Wow! Really? The Hungarian-American Transhumanist Who Wants to Become a CyborgAnd Live Forever – Hungary Today

In the latest installment of our new (semi)regular segment, Wow! Really?, we examine little-known or unexpected facts about Hungary and Hungarian culture. Today, we turn to a Hungarian-American who wants to fundamentally change the nature of humanity.

Zoltn Istvn, a Hungarian-American journalist entrepreneur, and candidate in last years US presidential election, is one of the leading voices in the world of Transhumanism, a movement whose core belief is that, through the extensive use of technology and scientific advancement, humans will eventually be able to live forever.

Speaking to The Atlantic, Istvn likewise described how he came to embrace the tenants of transhumanism. The former journalist came to this realization in 2003, when, while working for National Geographic in Vietnam, he nearly activated a landmine. This experience led him to quit journalism and become a full-time advocate for transhumanism: I thought, death is horrible,How can we get around it?

Likewise, Istvn is extremely enthusiastic about the integration of technology and the human body. He has a chip implanted in his hand that opens his front door at a wave, and would like to replace his limbs with bionics so he can throw perfectly in water polo. He sees such physical integration of humans and machines as a key part of the future, and told the Atlantic that he would be surprised if we dont start merging our children with machines in the near future.

Istvn has appeared at events all over the world promoting his vision of a future that many would consider to be something straight out of science fiction; last summer, he took part in the Brain Bar Budapest festival, a gathering of world class scientists and thinkers held in June in the Hungarian capital. You can view his Brain Bar discussion below:

Upon launching his 2016 presidential campaign, Istvn took Transhumanism on the road, driving around the US spreading his message in his signature Immortality Bus, a campaign bus that had been modified to look like a coffin. While traveling as the self-described science candidate, he received plenty of criticism for the atheistic nature of his views, particularly in more religious areas of the country. By his own admission, however, Istvns goal in running was never to win, but rather to increase the visibility of, and drum up support for, the idea of transhumanism.

And the idea itself is catching on, particularly in Silicon Valley, where it would seem that dreams of immortality are dancing in tech barons heads. Nor was the 2016 election Zoltans last foray into politics; earlier this month, the journalist-entrepreneur-transhumanism evangelist announced his intention to run for Governor of California as a Libertarian.

If all this wasnt enough, Zoltn Istvn is also the self-proclaimed inventor of an entirely new extreme sport: Volcano Boarding.

Wow!.Really?

Via BBC, the Atlantic, the Guardian, zoltanistvan.com, and Newsweek

Images via memory-alpha.wikia.com, zoltanistvan.com, the BBC,

Videos via

Here is the original post:

Wow! Really? The Hungarian-American Transhumanist Who Wants to Become a CyborgAnd Live Forever - Hungary Today

Take It from a European: NATO Is Obsolete – The National Interest Online

The recent visit by Secretary of Defense James Mattis to NATO allies does not erase the fact that, as a presidential candidate and president-elect, Donald Trump stated on many occasions that NATO is obsolete. It is a bigger problem than just burden sharing. Trumps key message is that the world has changed to the detriment of the United States, and that NATO no longer fits comfortably into this new world order. Of course, the United States will not withdraw from the organization, but NATO will get less attention from the Oval Office in the coming years. That is for sure.

For those in Europe who care about the alliance, this is a nightmare. But instead of clinging to the past, they should wake up. The world today is indeed fundamentally different from the one we happen to know, and certainly from the times into which NATO was born. It is indeed bizarre that NATO is still alive. Defense alliances are, by definition, temporary. Realists do not believe in long-term structural cooperation between states, and certainly not in the field of security. At most, states can try to cooperate in an alliance on a short-term basis to defeat a common enemy, like during the two world wars and during the Cold War. Once the enemy is gone, alliances have no meaning anymore. It was on this basis that John Mearsheimer and many others predicted the end of the alliance after the end of the Cold War. The implosion of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself should, indeed, have led to the demise of NATO.

It did not. The least bad explanation is organizational inertia. NATO tried to adapt to the changed circumstances by finding new enemies: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, rogue states, failed states, ethnic conflicts (as in the Balkans) and, later on, terrorism. It is not difficult to come up with real or imagined dangers. But states do not need to be part of a militarily integrated organization to protect oneself against these kind of minor threats. Collective defense organizations, based on the premise of an attack on one is an attack on all, are established to defend oneself against an attack by a major power: Germany in 1914, Germany and Japan in the first half of the 1940s, the USSR during the Cold War, and maybe China in the future. Not for peacekeeping.

Collective defense organizations are not the best match for threats like terrorism and ethnic conflicts. For countering terrorism, coalitions of the willing will do. For managing ethnic conflicts, collective security organizations (like the UN and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) should take the lead, both for peacemaking and peacekeeping. Collective security organizations regulate the use of force amongst its member states, and they arein contrast to collective defense organizationsnot meant to serve against an external enemy. Because NATO stepped in for these collective security tasks, organizations like the UN and the OSCE got sidetracked.

NATOs postCold War track record is dismal, which is not surprising, given the nature of the beast. Apart from the Balkans, which are more or less stable (although tensions are flaring up again these days), the NATO military interventions in Afghanistan and Libya are a complete failure. Thirteen and six years after NATO's intervention, respectively, these states have hardly stabilized. On the contrary, Afghanistan and Libya are breeding places for terrorists. Again, this should not come as a surprise, because collective defense organizations are not meant for carrying out peace-building operations.

The biggest mistake, however, was NATO expansion. It is hard to refute the thesis that the Ukraine crisis is the result of interference by NATO and the EU in Russias spheres of influence. A red line was crossed, in the eyes of Moscow, and Russia had repeatedly made that position clear in advance. NATO expansion also contradicted Western promises. On the basis of these oral guarantees, in February 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev gave the green light for German reunification talks. And what did the West do? Expand NATO. Not just once, but twice. At the NATO Summit in Bucharest in 2008, President Bush even pushed through (against the wishes of the Europeans) a third extension, namely the promise to include Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. What did he expect Russia would do? Just take notice and agree?

More fundamentally, the West made the mistake after the end of the Cold War not to include Russia into the Euro-Atlantic security architecture on an equal basis. Contrary to positive examples in 1815 and 1945, the loser of the Cold War was left alone. Instead of replacing NATO with a regional collective security organization, the West kept NATO artificially in existenceand Russia in the dark. Ironically, the Baltic states, which wanted to feel more secure by becoming NATO members, are now feeling less secure. All this was predicted in the 1990s by foreign-policy giants like George Kennan and Paul Nitze.

Currently, there is a major split among the twenty-eight NATO member states: those in the south worry about migration and ISIS, but are relaxed with respect to Russia; those in the east are relaxed about ISIS, but worry about Russia. There is no common threat assessment. In addition, tensions between member states (Turkey and Greece) and within member states (Poland and Hungary) are rising.

