Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] The US government on Friday charged two Brooklyn men with conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda. The two men allegedly received at least $50,000 for providing al Qaeda with “computer advice and assistance, services, and currency,” among other acts, between November 2007 and March 2010. The charges were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has been advocating using the criminal justice system as a counter-terrorism tool.
In March, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism Martin Scheinin urged the Obama administration to hold civilian trials for accused 9/11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The week before that, lawmakers introduced a bill that would require the military interrogation and trial of those taken into US custody who are suspected of links to terrorism. While the Obama administration is keeping the option of military commissions open, JURIST contributing editor Jordan Paust has discussed the option of courts-martial as another option for prosecuting members of al Qaeda and the Taliban.

[JURIST] Germany’s Federal Court of Justice ruled Thursday that the use of thumbnail preview images pulled from websites by Google is not a violation of copyright law. The original lawsuit was brought against Google by an artist who had images of her work pulled from her website and displayed on Google’s image search index without her express permission. The court stated that because the plaintiff had not used adequate protections on her website to block Google from pulling the data in question, she was implicitly agreeing to the use of her images by other websites. The court also indicated that in light of last month’s ruling at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that, even if they had found that Google’s use of the images constituted a violation of copyright law, Google would only have been liable for damages if someone posted the artist’s images without her consent. Managing counsel for Google Germany, Arnd Haller, said that with the court’s ruling “News websites on the Internet, online providers of pictures and posters, artists, photographers, designers and many more who depend on the web for their livelihoods can go on using the service as a significant distribution platform.”
The German copyright case was one of several pending against Google. Earlier this month, several visual artist organizations in the US filed a class action suit alleging copyright infringement resulting from the company’s book scanning project. Last month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) urged a federal court to reject the proposed class action settlements in a separate copyright suit between text authors and Google due to copyright and antitrust concerns. In February, a federal judge heard arguments on the proposed settlement but did not indicate when a ruling can be expected.

[JURIST] The US House of Representatives voted 223-169 Thursday to approve legislation calling for a referendum on the status of Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act was introduced by Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi (D), Puerto Rico’s nonvoting delegate to the House, and had 181 co-sponsors, including nearly 60 Republicans. The bill would establish a two-step referendum, the first of which would ask voters in Puerto Rico whether they wanted to change the status of the island. If the option to change the island’s status won, a second referendum would be held, giving voters the option of statehood, independence, “sovereignty in association with the United States,” or maintaining the present status. Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno (R), along with the leaders of the territorial legislature, have expressed their support for the bill and eventual statehood. Representative Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) described the bill as “disgraceful,” and “designed to push the statehood agenda, regardless of whether that agenda is … popular among the people.” The vote would be non-binding, and any change to Puerto Rico’s status would still require Congressional approval. The bill still requires approval of the US Senate.
In 2008, the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico, a pro-statehood party whose members primarily affiliate with the US Republican Party, won local elections by a wide margin, winning the offices of governor and resident commissioner and an absolute majority in the territorial legislature. In 2007, The UN Special Committee on Decolonization called on the US to quickly resolve the island’s political status and release political prisoners. Puerto Ricans last voted on the status of the island in 1998, with the “None of the Above” option winning 50.3 percent, statehood garnering 46.5 percent of the vote, and independence only 2.5 percent. Referendums were also held in 1993 and 1967, in which maintaining the current political status won over statehood, and independence placed at a distant third. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated US territory, and its current political status was adopted in 1952, after Congress approved the Puerto Rican Constitution. The constitution established the island as a US commonwealth, causing the UN General Assembly to remove the island’s categorization as a “non-self governing territory.” Puerto Ricans have been US citizens since the 1917, and the island has been under US control since 1898.

[JURIST] The Pre-Trial Chamber of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) on Friday dismissed appeals by three former Khmer Rouge officials to block the extension of their provisional detention. The three prisoners, Ieng Thirith, Ieng Sary, and Khieu Samphan, were arrested in November 2007 and originally held in one-year provisional detention, which has been extended twice for all three of them. They face charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, murder, torture, and religious persecution, but the cases are still under investigation. The Pre-Trial chamber found in each case that “there is sufficient additional evidence in the case file to demonstrate that the case has progressed expeditiously” and that further detention while the investigation continues is reasonable given the “gravity and nature of the crimes” charged.
Ieng Sary was foreign minister during the Khmer Rouge regime, while his wife Ieng Thirith served as social affairs minister. Khieu Samphan was the head of state. Others have been charged in connection to Khmer Rouge, including former deputy leader and chief ideologist Nuon Chea. In December, the ECCC heard final arguments in its first trial, that of Kaing Guek Eav, also known as “Duch.” Kaing was the first of eight ex-Khmer Rouge officials to be tried before the ECCC. The Khmer Rouge is generally held responsible for the genocide of an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians who died between 1975 and 1979.

