘It’s quite [sic] tonight’.
Entrepreneurial Bouncer
A friend places his hand on a photo of Sean Adler during a vigil at the Rivalry Roasters coffee shop on Thursday. Adler had recently launched the business when he was killed
Sean Adler, 48, was working as a bouncer at the Borderline Bar & Grill when he was killed.
He was a wrestling coach who had only recently opened a coffee shop in the local area.
The married father of two had big dreams for Rivalry Roasters, but stuck with his job working the door at Borderline to ensure he’d be able to support his family.
Adler had dreamed of becoming a police officer, and was training with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department last year when a heart attack forced him to reconsider his career path.
He is survived by his wife and two sons, ages 12 and 17.
Motorsports Enthusiast
Blake Dingman, 21, was identified by his girlfriend as a victim of the mass shooting
Blake Dingman, 21, was identified by his girlfriend as a victim of the mass shooting.
‘My sweet Blake… my heart is hurting more than words can say. I cannot believe you’re gone. I am so grateful for our little infinity and all of our deep talks, cuddles, late nights, and adventures,’ she wrote in a tribute.
‘I am so incredibly grateful for every moment we spent together. God brought us together for a reason and I will hold our memories in my heart forever. I love you with all of my heart my sweet boy and my angel.’
Dingman played high school baseball at Hillcrest Christian School in Thousand Oaks.
His Facebook page shows his enthusiasm for motorsports, including monster trucks and racing.
Jake Dunham, 21, was also killed
Loyal Friend
Jake Dunham, 21, was also among those killed in the shooting.
He had gone to the bar to play pool with his friends, his father Ken Dunham told NBC Los Angeles.
‘I keep calling it but there’s no answer,’ Ken said. ‘It just keeps ringing out… he always answers his phone.’
Some published reports said that Dunham was at Borderline with his friend, Blake Dingman, who also was among those killed.
Dunham and Dingham were known to be close friends.
Marine Veteran
Marine veteran Daniel Manrique, 33, was another victim confirmed killed in the shooting
Marine veteran Daniel Manrique, 33, was another victim confirmed killed in the shooting.
‘He had spent his entire adult life, post military service, helping veterans readjust to civilian life and had just recently accepted a position with Team RWB as the Pacific Regional Program Manager,’ family member Gladys Manrique Koscak wrote in a tribute on Facebook.
‘I have no doubt that he died a hero, shielding others from gunshots. He will forever be our hero, son, brother, and the best uncle anybody could ever ask for,’ she said.
Frantic Search for Survivors
A shirtless man and two others carry an injured person out of the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California, on Wednesday night after a gunman opened fire at 11.20pm
A number of parents rushed to the bar and used tracking devices to look up their children’s iPhones and iWatches.
Many of the devices were still located inside the bar as the parents said they hadn’t heard from their loved ones since the shooting happened.
There were roughly 100 people inside the bar when the gunman opened fire.
Many of those inside were students at Pepperdine University and others are thought to have gone to California Lutheran University – both are Christian schools.
The Ventura County Sheriff’s office said the victim notification process was ‘slow and methodical’. They said they were doing everything possible to notify relatives.
EMTs treat a victim from the shooting at Borderline Bar and Grill on Wednesday. In addition to the 12 innocent people who were killed, another 12 at least were injured
Authorities said Long was wearing a hood and dressed all in black when he used a smoke bomb and handgun to open fire at the bar.
Patrons screamed in fear, shouted ‘get down!’ and used barstools to smash second-floor windows and jump to safety as gunfire erupted at the bar, a hangout popular with students from nearby California Lutheran University.
Authorities said 21 people injured in the shooting had been released from various hospitals by Thursday morning.
‘It’s a horrific scene in there,’ Ventura County Sheriff Geoff Dean said. ‘There’s blood everywhere.’
The gunman, who was a former marine, deployed a smoke device and used a .45-caliber handgun in the attack.