Read more:

Take It from a European: NATO Is Obsolete - The National Interest Online

Germany to expand army and send tanks to Lithuania as Nato-Russia buildup continues – The Independent

Germany is to increase its army by 5,000 soldiers, the country's defence ministry has announced, bringing the total to 198,000 in 2024, at a time when USpressure is mounting on European Nato members to raise military spending.

The German army faces demands like never before, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement, adding that the army had to be able to respond in an appropriate way to developments abroad and security concerns.

Germany, reluctant for decades after the SecondWorld War to get involved in military missions abroad, has in the last few years become more active in supporting international deployments such as in Afghanistan, Mali and against Islamic State militants.

In January, Germany sent a battlegroup of more than 1,000 to Lithuania as part of a Nato mission to protect its eastern border with Russia in response to its annexation of Crimea and its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.

It will now dispatch a number of tanks and armoured vehicles to Lithuania to support its existing defence deployment in the country.

On top of the 5,000 extra soldiers, Germany will further add 1,000 civilians posts and about 500 reserves to its ranks at home.

The increase, long flagged by von der Leyen, comes at a time when USPresident Donald Trump is pushing Nato members, especially from Europe, to raise their military spending.

A map showing Nato's military buildup in Eastern Europe (Statista)

The defence alliance in 2014 agreed to end years of defence cuts and meet a target of spending 2 percent of economic output on defence by 2024. German defence spending is currently at 1.22 percent.

A defence ministry spokeswoman said provided the plan goes ahead, the increase would mean additional costs of about 955 million euros ($1.01 billion) per year from 2024.

Reuters

Follow this link:

Germany to expand army and send tanks to Lithuania as Nato-Russia buildup continues - The Independent

Canada’s commitment to NATO mission in Poland continues – Edmonton Sun


Edmonton Sun
Canada's commitment to NATO mission in Poland continues
Edmonton Sun
Since the operation began in May 2014, about 1,600 Canadian troops have rotated through the region to improve "interoperability" between NATO nations and to act as an "assurance and deterrence measure" against Russian aggression in the region.
Edmonton-based soldiers head to Poland for NATO missionGlobalnews.ca

all 3 news articles »

Continued here:

Canada's commitment to NATO mission in Poland continues - Edmonton Sun

NATO Promises Increase in Tempo of Air, Naval Patrols on Black Sea – EurasiaNet

The USS Porter transits the Bosphorus out of the Black Sea on February 13 after conducting NATO exercises. (photo: U.S. Navy Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Ford Williams)

NATO countries have agreed to increase the alliance's activities around the Black Sea, including more air and naval patrols of the sea, further increasing pressure in an area Russia considers to be of vital strategic importance.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced the decision at last week's defense ministerial in Brussels."Today, we agreed on two additional maritime measures: an increased NATO naval presence in the Black Sea for enhanced training, exercises and situational awareness, and a maritime coordination function for our Standing Naval Forces when operating with other Allied forces in the Black Sea region," he said.

Stoltenberg didn't provide any more specific information, but that seems to fall short of what was originally being proposed by Romania: some sort of permanent NATO structure dealing with the Black Sea. Asked for more details, a NATO official told The Bug Pit that the specifics were still being worked out, but thus far the plan involved a greater tempo of air and sea patrols, and expanding the already existing land forces brigade based in Romania:

The Black Sea is key to NATOs security and in response to Russias build-up there, the Alliance is increasing its presence in the region. On land, this presence will be built around a Romanian-led multinational brigade. It will focus on the training and interoperability of allied forces. This year we also plan more air patrols over the Black Sea and NATOs Standing Naval Forces will be in the Black Sea more frequently for training and port visits. This will increase our situational awareness and contribute to NATOs overall deterrence posture.

In response, Russia's ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko said Moscow is "thoroughly analyzing" the move."The decision to increase NATOs naval presence in the Black Sea is, in any case, yet another step towards escalating tensions in the regions of vital importance for Russia," he said.

Others were less diplomatic. If the U.S. tried to challenge Russia in the Black Sea, "the American ship has just a few minutes to live in the Black Sea, I tell you honestly, since the rocket complexes that the Black Sea Fleet has, will not allow them to carry out their operational and strategic missions in the Black Sea," Vladimir Romanenko, a former commander of Russia's coastal defense forces, told RIA Novosti.

"Russia has all the necessary resources, both material and moral, to maintain supremacy on the Black Sea," added Igor Kasatonov, former commander of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, in an interview with the military network TV Zvezda. "Our fleet has enough force to oppose the NATO forces in the Black Sea; the Black Sea Fleet dominates in this region."

Of course no one forsees an open naval battle between Russian and NATO on the Black Sea, and the move is likely some combination of NATO showing force and looking like its showing force.

"The goal of NATO is to restrict our actions in the Black Sea region and to increase the political-military pressure," said Mikhael Alexandrov, of the Military-Political Research Center at Moscow's leading foreign relations school, MGIMO. "The new NATO member states in Eastern Europe are trying to attract attention and raise the issue of security guarantees against the Russian threat," added another MGIMO scholar, Ivan Timofeev. "Brussels, in response, is making symbolic steps to show that it doesn't give up its own."

See the original post here:

NATO Promises Increase in Tempo of Air, Naval Patrols on Black Sea - EurasiaNet

Better spread NATO costs – Scranton Times-Tribune

Article Tools

Soldiers of the "Fighting Eagles" 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, walk by tanks that arrived Feb. 14 via train at he U.S. base in Mihail Kogalniceanu, eastern Romania. (Associated Press File)

President Donald Trump is dead wrong in his repeated assertions that the NATO alliance is obsolete.

NATO is responsible for the longest period of peace in European history. Its basic assertion that an attack on one of its 28 members is an attack on all is a powerful deterrent that is effective in practice.

As the president denigrates the alliance, its interesting to note that the only time that NATO has invoked the measure responding as one to a single attack was in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States.

Likewise, contrary to the presidents assertion, the alliance heavily is engaged against terrorists. NATO troops are the primary trainers of Iraqi and Kurdish ground troops who are grinding down the Islamic State terrorist organization.

Mr. Trump is on the mark, though, when he complains that some NATO members do not contribute adequately to funding the alliance. The administrations call for NATO members to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense is fair and reasonable.

The United States spends 3.61 percent of its GDP on defense. In dollars, it spends more than all other NATO members combined. Greece, Estonia, Britain and Poland spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Canada spends less than 1 percent. Germany spends 1.19 percent and France spends 1.78 percent.

While maintaining the U.S. commitment to the alliance, the administration should continue to press other alliance members to pick up their fair share of the costs.

