Shaping printable guns debate as anti-Trump issue a ‘hysteria not based in fact or reality’

A move to ban blueprints for 3D-printable firearms is framed by sponsors as protecting the public after the failure to do so by the Trump administration. But the narrative is detached from reality, media analyst Lionel told RT.

In a last-minute intervention this week the authorities of several states blocked the distribution of plastic firearms blueprints by the company Defense Distributed by filing a lawsuit against the federal government and securing a nationwide restraining order from a federal court. The move was described as an attempt “to block a Trump Administration action that gives criminals and terrorists access to downloadable, untraceable and undetectable 3D-printed weapons” in a statement by Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

It seems that right now the message is that because of this crazed Donald Trump we are going to have plastic guns [everywhere]. And nobody knows anything, the federal definition of what a firearm is or the laws that are already here. This is complete hysteria not based in fact or reality,” Lionel said of the narrative.

In reality the legal challenge did little to prevent people from finding firearms blueprints online – which have been available there for years – and printing untraceable arms for whatever purpose they want. But 3D printers are relatively expensive and require some time to learn how to operate one, which ensures making plastic guns remains a hobby for a small number of enthusiasts. A person wishing to get a firearm for criminal purposes in the US has more accessible alternatives than printing.

But sponsors of the lawsuit give an impression that the White House would have “Al-Qaeda mass produce plastic guns,” Lionel said. “None of this makes any sense. But sense has nothing to do with it.”

Defense Distributed’s legal battle for the right to host a database of printable firearms blueprints is apparently more about making a pro-gun libertarian political statement than about practical consequence. Lionel compares it the controversial book by William Powell, written in protest against US military intervention in Vietnam.

“There was this famous ‘Anarchist’s cookbook’. It told people how to make poisons, how to kill people. And it was information that has been gleaned and collated from Army manuals, information that was already available,” Lionel said, explaining that despite its controversial content the book was protected by the First Amendment.

https://www.rt.com/usa/435068-printable-firearms-trump-issue/

Judge orders to restore DACA, says Trump admin failed to provide reasons for ending it

A US federal judge has sided with the plaintiffs in a case filed against the Trump administration's move to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which had sparked a wave of protests in September.

DC District Judge John Bates on Friday upheld his earlier ruling from April 24, that found the White House's decision to scrap the policy, which has shielded about 800,000 migrants from deportation since it was adopted in 2012, was "arbitrary and capricious."

"The Court therefore reaffirms its conclusion that DACA's rescission was unlawful and must be set aside," he wrote in a 25-page opinion on Friday.

The court argued that the memorandum issued by Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in June, that was supposed to offer a legally sound explanation for the government's action, failed "to elaborate meaningfully on the agency's primary rationale for its decision: the judgment that the policy was unlawful and unconstitutional."

Bates contended that although the memo provides several new reasons for the court to review its decision, the majority of them"simply repackage legal arguments previously made." The only one "bona fide (albeit logically dubious) reason" offered by Nielsen was not enough to sway the court's opinion, Bates wrote, since it was "articulated nowhere in DHS's prior explanation for its decision" and hence cannot come into play now.

Calling the renewed justification provided by the department "a hodgepodge of illogical or post hoc policy assertions" that "simply will not do," the court at the same time stressed its ruling does not mean that the DHS is not entitled to rescind the program in principal, but that it "must give a rational explanation" if it wants to do so.

Bates, who in April gave the government a 90-day window so that DHS could come up with what the court will perceive as an adequate rationale to shut down DACA, on Friday provided the Trump administration with only 20 days to decide if it will appeal the ruling and seek a temporary stay in execution.

The decision is an important landmark in the litigation over DACA's validity, that saw the Trump administration being challenged by multiple lawsuits across the country. Should the ruling come into force, The White House will have to restart the DACA program in full.

In his April ruling Bates wrote that if the DHS fails to issue a memo that would prove that the program was unlawful and unconstitutional, as insisted by the government, "the Rescission Memo will be vacated in its entirety, and the original DACA program will be restored in full."

Since US President Donald Trump rescinded the Obama-era program on September 5, the White House has been embroiled in numerous legal battles. While the administration has won some, with Trump praising Judge Roger W. Titus of Maryland, who ruled in March that the President was within his authority to rescind the executive order issued by his predecessor, it has suffered more losses so far.

A California court in January ordered to partially restart the program, while a New York judge in February issued an injunction ordering the government to maintain DACA, although that will not require DHS to accept new applications. Several government appeals are still pending in US courts.

Bates' ruling was applauded by The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a plaintiff in the case, which called it a "huge victory."

"This represents a powerful victory against attempts to dehumanize immigrants who are law-abiding and productive residents of the United States and who were long ago brought to this country as children through no fault of their own," NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson said.

https://www.rt.com/usa/435082-daca-judge-restore-ruling/

Immigrants 1, Trump 0: Supreme Court shoots down felon deportation law

The US Supreme Court has struck out part of a federal law that makes it easier to deport immigrants convicted of crimes. Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed by Trump in 2017, cast the deciding vote.