[JURIST] The French Justice Ministry on Thursday denied a request from former Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega to be treated as a prisoner of war (POW). Noriega currently awaits trial in France on money laundering charges. Justice Ministry spokesperson Guillaume Didier said that Noriega will not be treated as a POW because the charges are based on breaches of common law not related to military service. Being treated as a POW would entitle Noriega to special treatment under the Geneva Convention, but Guillaume says conditions of French prisons are consistent with the requirements of the Geneva Conventions regardless. Noriega was already sentenced in absentia to 10 years in jail by a French court in 1999, but under French law is entitled to a new trial.
Earlier this week, Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli said that his government will seek the Noriega’s extradition to face charges of human rights violations in Panama. Also this week, a French judge ruled that Noriega must remain in custody until his trial. Noriega arrived in France Tuesday morning after being extradited from the US, where he had served a 17-year sentence on drug charges. He had fought extradition from the US since 2007. Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to reconsider Noriega’s petition to stop the extradition process. The US State Department had indicated that it was satisfied that France will treat Noriega as a POW if Noriega was extradited to that country.

[JURIST] Former Pennsylvania judge Michael Conahan pleaded guilty Thursday on charges of accepting more than $2.6 million in kickbacks for sentencing teenagers to two private juvenile detention facilities in which he had a financial interest. The former president judge of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy, which carries a sentence of up to 20 years. Conahan also faces a fine of no more than $250,000 and disbarment. He will be sentenced by Judge Edwin Kosik of the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, who previously rejected joint plea agreements from Conahan and former judge Mark Ciavarella Jr., finding that plea bargaining to honest services fraud and tax evasion charges demonstrated that the men did not accept responsibility and that the disbarment and 87-month prison sentences were too lenient. An attorney for Ciavarella said that he plans to go to trial.
As part of an ongoing public corruption investigation, US Attorney Dennis Pfannenschmidt announced earlier this month that a twenty-eighth person has been charged with soliciting and receiving bribes and gratuities in connection with the scandal. Luzerne County District Attorney Jacqueline Musto Carroll agreed in January to drop efforts to retry 46 juveniles whose original convictions were overturned because they had been issued by a judge indicted on federal corruption charges for an alleged kickback scheme. This decision ended all efforts at retrying any of the convicted juveniles, who will now have their juvenile records cleared. The Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center issued a statement applauding the decision, indicating that “justice has finally been attained” for the juveniles. In October, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturned about 6,500 convictions handed down by Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008, but gave prosecutors permission to seek retrial of more than 100 youths who were still under court supervision. Conahan and Ciavarella were indicted in September, following a withdrawal of the guilty pleas they entered in February 2009.

[JURIST] A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit against a Michigan judge who ordered a Muslim woman to remove her headscarf in court. The suit was filed in August by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on behalf of Raneen Albaghdady against Judge William Callahan of the Wayne County Circuit Court. Callahan has a policy against hats in his courtroom, and when he asked Albaghdady to remove her headscarf, or hijab, she did so without objection. Judge Marianne Battani ruled:
This is not a situation where a government actor required removal of a hijab after the wearer asserted her First Amendment rights. There simply is no evidence that Callahan would have required the removal of a head covering if he had known of its religious significance. Although an individual present in the courtroom stated it was a scarf, no one mentioned it was a hijab. No one mentioned that removal would violate Albaghdady’s religious beliefs. Plaintiffs lacks standing given the facts and circumstances upon which Albaghdady bases her claims. Because Plaintiffs lack standing, the Court dismisses this action in its entirety.CAIR is considering filing an appeal.In August, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order permitting lower courts to use “reasonable control” over the appearance of those who arrive in court, effectively allowing judges to ban certain religious clothing. The court amended the Michigan Rules of Evidence, motivated by the 2006 case of Ginnah Muhammad. Muhammad had filed a suit in a Michigan small claims court where she was asked by Judge Paul Paruk to remove her niqab, a form of veil, so he could gauge her veracity. Muhammad refused, saying she would not take off her veil in front of a male judge, and her case was dismissed. Muhammad filed a federal lawsuit over the incident that was eventually dismissed in 2008. Also in 2008, a Muslim woman in Georgia was arrested and ordered to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court after she refused to remove her headscarf, upon entering a security checkpoint in an Atlanta courtroom.