Go here to see the original:

Better spread NATO costs - Scranton Times-Tribune

US to deploy 1000 troops to Poland as Russian foreign minister accuses Nato of being a ‘Cold War institution’ – The Independent

The US is preparing to deploy 1,000 troops and vehicles to northeastern Poland by the end of March to reassure Nato'sEastern European allies in the face of rising tension with Russia.

The unit, which will be part of 4,000 US troops deployed in rotation along Nato's eastern flank, will be located at Orzysz,Deutsche Wellereports.

The town sits 85 miles from Russia's Kaliningrad exclave, which is wedged between Poland and Lithuania.

Poland's leaders hold ceremony to welcome US troops as part of Nato build-up

It comes after Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov described NATO as a "Cold War institution" whose expansion had led to unprecedented tensions in Europe over the past thirty years.

Worried since Russia's 2014 seizure of Ukraine's Crimea that Moscow could invade Poland or the Baltic states, Nato is bolstering its eastern flank with troops, war games and warehoused US equipment ready for a rapid response force of up to 40,000 personnel.

A map showing Nato's military buildup in Eastern Europe (Statista)

The first German troops have arrived in Lithuania, where Berlin is leading a battalion of some 1,000 troops.

From around April, Britain will head the deterrent force in Estonia, while Canada is deploying in Latvia and US troops are arriving in Poland and across the Baltics.

Kremlin officials claim the build-up is the largest since the Second World War andsayit threatens the stability of central Europe.

Russia has some 330,000 troops amassed in its Western military district around Moscow, Nato believes.

Read more from the original source:

US to deploy 1000 troops to Poland as Russian foreign minister accuses Nato of being a 'Cold War institution' - The Independent

America should be grateful for its NATO partners – Washington Post

February 21

The Feb. 19 editorial A time for Europe to step up noted that the United States is spending more on defense thanmostNATO members and implied that other countries need the United States more than the United States needs them.

Many of these countries came to our aid in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Moreover, Russia is building a pipeline and a nuclear power plant in Turkey.If Turkey dropped out of NATO,we couldface a situation in which Russia, whichhas a reliable client state in Syria and a working relationship with Iran, signed a defense pact with all three countries and with Iraq, where Iran has influence. That would allow Russia toextend its influence over the price of oil and could make anymilitary action in the MiddleEast by the United States or Israel extremelyproblematic.

Perhaps we should be more grateful for our NATO partners.

Susan Altman, Washington

See the original post:

America should be grateful for its NATO partners - Washington Post

When the NSA Feared Psychics Could Make Cities Lost in Time and Space – Atlas Obscura

Not what this might look like. Public Domain image adapted by Eric Grundhauser

A versionof this storyoriginally appearedonMuckrock.com.

A classified government document opens with an odd sequence of events relating to parapsychology has occurred within the last month and concluded with an alarming question about psychics nuking cities so that they became lost in time and space. If this sounds like a plot out of science fiction, it is - but its also a NSA memo from 1977.

The first event raised by the NSA note is a CIA report which mentioned KGB research into parapsychology. According to this, the KGB used hobbyists and non-governmental researchers to talk to western scientists. This allowed the KGB to collect useful information without putting themselves into a position to accidentally leak confidential information to westerners. According to the NSA note, this tactic yielded high grade western scientific data.

The next event described by the NSA note was what appeared to be a Russian provocation, though exactly what sort was a matter of some debate. In June 1977, an American journalist was detained in Russia for receiving a Soviet paper on parapsychology. The paper allegedly documented PSI (i.e. psychic) particles within the living cell, allegedly providing a physical basis for parapsychology.

This struck American intelligence as being a form of entrapment, though the goal was uncertain. Some thought it was an effort to provoke radio chatter which the Soviets could trace to get a better idea of the U.S.s interest and activities. Another theory was that it was simply a warning to the West to stay away from sensitive Soviet research. A third theory was that it was a double-think ploy to pretend interest in a clumsy manner to make us think that this was really just a deception to trick the West into believing there was interest when there really was none. While this last theory might sound paranoid, this is how denial and deception operate - and its something that Russian counterintelligence has long excelled at.

The section concluded with a note that there had supposedly been a successful demonstration of telekinetic power in a Soviet military sponsored research lab, and the alleged discovery of a new type of energy perhaps even more important than that of Atomic energy.

The third event was the apparent postulation by some physicists along with the famous evolutionist, Teilhard de Chardin that the universe was more of a great thought than a great machine. According to this view, the unified field on ground of reality is awareness. The note cited telekinetic experiments and postulated that awareness focusing could produce a new form of energy that moves or perhaps alters matter.

The report cited British scientists experiencing poltergeist phenomena after testing Uri Geller. Objects allegedly left the room, some of which apparently reappeared later. Supposedly, this didnt surprise unnamed scientists who found it no harder to believe that objects could disappear and reappear than it was to believe in the detected particles emerging from energy and dissolving or disappearing back into energy.

From these premises, two types of telekinetic weapons were hypothesized: a telekinetic time bomb and the equivalent of a psychic nuke that could dislodge a city in time and space.

The first involved a member of the command and control staff being kidnapped and subjected to trauma that would allow him to be suggestively programmed to develop telekinetic effects under stress at work. The theory was that when an emergency situation arose and the officer was subjected to stress, objects would begin to move and disappear independently and communications would become impossible.

The second hypothetical weapon was even more elaborate and potentially terrifying. Citing a prediction of a massive change which will alter the direction, time, space and energy-matter relationship of our world, the note wondered what would happen if a group of psychics were brought together. If ten people who were evidencing disruptive telekinetic phenomena were brought into one area, would it cause a chain reaction, causing much matter to reverse direction and sink back into a sea of energy or be displaced in time and space? The memo concluded by wondering if such an event reach a critical mass and affect an entire city.

By an interesting coincidence, the Philadelphia Experiment hoax bears some superficial resemblance to the theorized weapon in the NSA note. According various versions of the hoax, the USS Eldridge was temporarily rendered invisible or transported through time and space. The incident is even listed on NSAs webpage of paranormal topics that they dont have records on. However, there were other papers prepared on the perceived potential of weaponizing psychic abilities, some of which will be explored later. For now, you can read the NSA note here.

Originally posted here:

When the NSA Feared Psychics Could Make Cities Lost in Time and Space - Atlas Obscura

Posted in NSA

NSA denies ‘blanket’ spying on spectators and athletes at the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City – Washington Post

The National Security Agency has denied it indiscriminately spied on spectators, athletes and others who attended the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002.

The denial came in a document filed last week in a U.S. District Court in Utah, where a group of Salt Lake City residents filed a complaint in 2015 alleging the U.S. government engaged in widespread, indiscriminate communications surveillance, interception, and analysis, without warrants and without probable cause during the Games that took place just months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

At issue, specifically, is how the Presidents Surveillance Program, or PSP, was implemented during the Games. PSP made headlines after 2013 when the government admitted to collecting a type of information known as metadata in bulk following the publication of classified materials leaked by Edward Snowden.