He first fired on a person working the door and then appeared to shoot at random at people inside, according to witnesses.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6367867/Father-fears-son-12-dead-California-bar-mass-shooting.html
List of mass shootings in the United States
Jump to navigationJump to search
Mass shootings in the United States in 2018[1]
This is a list of known mass shootings that have occurred in the United States since 1966. Mass shootings are incidents involving multiple victims of firearm-related violence. The precise inclusion criteria are disputed, and there is no broadly accepted definition.[2][3]
The Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research group that tracks shootings and their characteristics in the United States, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, excluding the perpetrator(s), are shot in one location at roughly the same time.[4] The Congressional Research Service narrows that definition further, only considering what it defines as “public mass shootings”, and only considering victims as those who are killed, excluding any victims who survive.[3] The Washington Post and Mother Jones use similar definitions, with the latter acknowledging that their definition “is a conservative measure of the problem”, as many rampages with fewer fatalities occur.[5][6] The crowdsourced Mass Shooting Tracker project uses a definition even looser than the Gun Violence Archive’s definition: four people shot in one incident regardless of the circumstances.[7]
Larger documentation of mass shootings in the United States has occurred through independent and scholarly studies such as the Stanford University Mass Shootings of American Data Project.[5][8]
Contents
List of mass shootings (2013–present)[edit]
There are many definitions for what a mass shooting is:
Only incidents considered mass shootings by at least two of the above definitions are listed, and only shootings that have Wikipedia articles of their own are included in this list. Detailed lists of shootings can be found per-year at their respective pages.
2018[edit]
2017[edit]
2016[edit]
2015[edit]
2014[edit]
2013[edit]
List of mass shootings (1966–2012)
Sandy Hook Elementary School (2012): A 20-year old killed his mother, before shooting and killing 20 children and 6 adults in Newton, Connecticut before committing suicide.
Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater Shooting (2012): The perpetrator stormed a late-night premier of a Batman film and shot and killed 12 people and wounded 70 others. He was sentenced to life in prison.
Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting (2012): The perpetrator fatally shot 6 people at a Sikh temple before being killed by responding police officers.
Chardon High School Shooting (2012): The perpetrator entered the school and fired at students sitting in the cafeteria killing 3 and wounded 3 others before being arrested.
Oikos University Shooting (2012): A former student, opened fire on a classroom and fatally shoot 7 people and left 3 wounded.
Seal Beach Shooting (2011): The perpetrator entered the workplace of his ex-wife and shot and killed 8 people and injured 1, before he fled the scene and later arrested.
Safeway Shooting in Casas Adobes, Arizona (2011): The perpetrator killed 6 people and injured 15, during an assassination attempt of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, before he was tackled and arrested.
Hartford Beer Distributors Shooting (2010): An employee of the company was fired, and in retaliation he shot and killed 8 coworkers and injured 2 others before committing suicide.
University of Alabama in Huntsville Shooting (2010): A biology professor opened fire and killed 3 other professors and injured 3 others, before she was arrested.
Fort Hood Military Base Shooting (2009): A US army psychiatrist opened fire and killed 13 individuals and injured 42 others.
Carthage Nursing Home Shooting (2009): The perpetrator attacked the workplace of his estranged wife, and shot and killed 8 people and wounded 2 others before being arrested.
New York Immigration Center Shooting (2009): A Vietnamese immigrant shot and killed 13 people at a civic center in Binghamtom, New York, before committing suicide.
Northern Illinois University Shooting (2008): A former graduate student, entered a lecture hall and fired widely and killed 5 people and wounded 21 before committing suicide.
Youth with a Mission and New Life Church Shooting (2007): The perpetrator stormed a dormitory at the YWAM in Arvada, Colorado before driving to Colorado Springs and attacking a church. He killed 4 people and wounded 5 others before committing suicide.
Crandon, Wisconsin Duplex Shooting (2007): A part time police officer returned after arguing with a group in the duplex, armed with a semiautomatic rifle and killed 6 people and wounded 1 before he attempted to flee and was killed by officers.