[JURIST] The Hawaii House of Representatives voted 31-20 Thursday to approve legislation allowing same-sex civil unions. The act would confer upon homosexual and heterosexual couples rights and benefits equal to those afforded married couples in the state. The bill was approved by the Senate in January, but the House vote was postponed indefinitely. The bill will now go before Governor Linda Lingle (R), who has not yet indicated whether she will sign it into law. She has until July 6 to reach a decision.
The state of Hawaii has been at the forefront of the gay rights movement since the 1990s. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state must show a compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage, but, in 1998, Hawaiian voters approved an amendment to the state constitution to reserve for the state legislature the authority to define marriage. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire, and Washington DC, pending Congressional inaction. Same-sex civil unions are currently recognized in Washington, New Jersey, Oregon, and Nevada.

[JURIST] Two lawsuits were filed Tuesday challenging Arizona’s new immigration law, which makes it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant and requires police to question anyone whose immigration status appears suspect. Arizona police officer Martin Escobar filed suit in the US District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that SB 1070 is unconstitutional and could hamper police investigations. A second suit was filed by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders (CONLAMIC), which argues that the legislation is preempted by federal law. Also Thursday, several advocacy groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) formally announced their intention to challenge the bill.
The bill, signed into law last week by Governor Jan Brewer, has caused intense controversy. Earlier this week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon strongly criticized Arizona’s new immigration law, claiming that the measure opens the door to intolerance and hatred. US President Barack Obama has also criticized the law, calling for federal immigration reform. Under the law, it is designated a crime to be in the country illegally, and immigrants unable to verify their legal status could be arrested and jailed for six months and fined $2,500.

[JURIST] The Belgian House of Representatives on Thursday voted 136-0 to approve a bill that would ban the Islamic burqa and other full face veils in public. The proposed legislation applies to areas “accessible to the public” or areas meant for “public use or to provide public services.” Violators could face a penalty of up to seven days in jail or a fine of 15 to 25 euros. Proponents argue that the legislation is necessary both as a security measure and to prevent women from being forced to wear the garments. Opponents have said that the bill restricts freedom of expression. The measure must now go before the Senate. If approved, Belgium would become the first European nation to impose a nationwide restriction on traditional face-covering veils.
France, which has Europe’s largest Muslim population, has also been pressing for a ban on the burqa. Last week, a spokesperson for French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the president is in favor of a complete public ban on the burqa and other full face veils and will be submitting a bill to parliament in May. Last month, the French Council of State advised the French government against a complete ban on full Islamic veils because it risks violating the French Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. France already has a partial ban that prevents public officials from wearing veils while operating in their official capacity and also prohibits veils in public schools. Also last month, lawmakers in Quebec introduced a bill that would ban women from wearing full face veils from public services, which garnered support from members of the Muslim Canadian Congress who argue that the law would not violate human rights and would promote the ideals of a free and democratic society.

[JURIST] Pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, filed suit Thursday in Myanmar’s Supreme Court to stop the dissolution of her opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) under a controversial election law. Suu Kyi is asking the court to annul the part of the election law that bars political prisoners from participating in elections, and also to establish a parliament of lawmakers who won in the 1990 elections. The NLD also filed a similar suit. If the NLD does not re-register by May 6, it may face dissolution.
Last month, the NLD announced that it would not take part in the nation’s first elections in 20 years after the Myanmar Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit brought by the NLD to repeal the election laws preventing Suu Kyi from participating. Myanmar also faced a bevy of criticism during the month of March, with the UN Human Rights Council adopting a resolution condemning the country for rights violations and urging the ruling junta to conduct fair and free elections. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that Myanmar’s election laws do not meet international standards, and Human Rights Watch has said ” continues the sham political process that is aimed at creating the appearance of civilian rule with a military spine.”

[JURIST] A group of Senate Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation aimed at curbing foreign and corporate influence in elections after a recent Supreme Court decision eased restrictions on campaign spending. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. According to a press release, the legislation, entitled the DISCLOSE Act, seeks to:
partly restore those limits – by barring foreign-controlled corporations, government contractors and companies that have received government assistance from making political expenditures – and also require corporations, unions, and other organizations that make political expenditures to disclose their donors and stand by their ads.The lawmakers hope to pass the DISCLOSE Act by July 4 so that it will take effect for the 2010 elections.US President Barack Obama has sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United, most notably in this year’s State of the Union speech. Obama warned of the increased potential for powerful interest groups, both foreign and domestic, to wield excessive influence over American elections and called for bipartisan support of legislation to counteract the decision. Earlier this month, the US Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the effects of the Citizens United decision.