[New study: Snowdens disclosures about NSA spying had a scary effect on free speech]

In the court document, the NSA and other intelligence authorities admit that the activities actually carried out under the PSP were conducted without warrant or court order or judicial findings of probablecause, but rather, under Presidential and statutory authority, NSA attorney James Gilligan wrote in the filing on Friday.

He added, however, To the extent the allegations of this paragraph exceed the scope of or are inconsistent with the foregoing admissions, they are denied, including, specifically, the allegation that the PSP involved indiscriminate surveillance, interception, or analysis of communications.

Gilligan wrote neither the PSP nor any other NSA intelligence activity involved or evolved into blanket, indiscriminate surveillance of the contents of every email and text message and the metadata of every telephone call sent or received in Salt Lake City, or the vicinity of Olympic venues, during the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games.

Gilligan concluded the filing by asking the court to dismiss the complaint.

The NSAs latest request for dismissal comes just a month after U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby refused to dismiss the complaint that was filed by former Salt Lake City Mayor Ross Rocky Anderson on behalf a bipartisan group of individuals. The individuals are not seeking monetary damages.

Because the allegations in the [complaint] are not legal conclusions, bare assertions of the elements of standing, or sufficiently fantastic on their face as to defy reality, the law requires the court to accept them as true when evaluating the NSAs Motion to Dismiss, Shelby wrote in a court filing last month. Though these allegations will undoubtedly be tested as this case proceeds, the court concludes at this early stage that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged injury and redressability as required (H/t: Fox 13)

Continue reading here:

NSA denies 'blanket' spying on spectators and athletes at the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City - Washington Post

Posted in NSA

NSA gives grant to Augusta University Cyber Institute – WRDW-TV

News 12 NBC 26 @ 6:00 / Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2017

AUGUSTA, Ga. (WRDW/WAGT) -- Augusta University's Cyber Institute is getting a big boost. A week after Governor Deal signed the Cyber Center's budget, now the school is seeing a grant from the NSA.

If it wasn't clear already Augusta University is becoming the place to be for cyber.

"So what' I'm telling you is the institute is working, what we're doing is working," Augusta University Cyber Institute Director Joanne Sexton said.

They've already expanded their reach into downtown Augusta and now they're reaching further, globally.

"We're in the right place at the right time, making things happen so we're very very fortunate," Sexton said.

Last week the NSA gave the school nearly a grant for nearly 300,000 dollars. The money could help students take a trip to see NATO's cyber security headquarters, but it's also helping add more cyber courses here.

"One thing is if you look at our name, it's the Cyber Institute, we didn't call it Cyber Security. And that was on purpose because cyber touches all of us. It's across all of the curriculum," she said.

That means cyber security, cyber terrorism, cyber in health care, and more. There's something to learn for every student.

"Federal to private to state, whatever, everyone needs this kind of work," Augusta University Cyber student Matthew Tennis said.

It's making students like Matthew ideal job candidates.

"I'm looking at either going into federal work in the intelligence industry or into private work in intelligence," he said.

"When you talk about cyber security, it's zero unemployment as long as you have the skills," Sexton said.

They're adding to the skills by adding graduate programs in intelligence analysis and security studies. And the cyber school has already doubled in size, more than 300 Augusta University students are in cyber programs. This is another way the school and the city area are virtually growing.

"Augusta University has a piece, our local community has been really supportive, but really it's about the whole team working together," she said.

More here:

NSA gives grant to Augusta University Cyber Institute - WRDW-TV

Posted in NSA

Can NSA Pick McMaster Bring Ethics to the White House? – Newsweek

This article first appeared on the Just Security site.

On Monday, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster agreed to serve as national security advisor to the president.

McMaster has written and spoken extensively on a range of topics, from grand strategy to ground force maneuver. McMaster also appears to have strong views about military ethics that may influence the advice that he provides on matters of war and peace.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

While I have not found a systematic presentation of his moral worldview, there are a number of striking and potentially revealing statements that readers may find of great interest.

Indeed, McMasters statements over the years suggest a moral outlook that may positively influence national security policy, or lead to conflict with others in the administration who do not share his values.

First, I should note that, while commanding the U.S. Armys 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq, McMaster reportedly

forbade his soldiers from using dehumanizing and derogatory language when referring to Iraqis: both because such behavior is inconsistent with the shared values that define a soldiers moral identity, and because such behavior is potentially a verbal foot in the door leading to more serious forms of abuse.

As commander of the regiment, McMaster also reportedly ordered detainees be treated humanely, and even polled detainees on how well the regiment followed through. Such reports suggest that McMaster may be a practitioner of military ethics, not simply a theorist.

Speaking at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs in 2014, McMaster offered the following remarks:

If you see, for example, what ISIL [ISIS] is doing today, you would think, Okay, how do you deal with an enemy like this, an enemy that operates in this way, and then is intermingled with civilian populations? Maybe to defeat this kind of enemy you have to be equally brutal. Maybe you have to lower your standards, but I would say that exactly the opposite is the case.

. . . We have to defeat them in a way thats consistent with our values that reflect our society and whats expected of our military, for our Army forces, and of course whats been expected since at least the time of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, taking it back even further.

So what does that mean? It means that we have to fight them applying the principles of just war theory, which means distinction. We distinguish between our enemies and civilian populations.

Every day in Afghanistan today, every day across the wars in Iraq, our soldiers and Marines place themselves at a higher level of risk to protect innocents. I think thats something thats very important to understand about these kind of conflicts. Our soldiers are warriors, but our soldiers are also humanitarians.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster at the Trump Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, February 20. Adil Ahmad Haque writes that McMaster's distinguishing between civilians and combatants and accepting higher risk to avoid harming civilians seem incompatible with targeting the families of our enemies or simply bomb[ing] the shit out of them, in the words of President Trump. Kevin Lamarque/reuters

Needless to say, distinguishing between civilians and combatants and accepting higher risk to avoid harming civilians seem quite incompatible with targeting the families of our enemies or simply bomb[ing] the shit out of them, in the words of President Trump.

McMaster sounded the same theme years earlier, in a 2010 speech, Moral, Ethical, and Psychological Preparation of Soldiers and Units for Combat:

Because our enemy is unscrupulous, some argue for a relaxation of ethical and moral standards and the use of force with less discrimination because the endsthe defeat of the enemyjustifies the means employed. To think this way would be a grave mistake. The war in which we are engaged demands that we retain the moral high ground despite the depravity of our enemies.