Westroads Mall shooting (2007): 19-year old killed 8 people and wounded 4 before committing suicide.
Virginia Tech Shooting (2007): A 23-year old student from South Korea killed 27 students and 5 teachers.
Capital Hill Shooting (2006): A guest returned to a house party, while armed with a shotgun and a semiautomatic handgun. He shot indiscriminately, killing 6 people and injuring 2, before committing suicide.
Goleta Postal Facility Shootings (2006): The perpetrator killed her neighbor, before driving to the mail processing plant and shot and killed 6 people before committing suicide.
West Nickel Mines School Shooting (2006): The perpetrator took hostages in an Amish School house and killed 5 school girls and injured 5 others before committing suicide.
Red Lake Indian Reservation Shooting (2005): A 16-year old student killed 9 individuals and wounded 5 others before committing suicide.
Hunting Trip (2004): Chai Soua Vang shot eight people while on a hunting trip in northern Wisconsin on November 21, 2004; six were killed and two were wounded.
1990s
Day Trading Firms Shooting (1999): The perpetrator shot and killed his wife and two children, two days prior to entering two separate Buckhead firms and shot fellow traders, he killed 12 in total and wounded 13 before committing suicide.
Columbine High School Shooting (1999): Two students from the school shot and killed 12 classmates and a teacher before committing suicide.
Wedgwood Baptist Church Shooting (1999): During a concert in the church for teenagers, the perpetrator entered and shot and killed 7 attendees and wounded 7 others before committing suicide.
Westside Middle School Shooting (1998): Two students aged 11 and 13, shot and killed 4 students and a teacher and injured 10 others before being arrested.
Thurston High School Shooting (1998): An expelled student targeted his parents and the school and killed 4 people and injured 25 others before being arrested.
Bethel Regional High School Shooting (1997): A student shot and killed 2 people and wounded 2 others before surrendering to police, he was reportedly assisted by multiple students in learning how to shoot, and many knew about the shooting plans in advance.
Pearl High School Shooting (1997): The perpetrator shot and killed his mother, then drove to the high school and shot and killed 2 students and injured 7 before being arrested.
Fairchild Air Force Base Shooting (1994): A former airman who had been discharged returned to the base hospital and killed 4 people and injured 23 people before being shot and killed by responding police.
101 California Street Shooting (1993): The perpetrator opened fire through an office building killing 8 people and wounded 6 others before committing suicide.
Aurora, CO Chuck E. Cheese Shooting (1993): The perpetrator shoot and killed 4 employees and injured 1, in revenge after being fired from the restaurant.
Lindhurst High School Shooting and Hostage Situation (1992): A 20-year old past student opened fire on a classroom and killed 4 people and wounded 10 others during an 8 hour siege where he took 80 people hostage, before he surrendered.
Killeen, Texas Luby’s Restaurant Shooting (1991): A former Merchant Marine drove his vehicle throw the front window of the restaurant before opening fire on a crowd of about 80 people, killing 23 people and injured 20 people before committing suicide.
University of Iowa Shooting (1991): A former graduate student attended a meeting for a research group before opening fire and killed 5 individuals and injured 1 before committing suicide.
GMAC Office Shooting (1990): A convicted felon returned to the loan office, he used to purchase a car and opened fire killing 11 people and injured 4 before committing suicide.
Las Cruces Bowling Alley Massacre (1990): Two unknown perpetrators entered the bowling alley and killed 4 people and injured 3, before fleeing, the case is still unsolved.
1980s
Cleveland Elementary School Shooting (1989): A drifter used an semi-automatic rife to kill 5 children and wound 30 other students and teachers on the school playground before committing suicide.
Oakland Elementary School Shooting (1988): The perpetrator shot and killed 2 eight-year old students and wounded 9 others (7 students, a teacher, and a gym coach) in the schools cafeteria and a classroom, before being arrested and sentenced to death.