[JURIST] Ukrainian prosecutors said Thursday that they may file criminal charges in connection with Tuesday’s Parliament session in which lawmakers hurled eggs and smoke bombs and engaged in physical violence. Chaos broke out Tuesday as lawmakers approved a treaty that will extend Russia’s lease on a naval base in the Ukrainian Sevastopol port on the Black Sea until 2042 in exchange for discounted Russian gas. The agreement was strongly opposed by pro-Western lawmakers who threw eggs and smoke bombs at the speaker in an attempt to stop the vote. Despite the pandemonium, the measure passed with 236 votes in the 450-member parliament, and the treaty was signed into law Thursday. Prosecutors said that those responsible for the mayhem could face charges of hooliganism, which carries a penalty of four years imprisonment.
The treaty comes soon after the election of President Viktor Yanukovych, who took office in February. Yanukovych replaced Viktor Yushchenko, who had sought to cut ties with Russia and strengthen relationships with Western Europe. Yushchenko opposed the extension of Russia’s Black Sea lease.

[JURIST] The Chinese government on Thursday revised its often-criticized state secrets law to require Internet and telecommunications companies to inform on customers who share state secrets. This new provision may provide a disincentive to many service providers from entering China, particularly when considered along with China’s Internet filtering laws. The new law also narrows the definition of state secrets. As approved by parliament, the phrase state secrets now means, “information concerning state security and interests and, if leaked, would damage state security and interests in the areas of politics, economy and national defense.” The amended state secrets law will take effect in October.
China’s state secrets law has frequently been criticized for the breadth of action which falls under the doctrine. In November 2009, rights activist Huang Qi was sentenced to three years in prison for violating the state secrets law, when he discussed how some schools collapsed after the Sichuan province earthquake in 2008 because of shoddy construction. China began a review of its state secrets law last June, after concerns were raised regarding Internet filtering software on computers sold in that country.

[JURIST] The US Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Tuesday removed accused Bosnian civil war criminal Marko Boskic to Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Boskic will stand trial in Sarajevo for his role in the Srebrenica massacre in 1995, where 1,200 unarmed prisoners of war were killed. Boskic was first arrested in the US in 2004, when immigration officials charged him with fraud and misuse of a visa for not reporting his foreign military service. During his imprisonment on those immigration-related charges, ICE worked with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to investigate Boskic’s alleged role at Srebrenica. Depending on the severity of Boskic’s role, he will be tried either in the ICTY or the BiH war crimes court.
Last week, the BiH war crimes court convicted two individuals, Radomir Vukovic and Zoran Tomic, for their roles in the Srebrenica massacre, sentencing each to 31 years in prison. In March, the court indicted a former Serbian police commander, Nedjo Ikonic, for his alleged role at Srebrenica. The BiH war crimes court was originally formed in 2005 to relieve the caseload of the ICTY, and retains jurisdiction over crimes considered to be of a lower level, while the ICTY hears high-level cases, such as those involving Radovan Karadzic. The BiH war crimes court handed down its first decision in 2008.

[JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled Thursday that the UK may not restrict government benefits to the spouses and families of suspected terrorists. The challenge was brought by three women whose husbands’ names appear on the UN list of terror suspects that have been linked to al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden, resulting in their assets being frozen pursuant to an EU regulation. Under a regime established by the UK Treasury in 2006, terror suspects’ spouses could only receive government benefits under certain conditions, including withdrawing only 10 pounds in cash for each family member, sending a detailed monthly expense list and receipts to the Treasury, and accepting that giving cash to their husbands would be a criminal offense. The ECJ struck down the Treasury’s interpretation of the EU rules, finding that it does not fulfill the purpose of combating international terrorism. The case will now return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling.
In January, the UK Supreme Court ruled that executive orders allowing the government to freeze the assets of five suspected terrorists are illegal. The men involved in the court’s inaugural case argued that the government exceeded its power when the Treasury froze their assets without the approval of Parliament. The Supreme Court’s ruling affirmed a 2008 High Court ruling, which found that the Treasury may not freeze the assets of the five suspected terrorists without the approval of Parliament. The seizures were conducted pursuant to two Orders in Council, the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 and the Al Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures] Order 2006. The orders implemented UN resolutions requiring UN member states to freeze the assets of people on the UN list of suspected terrorists. The High Court rejected the orders because they were not subject to parliamentary scrutiny before they came into force.