McMaster then made the following observation:

Ensuring ethical conduct goes beyond the law of war and must include a consideration of our valuesour ethos. The Law of War codifies the principal tenets of just war theory, especially jus in bello principles of discrimination and proportionality. However, individual and institutional values are more important than legal constraints on immoral behavior; legal contracts are often observed only as long as others honor them or as long as they are enforced.

In this passage, McMaster suggests that principles that protect civilians during the conduct of hostilitiesdiscrimination and proportionalityare, fundamentally, moral principles codified into law. Accordingly, they bind soldiers categorically, irrespective of any expectation of reciprocity or fear of punishment.

The relationship between the law of war and the morality of war may be particularly relevant today, as a recentpresidential memorandum directs the secretary of defense to recommend changes to any United States rules of engagement and other United States policy restrictions that exceed the requirements of international law.

If the morality of war prohibits what the law of waras understood by the U.S. governmentdoes not, then it may prove quite fortuitous that the incoming national security advisor seems committed to the former as well as to the latter.

In a 2014 Veterans Day speech at Georgetown University entitled, The Warrior Ethos at Risk, McMaster offered the following thoughts:

I thought that we might consider two ways of honoring our veterans. First, to study war as the best means of preventing it; and second, to help the American military preserve our warrior ethos while remaining connected to those in whose name we fight.

It was Aristotle who first said that it is only worth discussing what is in our power. So we might discuss how to prevent particular conflicts rather than eliminate all conflict, and when conflict is necessary, how to win. And in the pursuit of victory, how to preserve our values and make war less inhumane.

Similarly, in a 2016 speech at Norwich University, McMaster warned against the tendency in our country to confuse military studies with militarism, arguing instead that the study of war is important to the preservation of peace.

These statements suggest that we should aim, above all, to prevent and avoid war. When we fail, we should fight the wars we cannot avoid as effectively and ethically as possible. This view seems consistent with the just war tradition, which seeks a middle path between realism and pacifism.

In a 2013 interview with McKinsey, McMaster volunteered the following (Ill let these passages speak for themselves):

The human dimension of war is immensely important for the Army as well; we need leaders who are morally, ethically, and psychologically prepared for combat and who understand why breakdowns in morals and ethics occur. I think there are usually four causes of breakdowns in moral characterignorance, uncertainty, fear, or combat trauma.

It is important to understand the effects of those four factors on an organization and then educate soldiers about what we expect of them. We need leaders who have physical and mental courage on the battlefield, of course, but also the courage to speak their minds and offer respectful and candid feedback to their superiors. Our leaders cant feel compelled to tell their bosses what they want to hear.

In addition to the fundamentals of combat, our soldiers really have to live the Armys professional ethics and values. They must be committed to selfless service, to their fellow soldiers, to their mission, and to our nation. That also involves, obviously, respect for and protection of our Constitution and understanding their role in that context.

Finally, McMaster seems to view the wars we are currently waging through a moral lens that differs quite dramatically from that of his immediate predecessor and of some of his new colleagues in the administration.

In his speech at Norwich University, McMaster called for soldiers and civilians alike to understand and develop empathy, empathy for the cultures and historical experience of the peoples among whom wars are fought and to promote moral conduct by generating empathy for others in an effort to prevent war or at least make war less inhumane.

In his Carnegie Council remarks, McMaster repeatedly describes ISIS, the Taliban and similar groups as irreligious groups seeking to impose a political order on local populations who are their primary victims:

This is an irreligious ideology in which you have these so-called imans who have third and fourth grade educations. Theyre thugs and criminals. Theyre misogynistic. They are wanting to impose on a huge population and territory an order that is medieval and rejects humanity, I think.

Theyre criminals. We ought to make sure we criminalize their behavior. What religious standard justifies this? No religious standard. These are irreligious people.

What we must do is we must defeat these enemies, who are enemies of all civilized people, along with our partners and allies in the region, the people who are suffering the most, who are in these regions in Afghanistan and Iraq and so forth.

Similarly, at Georgetown, McMaster said:

we will defeat these enemies who cynically use a perverted interpretation of religion to incite hatred and violence. . . .

Enemy organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIL [ISIS] seek to perpetuate ignorance, foment hatred and use that hatred as justification for the murder of innocents. They entice masses of undereducated, disaffected young men with a sophisticated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and brainwashing.

McMaster made similar remarks last May at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

McMaster seems to understand that groups like ISIS and the Taliban do not represent Islam or the worlds Muslims. They seek to rule by violence and terror precisely because they cannot rule by consent. Accordingly, the United States should fight alongside Muslim communities against a common enemy rather than treat all Muslims as the enemy.

Will McMasters views prevail in the National Security Council, and shape the administrations foreign policy? Time will tell.

Adil Ahmad Haque is Professor of Law and Judge Jon O. Newman Scholar at Rutgers Law School.

More:

Can NSA Pick McMaster Bring Ethics to the White House? - Newsweek

Posted in NSA

Letter to the editor: Fourth Amendment for Americans – Post Register

Letter to the editor: Fourth Amendment for Americans
Post Register
Regarding Security is a human right by Pastor Regina Herman, Feb. 16: Pastor Herman states, in part, that They [Sanctuary cities, also called Fourth Amendment Cities] are not set up to defy the government, the Constitution, or the laws on which this ...

Here is the original post:

Letter to the editor: Fourth Amendment for Americans - Post Register

Judge rejects warrant provision allowing compelled thumbprints to … – Washington Post

A federal magistrate judge in Chicago has rejected a request by the government for a provision in a search warrant that would authorize agents to compel people present to unlock seized phones using biometric readers. I think the judge was right to reject the provision, although I disagree with substantial parts of the reasoning why.

I. The New Opinion

In the case, an Internet connection (presumably at a home) is being used to traffic in images of child pornography. The government wants the authority to search the place and seize any computers located there. The magistrate judge allows that. The government also wants a provision in the warrant authorizing the police to compel any individual who is present at the subject premises at the time of the search to provide his fingerprints and/or thumbprints onto the Touch ID sensor of any Apple iPhone, iPad, or other Apple brand device in order to gain access to the contents of any such device. The magistrate judge rejects that provision, issuing the warrant without it.

The magistrate judge offers two reasons for rejecting the fingerprint provision. First, the opinion suggests that making a person give a fingerprint raises case-by-case questions of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment that cannot be addressed with a blanket authorization. According to the court, the warrant does not establish sufficient probable cause to compel any person who happens to be at the subject premises at the time of the search to give his fingerprint to unlock an unspecified Apple electronic device. Lots of people might be present on the premises at the time of the search, but there is no way to know ahead of time whether there will be sufficient cause to seize each person needed to make then unlock a particular phone.