In a 5-4 decision on Tuesday, the court found that the law, which mandated deportations for immigrants convicted of a “violent felony,” was vague and unenforceable and therefore unconstitutional.

The decision was made in the case of James Dimaya, a Filipino immigrant living in the US since 1992. Dimaya was found guilty of two charges of burglary in California in 2007 and 2009, and the US government pressed for his removal from the country, arguing that his crimes were sufficiently violent to trigger deportation.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had previously struck down the deportation provision, when it heard the case in 2015.

The 9th Circuit Court is known to take a liberal stance on issues. It repeatedly blocked Trump’s controversial travel ban last year, and in January blocked the administration from shutting down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program, which protects from deportation all illegal immigrants who arrived as children.

Dimaya’s case then came before the Supreme Court in 2017, but the court failed to reach a decision. In the absence of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the court was tied 4-4 until Gorsuch filled his seat. While known as a social conservative, Gorsuch sided with his liberal colleagues on Tuesday to secure a majority and strike down the law.

Both the Trump and Obama-era Departments of Justice had pushed for Dimaya’s deportation. Tuesday’s decision is one lost battle for Trump in his wider war on immigration, which had been one of the President’s core campaign issues.

Reacting to the verdict, Trump said that Congress “must close loopholes that block the removal of dangerous criminal aliens, including aggravated felons.”

“This is a public safety crisis that can only be fixed by Congress – House and Senate must quickly pass a legislative fix to ensure violent criminal aliens can be removed from our society,” he tweeted.

Trump has been moving towards clamping down on illegal immigration since he took office. While his long-promised border wall is nowhere to be seen, the National Guard was deployed to the Mexican border earlier this month to beef up security. Trump also signed an executive order ending the so-called 'catch and release' policy, under which US immigration officers released 'caught' illegal immigrants back on US soil, pending their deportation hearings.

https://www.rt.com/usa/424418-supreme-court-deportation-law/

>>2442936

Ty for the info.

New Pakistan PM Imran Khan tells Britain to return looted money

Imran Khan, the newly elected Pakistan PM, has said Britain must return looted money to his country which is allegedly being stashed by corrupt Pakistani politicians in London.

The former international cricketer used his first meeting with British officials since his election win, to tell the UK that he wants to secure the return his nation’s laundered money, reports the Telegraph.

In the meeting with Thomas Drew, the UK’s High Commissioner to Pakistan, Khan said it was “our firm resolve to bring back to the country the money laundered to the UK.”

Khan swept to power on a populist anti-corruption ticket and did not hold back in attacking Pakistan's establishment. He has been scathing of the political class for siphoning off money from key public sector institutions and contracts before whittling away their wealth overseas.

The issue of extracting wealth and sending it abroad has dominated Pakistan's politics since the infamous Panama Papers leak that linked former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's family to offshore companies and four high-end London flats. Sharif has subsequently been sentenced to 10 years in jail on corruption charges relating to the purchase of the London flats.

Expensive property acquired through shell companies in weakly regulated jurisdictions has long been a favourite way to hide ill-gotten wealth for the likes of kleptocrats and mafia members.

New UK anti-corruption legislation, created to target oligarchs and international criminals, could be utilized to freeze or seize property and assets if there is evidence it was bought with illegal or unidentified wealth.

A spokesman for the British High Commission said: “Tackling corruption is a UK government priority and we will continue to work constructively with Pakistan on this issue.”

He insisted Britain has robust laws “for the recovery of illicit assets where there is evidence to do so.”

Sharia law recognized by British court for 1st time in landmark divorce case

A British court recognized Sharia law for the first time after a judge made a landmark ruling on a divorce case, which could have far reaching effects on Islamic marriage in the UK.

In the case of estranged couple Nasreen Akhtar and Mohammed Shabaz Khan, the High Court ruled that their Islamic faith marriage – nikah – is recognized by British matrimonial law despite there being no legal precedent for it to be recognized.

Akhtar will subsequently be able to bring her case before the divorce court, where she can claim a share of assets from her marriage to Khan. She would have been unable to do so without the High Court ruling.

Khan had initially sought to block his wife’s application for divorce at a UK court, arguing that the marriage – conducted in 1998 – was not legal.

Justice Williams said the marriage was void under section 11 of the 1973 Matrimonial Causes Act because it was “entered into in disregard of certain requirements as to the formation of marriage. It is therefore a void marriage and the wife is entitled to a decree of nullity.”

The ruling could have significant implications for sharia law, especially those, like Akhtar and Khan, who marry under Islamic law rather than British law. If the precedent set by Akhtar’s case is followed, it could allow for easier divorces and a splitting of husband’s assets in similar situations.

A Home Office report, commissioned by Prime Minister Theresa May, found that women married under sharia law are often unaware that they have no legal protection under British law.