[JURIST] Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli said Wednesday that his government will seek the extradition of former military leader Manuel Noriega, currently being held in France on money laundering charges. Noriega faces charges of human rights violations in Panama for crimes allegedly committed during his 1981-1989 rule. He was convicted on three counts of human rights violations in absentia, and each count carries a 20-year prison sentence. Panama’s Vice President and Foreign Affairs Minister Juan Carlos Varela said Wednesday that his office will write to the judicial branch, which must make the extradition request.
Earlier this week, a French judge ruled that Noriega must remain in custody until his trial. Noriega arrived in France Tuesday morning after being extradited from the US, where he had served a 17-year sentence on drug charges. He had fought extradition from the US since 2007. Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to reconsider Noriega’s petition to stop the extradition process. His lawyers filed the petition in February after the Supreme Court denied certiorari on the case in January. Noriega, who has been declared a prisoner of war, sought to enforce a provision of the Geneva Convention that requires repatriation at the end of confinement. Noriega and his wife were sentenced in absentia to 10 years in jail by a French court in 1999, but France agreed to hold a new trial if he was extradited.

[JURIST] The Russian government on Wednesday made public documents relating to the 1940 Katyn Massacre in which 20,000 Poles were killed by the USSR. While the documents were previously available to historians, political officials, and victims’ families, this is the first time that copies of the original documents have been made available to the general public. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev chose to make the documents public as relations between Russian and Poland have apparently improved following the April 10 plane crash that killed Poland’s president. Among the documents is a 1940 note signed by Joseph Stalin ordering the execution of Polish “nationalists and counter-revolutionaries.”
The 1940 killings have long been a point of tension between the two governments, with Russia originally blaming the Nazis and only acknowledging responsibility in 1990. In February, the Polish government joined a class-action lawsuit against Russia filed in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) by 13 Polish citizens who are relatives of the victims. In January 2009, victims’ relatives were denied an appeal to the Russian Supreme Court to reopen investigations into the killings. The court reasoned that the Soviet-era criminal code to be applied to the killings places a 10-year statute of limitations on the proceedings.

[JURIST] A US subcommittee heard testimony Wednesday on the use of unmanned predator drone strikes. The National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the legality of unmanned targeting. In his opening remarks, subcommittee chair John Tierney (D-MA) said:
The use of unmanned weapons to target individuals – and, for that matter, the targeting of individuals in general – raises many complex legal questions. We must examine who can be a legitimate target, where that person can be legally targeted, and when the risk of collateral damage is too high. We must ask whether it makes a difference if the military carries out an attack, or whether other government entities such as the Central Intelligence Agency may legally conduct such attacks. We must ensure that the Administration’s understanding of the authorities granted to it by Congress do not exceed what Congress intended.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has consistently opposed the use of unmanned targeting, sent a letter to President Barack Obama Wednesday, urging an end to the program.Last month, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh defended the legality of the use of unmanned drones. Earlier in March, the ACLU filed suit seeking information related to the US government’s use of unmanned drones. The ACLU alleges that the drones have been used by the military and CIA for unlawful killings in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. The ACLU also cites troubling reports indicating that US citizens may be targeted and killed by unmanned drones. In October, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston noted that the use of unmanned drones by the US to carry out attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan may be illegal. Alston said, “he onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons.” Alston criticized the US policy in a report to the UN General Assembly’s human rights committee that was presented as part of a larger demand that no state be free from accountability.

[JURIST] Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry on Tuesday vetoed legislation that would have exempted buyers of Oklahoma-made guns from several regulatory precautions including federal criminal background checks. Henry believes that the proposed legislation would “endanger citizens and law enforcement officers” by abolishing “common sense regulations” like background checks and giving criminals easy access to a wide array of weapons. Henry also cited constitutional concerns. Because there is no way to ensure that Oklahoma-manufactured weapons will remain in the state, Henry said that the proposed legislation would likely be seen as violating the Commerce Clause and would therefore be declared unconstitutional if it were challenged in court. State Senator Randy Brogdon, an advocate for the bill, said that he was disappointed to learn that Henry had vetoed the legislation. Brogdon challenged Henry’s assertions that the law would give criminals easy access to firearms and went on to claim that the legislation would actually have “stopped further federal attempts to erode our Constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families.” It remains to be seen whether supporters of the bill in the state senate will garner the necessary support to override the veto.
The rights of states and municipalities to regulate firearms under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution have become controversial. Last month, a federal judge ruled that firearms regulations in Washington, DC, including a ban on assault weapons and a prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices, do not violate the Second Amendment. In upholding the regulations, the judge cited the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down an outright ban on handgun ownership in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago to determine whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to the states, and not just the District of Columbia.