Second, the judge suggests that obtaining thumbprints will violate the Fifth Amendment because cell phones contain very sensitive information. The common wisdom is that an order to place a particular thumb on a thumbprint reader doesnt violate the Fifth Amendment because it isnt testimonial. It doesnt reveal what is going on in the persons mind, so its not the persons testimony. But the magistrate judge disagrees:

[T]he connection of the fingerprint to the electronic source that may hold contraband (in this case, suspected child pornography) does explicitly or implicitly relate a factual assertion or disclose information. Doe, 670 F.3d at 1342. The connection between the fingerprint and Apples biometric security system, shows a connection with the suspected contraband. By using a finger to unlock a phones contents, a suspect is producing the contents on the phone. With a touch of a finger, a suspect is testifying that he or she has accessed the phone before, at a minimum, to set up the fingerprint password capabilities, and that he or she currently has some level of control over or relatively significant connection to the phone and its contents.

The government cites United States v. Wade, for the proposition that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting. (Gvt. Mem. at2) (citing Wade,388 U.S. 218,223). This case, however, was decided in 1967, prior to the existence of cell phones, and in the context of utilizing fingerprinting solely for identification purposes. In the context of the Fifth Amendment, this Court finds these two starkly different scenarios: using a finger print to place someone at a particular location, or using a fingerprint to access a database of someones most private information. The Wade court could not have anticipated the creation of the iPhone nor could it have anticipated that its holding would be applied in such a far-reaching manner.

II. My Analysis the Fourth Amendment Issues

I think the judge was correct to reject this provision, although not quite for the reasons stated. The proper reason to reject this provision is that warrants cannot and should not regulate how a warrant is to be executed. The warrant has to state where the police can search and what they can seize there. But what else happens when the warrant is executed is a matter of case-by-case reasonableness, and magistrates shouldnt try to insert themselves into that by imposing blanket reasonableness determination ex ante when they have no idea what the facts will turn out to be.

This principle most often comes up when judges want to impose ex ante restrictions on computer warrants. Those restrictions might be search protocols or restrictions on when seized computers have to be returned. I argued in a 2010 article that these limits are improper. The reasonableness of the search has to be determined ex post, I argued, not answered by a magistrate judge ahead of time when the warrant is issued.

A warrant provision providing authorization to get thumbprints is the mirror image of ex ante restrictions. Now the government wants ex ante approval of steps in the execution of the warrant rather than judges wanting ex ante disapproval of steps. But the principle is the same. Just as a magistrate judge cant gauge at the time of the warrant application what limits on the execution of the search would be proper, neither can a magistrate judge gauge what added government steps would be proper. We have to wait for the execution of the search and for reasonableness determinations to be made on the scene by the officers and then reviewed ex post by courts.

This point is true even if courts in future ex post litigation rule that a particular thumbprinting practice complies with the Fourth Amendment. If courts later issue those rulings, then magistrates still shouldnt include provisions about them in warrants. Instead, they will become part of background Fourth Amendment principles that apply to every warrant. And notably, the Fourth Amendment cases the court discusses on detention and fingerprinting are all about what was deemed reasonable ex post. None of them are about provisions included in a warrant ex ante.

If Im right that this fingerprint provision is categorically improper, one question is why is the government seeking it. Whats the perceived advantage? I suspect there are two reasons. First, prosecutors and agents are probably thinking that magistrate pre-approval will help trigger the good faith exception of United States v. Leon. If a particular fingerprinting is later questioned in court, and a judge rules that it was improper, agents can fall back on the pre-approval of the process in the warrant to avoid suppression. If thats what they are thinking, its all the more reason to reject the provision: It makes no sense for magistrate pre-approval of something they have no authority to pre-approve to change whether the exclusionary rule applies.

Second, prosecutors and agents may be thinking that including the provision in the warrant will encourage people not to resist giving their thumbprints. Agents wont want to force people to put their thumbs on the phones; they would rather those present do so without force. With a warrant in hand saying that a judge has ordered it already, people are probably more likely to submit. But if thats the concern, I think the same objective could be met with an appellate court ruling saying that the thumbprints are permitted as a matter of Fourth Amendment law. Agents could show people a summary of the law on the issue, printed up on government letterhead, and I think that would have equivalent persuasive force. And of course that assumes that the courts would issue such a blanket ruling. Whether that is true would have to be litigated first, obviously.

I interpret the judges Fourth Amendment analysis to be at least somewhat in sync with the argument I have made here. On that basis I think the judge was correct to reject the provision, although I would have expressed the Fourth Amendment argument somewhat differently.

II. My Analysis the Fifth Amendment Issues

On to the Fifth Amendment issues. I wrote a long blog post last year on why I think compelling fingerprints to unlock phones can but usually wont raise Fifth Amendment issues: The Fifth Amendment and TouchID . That post largely explains why I disagree with much of the magistrate judges Fifth Amendment analysis. The judge seems to think that using a persons body to reveal really private information somehow makes it testimonial; it is using the body to produce evidence, after all. But the Fifth Amendment is solely concerned with compelling use of the mind, not compelling use of the body.

There are ways that compelling someone to place fingers on biometric readers can require use of the mind, as I argued back in October. Imagine the police walk up to a person present at the scene and say this: Here are ten phones, and you have to pick out your phone and unlock it with TouchID. Complying will be testimonial as to which phone belongs to that person and will amount to testimony that they know which part of their body unlocks it. On the other hand, if the police walk up to a suspect and say, place your right thumb on this phone, complying wont amount to testimony about anything.

The fact that iPhones didnt exist in 1967 is irrelevant, as is the fact that the police are ultimately able to get to lots of personal information by unlocking a phone. Those are relevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis, as the Riley case shows. But theyre not relevant to the Fifth Amendment standard.

Ill conclude with a procedural point. Im skeptical that possible Fifth Amendment issues that might arise in the execution of the warrant are properly before the court. For the Fifth Amendment to apply, the person must first expressly invoke the privilege. Given that people may or may not invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, Im skeptical that there is a ripe dispute now that can allow a court to adjudicate the Fifth Amendment issue. This concern would be solved by removing the provision from the warrant, as I think the Fourth Amendment requires.

Continued here:

Judge rejects warrant provision allowing compelled thumbprints to ... - Washington Post

Ellison: ‘I did not say’ Democrats should come out against 2nd amendment – Washington Times

Rep. Keith Ellison denied Thursday that he previously said the Democratic Party should come out against the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

That is not what I said at all, Mr. Ellison said during a CNN debate between the candidates seeking to lead the Democratic National Committee, after he was asked about a 2012 appearance he made on Real Time with Bill Maher.

In the episode, Mr. Ellison told the HBO host that he supported common-sense gun rules.

When Mr. Maher countered that the party should come out against the Second Amendment, Mr. Ellison said, I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would.

In the CNN debate, Mr. Ellison said his comments are being taken out of context.

I did not say that, he said. That was not an accurate statement.

The Minnesota Democrat then said he hunts with a conservative Democrat in rural Minnesota and said that he supports stricter background checks for guns.