Attacks by Laurie Dann (1988): The perpetrator entered the Hubbard Woods Elementary School and killed 1 student and wounded 5 others before entering a home and held the inhabitants hostage before committing suicide.
Old Salisbury Road Shooting (1988): The perpetrator shot nine passersby from the centerline on the road, killing 4 and injuring 5, before being arrested.
Edmond, Oklahoma Post Office Shooting (1986): A part-time employee entered to begin his day before locking the doors and killed 14 coworkers and injured 6 others before committing suicide.
Murray-Wright High School Shooting (1985): During half-time at a football game, the perpetrator opened fire with a shotgun on individuals that he had earlier fought with, and wounded 6.
San Ysidro McDonald’s Shooting (1984): A male suspect entered a busy McDonald’s and opened fire with an Uzi, shotgun and semiautomatic pistol, and killed 21 people and injured 19 before being killed by a police sniper.
49th Street Elementary School Shooting (1984): The perpetrator fired on children in a school playground from his home across the street, and killed 2 individuals and injured 12 others, before committing suicide.
Russian Jack Springs Park Shooting (1982): A schizophrenic man left a psychiatric hospital on a day pass and killed 4 teenagers in a park before being arrested.
Welding Shop Shooting (1982): A teacher opened fire inside a welding shop killing 8 people and injured 3, before attempting to flee by bicycle and was run down as he cycled away.
Oregon Museum Tavern Shooting (1981): The perpetrator entered the location and fired, killing 5 people and injuring 18 before he was wrestled to the ground.
Dangerfield Church Shooting (1980): The perpetrator killed 5 people and wounded 10 others, after they had declined to be character witnesses in the trial of him raping his daughter.
1970s
Cleveland Elementary School Shooting (San Diego) [1979]: A 16-year old girl who lived across the street shot and killed 2 people and injured 9 others before being arrested.
Golden Dragon Massacre (1977): Five members of a Chinese youth gang attempted to kill rival gang members, which quickly turned into a shootout with 5 people dead and 11 people injured.
California State University, Fullerton Shooting (1976): A custodian at the University killed 7 people and wounded 2 others before fleeing the school and was arrested.
Ronald DeFeo Jr. Family Murders (1974): Basis for The Amityville Horror, where the perpetrator was convicted for the killings of his parents and siblings, 6 people in total.
Olean High School Shooting (1974): A student locked himself in a third floor room before shooting out the window killing 4 people and injuring 11, before being subdued with tear gas and arrested.
Howard Johnson’s Shooting (1973): The perpetrator spent 10-hours, and multiple locations to kill 7 people and injured 10, and had previously killed 2 police officers and wounded another, before being shot and killed by police.
Kent State Shooting (1970): During a protest of the bombing of Cambodia at the University, members of the Ohio National Guard opened fire killing 4 and injuring 9 individuals.
1960s
University of Texas Tower Shooting (1966): A student and former Marine sharpshooter, killed his wife and mother before using the University of Texas clock tower to shoot 17 people and wounded 30 before being killed by police.
Notes
See also
References …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
Story 2: If You Cannot Win An Election — Steal It — Florida Fake Votes — Voter Fraud? — Videos —
“STEALING THE ELECTION”: Florida Congressman Says Democrats Are Trying To Steal Senate Seat
Rick Scott sues two Florida counties for ‘rampant fraud’
Voter fraud – US Midterm Elections
Rubio Shares Video Allegedly Showing FL Ballots Being Privately Transported
Florida deja vu as state election hit by chaos, fraud accusations
By AFP
PUBLISHED: 01:28 EST, 9 November 2018 | UPDATED: 13:39 EST, 9 November 2018
Florida has made a disturbing return to the election spotlight 18 years after the drama that launched George W Bush’s presidency, as the state braces for race recounts amid accusations of corruption and voting discrepancies.
