Supreme Court gun ruling stuns Las Vegas shooting survivors - Newstrends
Connect with us

International

Supreme Court gun ruling stuns Las Vegas shooting survivors

Published

on

Supreme Court gun ruling stuns Las Vegas shooting survivors

On 1 October 2017, Heather Gooze was serving drinks at the Route 91 music festival in Las Vegas when concert-goers began running into her bar, screaming and covered in blood.

A gunman perched high in a Las Vegas hotel had opened fire on the festivities below. He killed 60 people and wounded over 400 more. He was able to carry out what is still the deadliest mass shooting in US history because of a mechanism he installed on his gun known as a bump stock.

In the aftermath of the massacre, then-President Donald Trump banned bump stocks, a modification that allows a rifle to fire like a machine gun. It was a rare example of the US making a change to its gun policies in the wake of a mass shooting, and it was a reform that survivors of the attack welcomed.

The ban was all the more extraordinary because it was instituted by a Republican president and supported by the National Rifle Association, figures that would normally oppose a gun control proposal.

On Friday, the US Supreme Court struck down the ban, deciding in a 6-3 opinion that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had overstepped its authority to outlaw the device.

For survivors like Ms Gooze, who identifies as liberal and thought Trump’s ban was “phenomenal”, the ruling felt like a step backward for the country.

“Who has ever used a bump stock for good?” she told the BBC. “There’s no reason for a civilian to use a mass shooting machine.”

Ms Gooze, 50, still vividly remembers the panic of helping people flee the carnage, and the frantic battle to save the people struck by the more than 1,000 rounds that the gunman fired with the help of his weapon’s modification.

“I had my finger in the bullet hole of one of our angels in the back of their head,” she said of one victim she tried to save. She stayed with the body of another victim for hours, using a phone she found in their pocket to contact the family.

“I watched people’s lives change right in front of my face, as well as my own,” she said.

One of those lives was Brittany Quintero’s. Ms Quintero was separated from her friend in the chaos of the shooting, and though they both survived, she has spent years working through the trauma the shooting inflicted.

READ ALSO:

She told the BBC that the Supreme Court’s decision had left her reeling.

“It feels like another slap in the face, to be honest,” she said.

Ms Quintero, 41, said she does not necessarily believe that more stringent gun restrictions would help prevent mass shootings. She also believes not enough proposed solutions address mental health.

“I don’t think taking away people’s Second Amendment rights is going to solve these things that keep occurring,” she said, referring to the protections for gun owners enshrined in the US Constitution.

“If someone has it in their mind to do it, they’re going to find a way or other means.”

But despite her reservations, she still thinks the Supreme Court was wrong to reinstate access to bump stocks.

The Route 91 survivors were not universally disheartened by the Supreme Court decision. Several were discussing the news in a private Facebook group, Ms Gooze said, and some members of the community had responded that the ruling did not bother them.

“A gun isn’t the issue, we need them to keep what little freedom we have left. It’s the government that’s the enemy,” one survivor wrote in a message that Ms Gooze read to the BBC.

Gun violence remains a major public safety issue in the United States. The nation has experienced 215 mass shootings so far in 2024, according to the Gun Violence Archive (their methodology defines a mass shooting as when four or more people are shot or killed, not including the shooter).

Both Ms Gooze and Ms Quintero lamented that the gun debate had grown so politicised.

“I don’t think I’m ever going to see in my lifetime a true law or decision that will be made to solve the gun violence issue,” Ms Gooze said.

Repeated attempts to ban bump stocks through federal legislation have stalled, and face little chance of passing in the near term due to a divided Congress.

Trump, who is again running for president, said he would respect the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down his policy and reaffirmed his support for broader access to guns.

“The Court has spoken and their decision should be respected,” Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “President Trump has been and always will be a fierce defender of Americans’ Second Amendment rights and he is proud to be endorsed by the NRA.”

In video on X, formerly Twitter, the gun shop owner who challenged the bump stock ban at the Supreme Court celebrated his victory and said he had prevented the government from banning other gun parts.

The nation’s highest court sided with his argument that the Trump administration overstepped when it sought to regulate bump stocks like machine guns.

“I stood and fought,” said gun shop owner Michael Cargill, “and because of this, the bump stock case is going to be the case that saves everything.”

Supreme Court gun ruling stuns Las Vegas shooting survivors

BBC

Loading

International

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

Published

on

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials
Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

The United States has refused to issue visas to some members of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s delegation, including members of his communications team, ahead of his planned appearance at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.

Iranian state media reported the visa refusals on Monday, September 21, 2026, while confirming that the United States has authorised the core Iranian delegation to travel to New York for the high-level UN gathering.