Continued here:

Ellison: 'I did not say' Democrats should come out against 2nd amendment - Washington Times

A Federal Court of Appeals Goes to War against the Second Amendment – National Review

What happens when you mix contempt for individual rights with a healthy dose of willful ignorance and fear? You get the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court thats teaching the legal Left the recipe for attacking the Second Amendment.

Twice in less than a month, the court has radically restricted the constitutional rights of gun owners. In January, it held that even lawful gun owners are inherently dangerous and can face limitations on their constitutional rights, including the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, simply because they possess a gun. In the words of a concurring judge:

In sum, individuals who carry firearms lawfully or unlawfully pose a risk of danger to themselves, law enforcement officers, and the public at large. Accordingly, law enforcement officers may frisk lawfully stopped individuals whom the officers reasonably suspect are carrying a firearm because a detainees possession of a firearm poses a categorical danger to the officers.

But this holding, as dangerous as it is, pales in comparison with the courts decision yesterday, when it not only upheld Marylands assault-weapons ban but categorically stated that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to own so-called assault weapons or the right to own a magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition.

How can it reach such a conclusion? Remember the formula: contempt, willful ignorance, and fear.

First, lets look at the courts breathtaking contempt for individual rights. Rather than read the Supreme Courts controlling opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller according to its plain language, it deliberately distorts Justice Antonin Scalias majority opinion. In Heller, Scalia clearly stated that the sorts of weapons the Second Amendment protects are those that are in common use at the time, with exceptions that apply to those weapons that are dangerous and unusual.

Why the addition of and unusual? Because every single working gun ever made is dangerous. To illustrate his point, Scalia then provides examples of specific types of dangerous and unusual guns M-16 rifles and the like. Heres a news flash: The M-16 isnt the same as a civilian assault weapon like the AR-15. The M-16 variants in use in the United States military are capable of being fired in both semi-automatic and fully automatic (three-round burst) modes. If you think that the M-16 and AR-15 are alike, then walk to your local gun store and try to buy an M-16.

Go ahead. Ill wait.

Are you back yet? Do you have an M-16? No? Thats because its an entirely different category of weapon, governed by different federal statutes. The Fourth Circuit, however, deliberately conflated semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons. And it went to absurd lengths to do so. To illustrate how, lets turn to the next part of the formula willful ignorance.

RELATED: The Fourth Circuit Runs Roughshod over Heller and the Second Amendment

In discussing the civilian, semi-automatic AR-15, the court comprehensively described the history of the military, fully automatic weapon that became the M-16 (and also the lighter and shorter M-4). Then, attempting to equate the M-16 and the AR-15, it published this spit-out-your-coffee sentence: Semiautomatic weapons can be fired at rates of 300 to 500 rounds per minute, making them virtually indistinguishable in practical effect from machineguns.

The word rates does a lot of work in that sentence. Yes, a person can pull the trigger very quickly on a semi-auto rifle (of any type) for a very short time. No, you cannot send 300 to 500 rounds downrange in one minute. You cant even do it with an M-16 in burst mode.

To the Fourth Circuit, every shooters the same as the legendary Jerry Miculek:

But wait, he can do the exact same thing with an M1 Garand, an actual (more powerful) military weapon thats specifically exempted from Marylands ban. As the dissent notes, under the majoritys reasoning, it is legal in Maryland to possess a rifle that was actually used by our military on the battlefield, but illegal to possess a rifle never used by our military.

The majority also argues that the AR-15 is like the M-16 because soldiers typically fire their weapons in semi-automatic mode. True enough. They also use exclusively semi-auto pistols, sometimes use bolt-action sniper rifles, and brought pump-action shotguns to combat for generations. By that reasoning, virtually every firearm is like a military weapon.

What really is the limiting principle? Thats where we get to the final ingredient in the unconstitutional stew fear.

The court begins its opinion by reciting the horrible facts of the Sandy Hook massacre. It then walks through shooting after shooting in which the killers used assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or both. These anecdotes are horrible, but the plural of anecdote is not data, and the data show that fewer people are murdered by rifles than by fists or feet and that a previous nationwide assault-weapons ban led to no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence. Indeed, even if the ban had been renewed, its effects on gun violence [were] likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.

Even more perniciously, the court hypes the fear of mass shootings at the same time that it takes from civilians the best weapon for confronting a mass shooter a semi-automatic handgun carrying a high-capacity magazine. Even though law-abiding holders of concealed-carry permits commit less crime than the police (more data for the court) and have stopped mass shootings time and again, the Fourth Circuit mandates that they be outgunned in the face of the common threat of a large-capacity magazine.

Lets put this as plainly as possible. This court has determined that your right to self-defense is limited to the use of weapons less effective than those used in the most notorious massacres. In other words, criminals define your rights. Whatever gun they choose to use in the rarest of crimes, youre going to have to settle for less, even if the criminal retains broad and easy access to superior firepower. After all, the Fourth Circuit, in its infinite gun wisdom, has determined that no one has needed to fire more than ten rounds to protect himself.

Heres the bottom line, citizens of Maryland: A federal court has defied the Supreme Court and decided that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is limited to those guns that have no modern military analog and have not (yet) been used to carry out a mass shooting. So dust off those pearl-handled revolvers. Learn to shoot like Doc Holliday. Criminals wont comply with Marylands brainless law, so your aim had better beat their firepower.

In two key cases, deception, fear, and ignorance have overcome the Constitution. This is how Heller dies one defiant decision at a time.

David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read the rest here:

A Federal Court of Appeals Goes to War against the Second Amendment - National Review

Central Florida’s LGBTQ Community Begins to Embrace Second Amendment – Bearing Arms

Just weeks after the mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, the local Orlando gay community reached out to NRA Certified Firearms InstructorJo Martinin an effort to start their own Pink Pistols chapter.

Now, almost nine months later, the Central Florida chapter of Pink Pistols has noticed an increase in attendance at their monthly meetings. The Pulse tragedy, although recognized by the LGBTQ community as a terror incident, has also reaffirmed their vulnerability as it relates to hate crimes and the need for self defense. In fact, there was so much interest in the group that Martin is now starting a second organization shes calling the Rainbow Shooting Club.

Martin saidthrough a generous donation made by a Connecticut gun manufacturer, the firearms classes are now being provided to the LGBTQ community free of charge. The grant covers everything: the costs of the training materials, instruction, range time, rental firearms, evenammunition.

The thought of me holding a gun is terrifying, said Diana Georgey, who signed up for the classes. She told NBC affiliateWESH-TV. It (the Pulse Shooting) affected me in a way that I felt like I cant ever go anywhere and be safe.

According to Martin, this was the sentiment of a majority of her LGBTQ students. However, she has noticed a change. The group now appears to be embracing not just firearms, but an overall support of the Second Amendment.