Two races in the southeastern state, for governor and US Senate, hung in the balance Friday, three days after the contentious midterm elections that saw Democrats seize control of the House of Representatives from President Donald Trump’s Republicans.
Most US political races have already been settled. But Florida’s ballot chaos — rife with intrigue and Trump’s accusation of abuse by officials in Democrat-heavy counties — raises fresh questions about why the world’s most powerful democracy is incapable of producing swift and accurate election results across all 50 states.
Florida is not alone. In neighboring Georgia, the Democratic candidate for governor initiated legal action to ensure all votes were counted in her contest.
In Arizona, hundreds of thousands of ballots were still left to be counted in a fierce battle for the Senate as Kyrsten Sinema — currently a Democratic congresswoman — edged ahead of Martha McSally, a Republican congresswoman.
Florida’s Governor Rick Scott, the Republican challenging incumbent Senate Democrat Bill Nelson, filed a lawsuit against two election officials alleging fraud after his lead narrowed.
His race, and the one for governor, appear headed for mandatory recounts, which could delay a final outcome for days or weeks.
“The people of Florida deserve fairness and transparency,” Scott told reporters.
US President Donald Trump has accused some local Florida officials of “fraud” as the state’s key races for governor and US Senate head towards likely mandated recounts
“Every Floridian should be concerned there may be rampant fraud happening in Palm Beach and Broward Counties.”
Scott said he was ordering an official investigation into his own race.
With the developments raising partisan tensions to fresh highs, Trump weighed in to allege a major corruption scandal was brewing, while fellow Republican Marco Rubio of Florida accused Democrats of a coordinated effort to “steal the election.”
“What’s going on in Florida is a disgrace,” Trump told reporters.
Scott “easily won, but every hour it seems to be going down,” he said of Scott’s lead which on Friday stood at 14,999 votes out of 8.2 million cast, a margin of just 0.18 percent.
“If you look at Broward County, they have had a horrible history,” Trump added, referring to a Democrat-heavy county where officials were slowly counting votes including absentee and provisional ballots.
– 537 votes –
Broward was at the heart of Florida’s bitter legal brawls in 2000. That year’s recounts in Broward and other counties were halted by the US Supreme Court, and George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes in Florida, giving him the edge in the electoral college and handing him the White House.
Scott’s lawsuits alleged a lack of transparency over the counting process and asked that further details be made public.
Rancor was spilling into governors’ races, where Andrew Gillum in Florida and Stacey Abrams in Georgia were aiming to become the states’ first African-American leaders, but the contests were tilting in favor of their Republican rivals.
Unofficial results show Gillum trailing Ron DeSantis, a Trump-endorsed Republican, by just 36,165 votes, or 0.44 percentage points.
State law mandates a recount if the difference in a race is within 0.5 percent. If the margin is within 0.25 percent, as it stood in the Senate race, a hand recount — slower and more thorough than by machine — is ordered.
– ‘Highly irresponsible’ –
Andrew Gillum was aiming to become Florida’s first African-American governor and initially conceded, but now says he is ready for a state-mandated recount
David Lublin, a professor of government at American University, dismissed suggestions that corruption was to blame, and said the latest statements by Trump and Scott “are highly irresponsible.”
Broward County officials were simply taking deliberative steps to count all ballots, including absentee and provisional ones, he said.
“The good news is that since the 2000 election, the process has improved both in terms of how people vote in Florida and the designation of a recount,” he said.
And yet unusual voting discrepancies were being reported in Broward.
The South Florida Sun Sentinel said it analyzed voting patterns and found that of Broward ballots already counted, thousands made the unlikely choice of voting in lower-profile contests like for agriculture commissioner, but not for Senate, the marquee race on the ballot.
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema, pictured on November 3, 2018 in Tempe, Arizona, is in a fierce battle against against two-term congresswoman Martha McSally
The unusual pattern appeared in no other Florida county, the newspaper reported.
Experts including lawyer Lawrence Norden have turned to a possible flaw with the ballot’s design.