Pezeshkian is expected to address the 81st UN General Assembly on Wednesday, making his planned visit the highest-level Iranian presence in the United States since the conflict involving Iran, Israel and the US escalated earlier this year.

Iran’s state news agency, IRNA, reported that the Trump administration had denied visas to certain members of Pezeshkian’s high-level delegation, including personnel responsible for communications.

The Mehr news agency also reported the visa denials, citing a spokesperson for the Iranian presidency.

The decision does not amount to a blanket refusal of entry to the Iranian delegation. The United States has authorised the core delegation, which includes President Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, to attend the UN General Assembly.

The distinction is significant because the annual UN gathering brings together representatives of member states at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York, which is hosted by the United States.

The current arrangement follows restrictions imposed by Washington on the Iranian delegation during last year’s General Assembly. UN records show that Iran previously raised concerns over visa delays and denials affecting members of its delegation and argued that such restrictions hindered its participation in UN activities.

For this year’s meeting, Washington has also imposed restrictions on the movement and activities of the Iranian delegation while it is in the United States.

READ ALSO:

The State Department has said the delegation will face restrictions on its movements and on the purchase of certain luxury goods and other items. The measures come amid the absence of normal diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States and the continuing conflict between the two countries.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left Iran on Sunday for the United States, travelling through Qatar.

The Iranian government has also used Qatar as an intermediary in communicating with Washington over the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for global oil and gas shipments.

Tehran has conveyed conditions for reopening the waterway, according to Iranian officials, while the United States has imposed measures against Iranian ports.

The Strait of Hormuz has become a major issue in the wider conflict because of its importance to international energy supplies.

Pezeshkian’s expected appearance at the UN General Assembly comes at a particularly sensitive moment in relations between Tehran and Washington.

The conflict has also become a major issue for this year’s UN gathering, with world leaders expected to discuss the Middle East, the war involving Iran, the conflict in Ukraine, the situation in Gaza and other international crises.

The Iranian president’s presence in New York could provide an opportunity for diplomatic contacts on the sidelines of the General Assembly, although the two governments remain sharply divided over the conflict and other issues.

US President Donald Trump is also attending the UN General Assembly this week and is expected to address the gathering.

Trump has indicated that he remains open to discussions involving Iran, while Tehran has continued to communicate through intermediaries.

The visa dispute therefore adds another layer to already strained US-Iran relations, but it has not prevented Iran’s president and foreign minister from attending the UN meeting.

For now, Pezeshkian’s scheduled appearance means Iran will have senior-level representation at the 81st UN General Assembly, despite Washington’s refusal to issue visas to some members of his wider delegation.

The immediate focus will be on Pezeshkian’s address, Iran’s position on the ongoing conflict and whether the UN gathering creates opportunities for further diplomatic engagement between Tehran and Washington.

US Allows Iran’s Core UN Delegation, Denies Visas to Some Officials

Loading

Continue Reading

International

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

Published

on

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

CNN, MS NOW and Politico have filed a federal lawsuit against the administration of US President Donald Trump, challenging the decision to revoke their journalists’ access to the White House.

The three major news organisations are asking a federal court in Washington, DC, to intervene after the Trump administration barred their reporters from the White House grounds and deactivated or confiscated their press credentials.

The organisations argue that the administration’s action violated their First Amendment press rights and the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections, alleging that their access was withdrawn because of dissatisfaction with their reporting.

The case was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, with the media organisations seeking expedited consideration of their challenge and an order restoring their access to the White House.

The lawsuit names President Donald Trump, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House spokesperson Steven Cheung and Secret Service Director Sean Curran as defendants.

The legal action followed Trump’s decision to exclude the three organisations from the White House after he accused them of publishing what he described as “fake news” about his administration.

Trump has argued that journalists remain free to report on him but that the administration is not required to provide White House access to every news organisation.

The president also defended the decision on social media, where he characterised the affected outlets as a threat to national security. The reports on the lawsuit did not indicate that the administration had presented evidence publicly establishing such a threat.

The dispute escalated on Saturday, September 19, when reporters working for CNN, MS NOW and Politico were turned away from the White House complex.

Their press access was reportedly deactivated or their credentials confiscated, preventing them from covering activities inside the presidential complex in the usual manner.

The organisations subsequently warned that the White House decision raised broader questions about whether a presidential administration could deny access to journalists because of disagreement with their reporting.

READ ALSO:

In their court challenge, the outlets are expected to argue that the government cannot use access to public officials and government facilities as a means of punishing or influencing the content of news coverage.

The case comes as the Trump administration has significantly changed the way White House press access is managed.

The administration has increasingly exercised greater control over which journalists attend certain presidential events, while also expanding access for reporters from organisations it considers more favourable or less represented in traditional White House press coverage.