Martin, a Scottish immigrant to the United States and staunch Second Amendment advocate, said she never discussed politics in her classes before, but thats changed. Many of her LGBTQ students have questions and they cant be ignored. She said this community has so much misinformation, especially about conservatives and the Second Amendment.

The media is negative and divisive and Im just glad I can provide factual information that I hope can open up some minds, said Martin. Its ok to have a difference of opinion, but conservatives are much more tolerant than the media gives us credit for; why is it we have to have a tragedy of this magnitude to bring people together? We need to make it clear that we cherish not only our rights, but each other too.

Through the efforts of Jo Martin, her training crew, and their positive Second Amendment advocacy, the Central Florida Pink Pistols, a previously skeptical community now understands the importance of embracing and supporting their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

The rest is here:

Central Florida's LGBTQ Community Begins to Embrace Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Ramsey hires legal defense against 2nd Amendment challengers – NorthJersey.com

Residents on Wednesday night show support for the Borough Council.(Photo: Tom Nobile/NorthJersey.com)

RAMSEY The Borough Council approved an outside legal defense Wednesday night as it prepares for litigation against an ordinance that would block a 60,620-square-foot gun range from coming to town.

Troutman Sanders, an international law firm based in New York, will defend the borough on a pro bono basis, said Mayor Deirdre Dillon.

On March 8, the council will vote to amend a 1961 ordinance that prohibits the firing of any pistol, shotgun, rifle or other type of firearms anywhere in the borough. The ordinance currently contains an exemption for gun ranges, but the council plans to remove that loophole.

Local officials put forth the ordinance change as a matter of public health and safety, justweeks after a Pennsylvania developer proposed the range to the Planning Board last month.

Multiple parties have pledged to sue if the ordinance is adopted. Among them is the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, an advocacy group for gun owners. President Alexander Roubian said his organization is ready to partner with the Second Amendment Foundation, a national nonprofit, on filing a complaint in federal court.

James Jaworski, an attorney for the range, also plans to protect his clients constitutional rights if necessary.

Troutman Sanders brings experience arguing before the appellate division and Supreme Court, according to Dillon.This is a constitutional law issue, she said.

Roubian said his attorneys are eager to take the case in light of the latest court decisions in Chicago. In years past, and most recently in January, the appellate court ruled against the city for trying to ban and limit gun ranges by zoning.

On a separate track, resident Chance Parker has created a legal fund to challenge the application at the Planning Board level. To date, it has raised $4,500 of its $25,000 goal. The money would help hire an independent planner, engineer and environmental consultant to review the application.

Were trying to provide an effective third-party opinion, he said.

The full-service firing range would have 67 firing stalls, a space for retail sales, gun rentals and a restaurant. Members would have access to locker and bath facilities, and a country-club-style room with a fireplace, billiards and gaming.

Read or Share this story: http://northjersy.news/2lxL2BS

Link:

Ramsey hires legal defense against 2nd Amendment challengers - NorthJersey.com

State joins effort on Second Amendment – Rapid City Journal

Attorney General Marty Jackley has joined a brief filed in the United States Supreme Court by 26 Attorneys General seeking to protect Second Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment gives law-abiding citizens the fundamental right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, their families and their homes. As Attorney General, I have a strong interest in protecting and defending our law-abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms, stated Jackley in a release.

The brief was filed in the case of Edward Peruta v. State of California.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there was no right to concealed carry of a firearm.

The brief argues that requirements imposed to carry a gun in San Diego violate the Second Amendment. Those requirements are being interpreted to prevent ordinary citizens from qualifying for a permit.

The states contend that the requirements effectively ban the core right to bear arms for ordinary law-abiding citizens.

The Attorneys General argue that Both the text and history of the Second Amendment demonstrate that the right to keep and bear arms does not stop at the front door of the home.

Go here to read the rest:

State joins effort on Second Amendment - Rapid City Journal

IMDb likely has First Amendment right to display people’s ages – Washington Post

A recently enacted California law, AB 1687, requires websites that provide employment services to an individual for a subscription payment to stop publishing a subscribers age whenever the subscriber so demands. In practice, this law was aimed at IMDb, which lets people in the entertainment industry post various rsum information online (via its IMDb Pro service) but also publishes biographical information about people subscribers or not including their ages. The law wasnt limited to information that IMDb learned through its relationship with subscribers; it also covered information that IMDb independently acquired.

Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria temporarily blocked the enforcement of the law, ruling that IMDb was likely to succeed in its First Amendment claim:

Its difficult to imagine how AB 1687 could not violate the First Amendment. The statute prevents IMDb from publishing factual information (information about the ages of people in the entertainment industry) on its website for public consumption. This is a restriction of non-commercial speech on the basis of content. Therefore, the burden is on the government to show that the restriction is actually necessary to serve a compelling government interest. [Footnote: The government has not argued that birthdates or other age-related facts implicate some privacy interest that protects them from public disclosure, and its doubtful such an argument would prevail in any event.] The government is highly unlikely to meet this burden, and certainly nothing it has submitted in opposition to the preliminary injunction motion suggests it will be able to do so.

To be sure, the government has identified a compelling goal preventing age discrimination in Hollywood. But the government has not shown how AB 1687 is necessary to advance that goal. In fact, its not clear how preventing one mere website from publishing age information could meaningfully combat discrimination at all.

And even if restricting publication on this one website could confer some marginal antidiscrimination benefit, there are likely more direct, more effective, and less speech-restrictive ways of achieving the same end. For example, although the government asserts generically that age discrimination continues in Hollywood despite the long-time presence of antidiscrimination laws, the government fails to explain why more vigorous enforcement of those laws would not be at least as effective at combatting age discrimination as removing birthdates from a single website. Because the government has presented nothing to suggest that AB 1687 would actually combat age discrimination (much less that its necessary to combat age discrimination), there is an exceedingly strong likelihood that IMDb will prevail in this lawsuit.

[Footnote: The government casts AB 1687 as ordinary economic regulation falling outside First Amendment scrutiny. But IMDb Pros commercial relationship with its subscribers has no connection to IMDbs public site, which relies on data obtained from third parties or from the public record. The government would perhaps be on stronger ground if AB 1687 were limited to preventing IMDb from misappropriating the data furnished by subscribers to its industry-facing site.]

Sounds right to me, though Id go further and say that such a restriction on publishing truthful information would be unconstitutional even if it did combat age discrimination more effectively than other alternatives would. (Note that I signed on to an amicus brief in the case that supported this position; the brief was written by M.C. Sungaila, and was signed by, among others, noted liberal professor and University of California at Irvine dean Erwin Chemerinsky, our own David Post and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Read the original post:

IMDb likely has First Amendment right to display people's ages - Washington Post