“If this is the cause of lost votes, it is incredibly frustrating that somehow the state hasn’t gotten its act together to make sure ballots are designed in a way that don’t cause lost votes,” he told the Sentinel.
ttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-6370771/Florida-headed-recounts-Republican-challenger-sues.html
Who is Brenda Snipes, the Broward County supervisor of elections?
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Gov. Rick Scott’s campaign has filed lawsuits against election officials in Broward and Palm Beach counties, accusing them of not being able to provide accurate totals of how many ballots remain left to be counted.
In the lawsuits, Scott’s campaign names Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes and Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher in their respective county roles.
Snipes and Bucher are Democrats. Scott is a Republican.
The Broward suit complains of a “lack of transparency” about how many people voted, how many ballots were received and how ballots were counted.
Scott ordered the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate. Florida’s 67 counties are required to report their unofficial returns to state elections officials on Saturday.
Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner held a conference call with county elections supervisors Thursday morning to discuss a possible recount and plan ahead for one.
The earliest Detzner could issue a recount is Saturday.
Friday afternoon, a judge ruled Snipes violated state law and must hand over records from Tuesday’s vote by 7 p.m. CBS Miami reports the judge said Snipes must “allow immediate” viewing and copying of records that have been requested.
Who is Brenda Snipes?
Republican Gov. Jeb Bush asked Snipes to serve as Supervisor of Elections in Broward County – Florida’s second-most populous county – nearly 15 years ago.
Broward County has about 1.15 million voters, second only to Miami-Dade’s at about 1.4 million.
Snipes was formally appointed on Nov. 20, 2003, to replace former County Supervisor Miriam Oliphant, who was escorted out of her office and removed from her job.
CBS Miami reported while Oliphant was in office, uncounted votes were found in a cabinet drawer, and the department went a million dollars over budget.
Snipes was reelected in 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016.
She has lived in Broward County since 1964.
Click or tap here to read Snipes’ biography on the Broward County Supervisor of Elections website.
Snipes has had several election-related incidents:
August 2016: Broward elections office post election results before polls close
CBS Miami reported the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office inadvertently posted election results 30 minutes before the polls closed at 7 p.m.
It prompted Secretary of State Ken Detzner to fire off memos to the Broward County State Attorney and sheriff asking for an investigation.
A private contractor that runs the website, VR Systems, said one of their workers accidentally put up the results while creating a link for a Broward County elections worker.
The CEO outlined the mistake in an affidavit sent to Snipes and issued an apology, saying, in part, “VR Systems assumes responsibility for the error. We are taking additional measures to ensure this never occurs again.”
March 2018: Judge rules in favor of Broward elections office in voter fraud suit
The Sun Sentinel reported a federal judge cleared Snipes in a lawsuit that accused her office of facilitating voter fraud.
May 2018: Destroyed ballots in Wasserman-Schultz race
In May 2018, the Sun Sentinel reported a judge ruled the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office violated state and federal laws by destroying ballots from a 2016 Congressional race too soon — and while the ballots were the subject of a lawsuit against the office.
The ruling stems from Tim Canova’s bid to unseat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the Democratic primary, a race he lost convincingly. In September, Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots, signing a certification that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending.
Snipes said the action a “mistake” during testimony she gave in the case, saying the boxes were mislabeled and there was “nothing on my part that was intentional” about destroying the contested ballots.
August 2018: Judge orders Snipes to stop opening mail-in ballots in secret
Politico reported a judge ordered for Snipes to stop opening mail-in ballots in secret or before the county’s three-member canvassing board to determine the ballots’ validity.
August 2018: Vote-by-mail late arrivals in the primary election
CBS Miami reported the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office had late delivery on about 5,000 vote-by-mail ballots for the 2018 primary election.
https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/politics/elections/who-is-brenda-snipes-the-broward-county-supervisor-of-elections/67-612946611
Story 3, Government Dependency Rising — Welfare Generation –Videos
There Is Only One Way Out of Poverty
Why it’s so hard to get off welfare
The Welfare Generation: 51.7% Kids in 2017 Lived in Households Getting Govt Assistance
By Terence P. Jeffrey | November 8, 2018 | 3:59 PM EST
The Census Bureau has released new data that strengthens the case for calling the current generation of American children “The Welfare Generation.”