The latest dispute, however, concerns the removal of access from three established national news organisations at the same time.

The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) has criticised the exclusion of the outlets and raised concerns about the implications for press access and government transparency.

Other media organisations and press-freedom groups have also expressed concern over the decision, arguing that government officials should not determine access based on whether they approve of particular news coverage.

The White House, on the other hand, has maintained that the administration has authority to determine access to the White House and has repeatedly accused some mainstream news organisations of inaccurate or unfair reporting.

The legal battle also has implications beyond the three organisations involved because federal courts have previously considered disputes between the executive branch and news organisations over access to the president.

One prominent case involved CNN reporter Jim Acosta during Trump’s first administration.

In 2018, the White House revoked Acosta’s press credentials following a confrontation during a presidential news conference. CNN challenged the decision in court, and a federal judge ordered the temporary restoration of his access.

The Trump administration has also been involved in a more recent dispute with the Associated Press.

The administration restricted AP’s access after the news agency declined to adopt Trump’s preferred terminology for the Gulf of Mexico. A federal judge later ordered the administration to restore the AP’s access in certain circumstances, although subsequent litigation resulted in distinctions between generally accessible areas and more restricted presidential events.

The current lawsuit involving CNN, MS NOW and Politico raises related but distinct questions about the government’s authority to control press access.

A central issue is expected to be whether the administration can exclude news organisations from access that is otherwise made available to members of the White House press corps because of disagreement with their reporting.

Another issue is the extent to which the First Amendment limits government decisions affecting journalists’ access, particularly when the alleged reason for exclusion is connected to the content or viewpoint of their reporting.

The media organisations are also challenging the process used to revoke their access, arguing that they were not given adequate notice or an opportunity to contest the decision before their credentials were withdrawn.

The case has already affected White House media arrangements beyond routine presidential coverage.

CNN had been scheduled to provide the television pool feed for Trump’s Monday trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly, but the assignment was removed from the White House press schedule following the access dispute.

The White House press pool is important because participating organisations provide shared coverage, photographs, video and other material that can be used by news organisations that cannot send their own journalists to every presidential event.

The lawsuit therefore places questions of press freedom, government transparency and presidential control over media access at the centre of another federal court dispute involving the Trump administration.

For the three organisations, the immediate objective is restoration of access to the White House and the ability of their journalists to resume reporting from the presidential complex.

For the administration, the dispute involves its stated authority to determine who receives access to the White House and how that access is organised.

The court’s handling of the case could provide further guidance on the constitutional limits surrounding White House press credentials, particularly where access decisions are alleged to be connected to the content of journalists’ reporting.

Until the court rules, the competing claims remain disputed. The lawsuit itself does not establish that the administration violated the Constitution, while the White House’s allegations against the news organisations remain the administration’s stated position rather than findings by a court.

CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Over White House Access Ban

Loading

Continue Reading

International

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Published

on

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse
18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Eighteen suspects accused of involvement in the 2021 assassination of former Haitian President Jovenel Moise have been transferred from Haiti to the United States to face trial.

US officials said the suspects were transported to Florida on Sunday, as American authorities continue their prosecution of people allegedly connected to the plot.

Federal prosecutor Jason Reding Quinones said the suspects were flown from Haiti on a military aircraft to face proceedings in the Southern District of Florida.

He said US authorities had so far indicted 30 people in connection with the assassination and warned that the prosecutions were not over.

Among those transferred was Joseph Felix Badio, a former anti-corruption official with Haiti’s Ministry of Justice who has been identified as a major suspect in the investigation.

Haitian government and police sources said the other suspects included Colombian nationals who were allegedly part of the group involved in the operation.

READ ALSO:

Colombian Nationals Among Suspects

Colombia’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that 17 of its citizens had been transferred from Haiti to the United States.

The ministry said the Colombian government was monitoring the development but had not participated in the decision or process that led to the transfer.

Moise was killed at his private residence in Port-au-Prince on July 7, 2021. Investigators said a group of about 20 Colombian military-trained mercenaries had been hired in connection with the operation.

The president’s security detail came under scrutiny after failing to prevent the attack.

In May, four men were convicted in a Miami federal court over charges connected to the plot, including conspiracy to kill or kidnap Moise and providing material support for the operation. They could face life imprisonment.

US prosecutors said the men were linked to CTU Security, a Florida-based private security company, and had allegedly been attracted by the prospect of lucrative contracts after Moise was removed from power.

The assassination plunged Haiti further into political and security turmoil. The country has since struggled with gang violence and remains without a president, while preparations continue for elections scheduled for December, subject to security conditions.

18 Suspects Transferred to US Over 2021 Killing of Haitian President Moïse

Loading

Continue Reading

Trending