Among American residents under 18 years of age in 2017, according to the Census Bureau, 51.7 percent lived in households in which one or more persons received benefits from a means-tested government program.
That was down slightly from the 52.1 percent of Americans under 18 in 2016who lived in households receiving means-tested government assistance. (Also, because this new Census Bureau estimate is for 2017, it predates the significant economic and job growth the United States has seen in 2018).
But in each of the last five years on record (2013 through 2017), according to the Census Bureau, at least 51 percent of Americans under 18 have lived in households receiving means-tested government assistance.
In fact, the 51.7 percent in 2017 was the lowest percentage in any of the last five years on record.
The programs the Census Bureau includes in its estimate of how many people are living in households receiving means-tested government assistance include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), Supplemental Security Income, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, Medicaid, public housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the National School Lunch Program.
The data on the number of people living in households in which one or more persons received means-tested government assistance comes from Table POV-26 of the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, 2018 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
The table enumerates, by various characteristics, “[p]eople who lived with someone (a nonrelative or relative) who received aid.”
“Not every person tallied here,” Table POV-26 says, “received the aid themselves.”
In 2017, the Census Bureau estimates, according to the table, that there were approximately 322,549,000 people living in the United States. Of these, 114,637,000—or 35.5 percent—lived in a household that received means-tested government assistance.
Of the 322,549,000 people in the United States in 2017, 73,356,000 were under 18 years of age. Of these children, 37,908,000—or 51.7 percent—lived in a household that received means-tested government assistance.
Even when the school lunch program was excluded from the group of means-tested government programs, there were still 32,467,000 people in America under 18 (or 44.3 percent of that demographic) living in a household receiving means-tested government assistance.
The 51.7 percent of people under 18 on means-tested government assistance in 2017 was a slight declined from the 52.1 percent on means-tested government assistance in 2016.
In 2016, according to the Census estimate, there were 73,586,000 people under 18 in the United States (compared to 73,356,000 in 2017) and 38,365,000 (compared to 37,908,000 in 2017) were living in households receiving means-tested government assistance.
The percentage of persons under 18 living in households receiving means-tested government assistance also varied by the type of household the person was living in, according to the Census data.
But it was above 40 percent even in married-couple families.
In married couple families in 2017, according to Table POV-26, there were 49,436,000 related children under 18. Of these, 20,230,000—or 40.9 percent—lived in households in which one or more persons received means-tested government assistance.
There were 5,330,000 related children under 18 living in households headed by a male householder with no spouse present. 3,371,000 of these children—or 48.7 percent—lived in a household receiving means-tested government assistance.
There were 17,766,000 related children under 18 living in households headed by a female householder with no spouse present. 13,702,000 of these children—or 77.1 percent—lived in a household receiving means-tested government assistance.
After the 51.7 percent of children under 18 who lived in a household that received means-tested government assistance in 2017, the next most likely age group to live in a household that received means-tested government assistance were those 18 to 24. There were 29,363,000 in that age bracket and 11,855,000—or 40.4 percent—lived in a household getting means-tested government assistance.
The age group least likely to be receiving means-tested government assistance were people 75 and older. There were 20,713,000 in that age bracket in 2017 and only 3,894,000—or 18.8 percent—lived in a household on means-tested government assistance.
This chart summarizes key data from the Census Bureau’s POV-26 tables from 1994 through 2017, showing the total population each year, the total number of people in households receiving means-tested assistance, the percentage in households getting asisstance, the total number of residents under 18, the total number in households receiving means-tested assistance, and the percentage of children in households getting means-tested assistance:
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1171
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )