Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
After Stephen Paddock killed 58 people in Las Vegas and wounded more than 400, another unfortunate mass shooting in the US has yet again brought the ever-important point to moot: if there needs to be tighter gun control laws imposed in the US, and what could be done.
And even though homicide rates have massively declined since 1960, the US still sees a mass shooting more often than you would expect* where one major mass shooting occurs every two months.
Talks are amidst, with reports suggesting that senators are considering banning bump stocks (the device allowing Paddock to convert his semiautomatic rifles into an automatic fire) and halting the bill which will make it easier for Americans to buy gun silencers; but even though more than one person a day dies due to gun violence in the US[i], Trump quietly revoked Obama’s bill and blocked the Social Security Administration from reporting mentally impaired recipients to a national background-check database.
US civilians own 270 million to 310 million firearms, resulting in around 35% to 42% of US households owning at least one gun[1] [2], making them the country which has the highest rate of civilian guns and they were not cutting it close: in second place was Yemen (with 55 guns per 100 civilians, where the US have approximately 90 for every 100 civilians)[3]. Of course, this also means they have the highest rate of mass shootings. But what can be done?
Get Rid of Guns
What have other countries done to tackle mass shootings? After the 1996 mass shooting in Dunblane which killed 16 young children and a school teacher, the UK [eventually] banned all private hand guns, imposed detailed background checks on gun owners prior to the ban being lawfully imposed and the Government also compensated gun owners; since then, there has only been one mass shooting in the UK.
Post the Port Arthur Massacre, Australia also followed suit, implementing tighter restrictions by banning automatic and semiautomatic firearms, adopting new licensing requirements, and applying a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases. After significantly rising tax, more than 600,000 civilian-owned firearms were bought and destroyed. Since then, no massacres on such a scale have occurred.
Sounds like an easy solution: tighter gun laws and restrictions. An amnesty of guns, albeit a big, costly job, has proven to lessen such tragic events, and so all proponents of tighter gun laws can collectively internally scream as we bang our heads against the walls Trump wishes to build; and we scream: why can’t the US learn from all this?
It is not as simple as it sounds. Firstly, as aforementioned, the US has a lot of guns and a lot of civilians owning these guns. Not only would gaining control over firearms pose quite a challenge, but a huge uproar. Que the: “We have the right to protect ourselves” statements and the fact that the Australian amnesty cost tax-payers [all together] half a billion dollars, which would be a fraction of the cost the US’ attempt of retaining guns, and we can see why an amnesty seem less realistic for the land of the free.
The US is also unique in the sense that they have a Bill stating they have a right to be able to self-defend themselves and citizens are attached to these rights, allowing them to justify their need for guns; so, what if their rights were changed?
Can they change the second amendment?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
We need not delve into this too deep as it has been debated time and time again. President Trump has made it evidently clear he is a true follower of the Second Amendment and whilst throughout his campaign he would shun Hillary Clinton for threatening to take away citizens’ rights for protection and freedom, we can all silently acknowledge the fact that the NRA endorsed him during his campaign, as they do with 98% of Republicans[4]. To all those that argue this is not a strong enough argument, lest we forget when Trump supported Obama’s remarks, before the hefty endorsement given by his pals at the NRA, for a reformation of the law after the tragic Sandy Hook massacre[5]; “President Obama spoke for me and every American”, Trump said, yet his speech post the Las Vegas shooting was nowhere near such remarks, because his words are now funded by the organisation behind the weaponry used.
The fact is that if opinion does not change, then neither will the Second Amendment; 74% of gun owners say that there is an ‘essential’ right to own a gun[6], while Pew Surveys reveal that gun owners are more likely to contact officials about gun policies, with 60% of these supporting laxer laws[7].
Mix these strong opinions for relaxed gun laws alongside the fact there is no real, solid opposing organisation against the NRA and we realise we are driving in circles around a one-way street. To add fire to fury, changes in gun laws previously made have cost millions of dollars and were not enforced enough to have a visible effect, posing the question to their citizens to why the US even bothered to try.
This brings us to our concluding, yet vital point: “buying back” guns is not really much of an option as it is the government that will need to confiscate millions of firearms. Now if the government is endorsed by the organisation supporting guns and previous restrictions have failed, this is likely to as well. The UK and Australia’s ‘buying back guns’ programme, almost bribing those with weaponry for the exchange of money and anonymity to avoid prosecution of having illegal firearms, only worked for two reasons: the government thoroughly enforced it and the law did not state any right for citizens to bear arms.
Changing legislation will not only take months, but it also seems like an impossible dream, and if the citizens strongly support their rights to bear arms, they won’t be handing in their weapons so easily; in fact, it could even cause an uproar resulting in civil war, with police forcing citizens to drop their weapons.
It is a tough one to get around, and whilst speculators around the globe shout: “Do something about this”, it almost feels like a puzzle which will never be solved.
*mass shooting being defined as an event where at least four people are shot
[1]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/
[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/one-mass-shooting-every-day-seven-facts-gun-violence-america/
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/guns/nra-endorsements-campaign-spending/
[5] http://www.npr.org/2012/12/16/167412995/transcript-president-obama-at-sandy-hook-prayer-vigil
[6] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/03/gun-control-america-failed-las-vegas
[7] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/13/16468902/gun-control-politics-intensity
[i] Reports show that 346 people are estimated to have been killed in American mass shootings this year
Nearly 800,000 immigrant kids who were once undocumented have been able to live in the US without constant fear of deportation because of DACA. CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich explains what the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is.
iTrump, an app developer, appears to have prevailed in a long-running trademark war against the US president's business operation, without the use of a lawyer.
The app, iTrump, doesn’t actually have anything to do with the president, and features, as per the image below, a virtual trumpet for the purposes of learning to play.
(Photo by Tom Scharfeld)
The app is designed by Tom Scharfeld under his business name ‘Spoonjack LLC’, after the development of iBone, a similar app with the trombone in mind.
Sharon Daboul, Senior Associate, at Intellectual Property law firm, EIP, told Lawyer Monthly: “This decision is the latest in a six year battle between an individual app developer and Donald Trump, which appears to have started when Trump’s lawyers demanded that he withdraw an application to register “iTrump” as a trademark for “computer software for use in producing sound”, back in 2010. After a favourable decision in 2013, the app developer applied to cancel some of Trump’s trademark registrations, leading to the most recent decision.
“In the US, the majority of disputes will settle before a decision is reached. If battle goes all the way to judgment, it’s not unusual for a US opposition or cancellation action to take around three years to reach a conclusion. The length of this particular dispute is due to the multiple proceedings between the parties.
“The decision is refreshing; the majority of individuals would have been intimidated by a letter from Trump’s lawyers, but in this case, the app developer rightfully stood his ground.
“Trademarks are powerful assets, irrespective of a company’s size.”
What do you think of Trump’s intimidating approach to the small developer?
According to recent reports, US President Donald Trump’s questionable travel ban in January this year, limiting travel from Muslim countries around the world, has been mostly reinstated until the Supreme Court hears the case against it in October.
On Monday the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration’s travel ban to continue from the lower tier court rulings that stacked up against the President in recent months. Justices said they will decide later in the year whether the ban should be ripped down or upheld.
The Supreme Court will hear the discussion in October, allowing for now a temporary ban from six Muslim-majority countries.
The ban however, will not apply to those with a ‘bona fide’ relationship with a person or entity in the US, such as those who have family in the US, or have been admitted to a school or hired by a firm in the US.
"Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national," the court said.
The White House is on fire. Every day – almost every few hours – new scandals are breaking. From investigations about Russian collusion to alleged obstruction of justice, the blaze is white hot. But when it comes to the world of businesses and law, it's not the alleged criminal law bombshells that are causing the most panic. James Goodnow, talks to Finance Monthly.
On June 1st, US President Donald Trump formally announced what everyone knew was coming: the US is out of the Paris Climate Accord. The announcement and its build up set off another explosion the likes of which Trump and his Twitter account aren't as accustomed to fighting: a neck-snapping backlash from the business community and the lawyers who represent them.
Trump Thumbs His Nose at Business
“Global warming is an expensive hoax!” Donald Trump famously — or infamously — tweeted in January 2014. With that shot across the bow at the global scientific community, Trump started his war against climate change. His claim served as a rallying cry for his base supporters — many of whom believed that rejecting limits on carbon emissions would lead to a resurgence of US jobs in the coal industry. And the strategy was largely successful, catapulting Trump into the White House.
Despite Trump's bluster, the business community largely took a wait-and-see approach following Trump's election. The reason: Trump engaged in plenty of campaign hyperbole that was ultimately dialed back once he assumed office. Obamacare "repeal and replace" is stalled, construction has not started on Trump's border wall with Mexico, and his travel ban has been blocked by the courts. Perhaps the withdrawal from the Paris Accord would end with the same fate: a promise that would be delayed or not fulfilled.
The business world miscalculated. What business leaders monitoring the situation failed to account for is the fact Trump was backed into a corner. He needed a win with his base. And withdrawal from the Paris Accord is one of the only "successes" he could accomplish unilaterally.
The Business World's Reaction
The response from the business and legal community has been swift. On June 1, 25 major US companies, including juggernauts Apple, Facebook, Google and PG&E signed an open letter to the president that appeared in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The letter makes the business case for the Paris Accord: "Climate change presents both business risks and business opportunities."
The day before the announcement, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk gave Trump an informal ultimatum on Twitter, saying he will have "no choice but to depart" from Trump advisory councils if Trump pulled the plug on the Paris Accord. Musk's comments are not isolated. Since the election, over 1000 businesses signed the Business Backs Low-Carbon USA statement.
The chorus of voices coming from the business community is united by a common theme: US withdrawal from the Paris Accord is not only ethically questionable, but leads to dangerous instability for business. Every day, business leaders make difficult decisions about where to allocate resources. A stable and uniform framework allows businesses to confidently invest in technology that will last into the future. According to the Business Backs Low-Carbon USA statement: "Investment in the low carbon economy ... give[s] financial decision-makers clarity and boost[s] the confidence of investors worldwide."
Legal Community Reaction
Trump's decision has also put lawyers into hyper-drive. Within Washington, there is widespread disagreement about the legal implications of Trump's move. Last week, a group of 22 US lawmakers, including Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, warned Trump in a letter that his failure to withdraw from the Paris Accord could open the litigation floodgates: “Because of existing provisions within the Clean Air Act and others embedded in the Paris Agreement, remaining in it would subject the United States to significant litigation risk." But it's far from clear that US withdrawal from the Paris Accord will immunize the White House from the courts – with groups that favor the agreement already having vowed to sue.
In-house lawyers are no doubt sweating, as well. Lawyers at large corporations with operations in the United States are tasked with providing recommendations to business leadership on what they can and can't do from a regulatory perspective. With Trump pulling the US out the Paris Accord, lawyers now have to look to domestic regulations — a scheme that itself could be turned upside down — and try to reconcile those with international protocols. All of this uncertainty may translate into lawyers feeling like they are walking on quicksand.
Trump's Political Miscalculation?
Trump prides himself on operating on instinct. Prior to making his decision to pull out from the Paris Accord, he no doubt felt the rumblings of this business backlash coming. Why, then, did he move forward? Part of the answer may lie in his examining his base. Recent polls show that, for the first time, Trump's support among his core supporters is starting to erode. And that may spell danger for Trump, who relied on a mobilized and rock-solid base to ride into the White House. Trump thus decided that his need for a political victory and appeasing his base was worth the kickback from the business community.
But Trump may be missing something here. According to many reports, moderate conservatives and centrists who voted for Trump did so in part because they believed his rhetoric was nothing more than puffing that wouldn't ultimately be acted on. They were willing to throw their support behind him believing that he would revert to more traditional GOP, pro-business values.
But Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord demonstrates that Trump isn't all talk. When his back is against the wall, he is willing to act – even if it means acting against the interests of non-base voters who helped elect him. That realization may alienate the critical segment of the business electorate he needs to win again in 2020. More immediately, it may spell trouble for Republican members of Congress in 2018.
The White House is on fire. But it may not be heat from the blaze that stops Trump politically – but rather a cooling to Trump and his policies from moderate Republicans and the business world.
James Goodnow is an attorney and legal and political commentator based in the United States. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Santa Clara University. You can follow him on Twitter at @JamesGoodnow or email him directly at james@jamesgoodnow.com.
While over half of allocators said the debate around Trump's policy agenda will have little impact on their investment decisions, European allocators feel the increasing pressures of the European regulatory environment, the implications of Brexit and the nationalist movement are impacting asset allocation decisions in 2017. According to a recent survey from Context Summits, nearly three quarters (71%) of European investors are optimistic about the future of the alternative asset management industry, with more than half (54%) planning to increase their net positions in alternative investments by the end of 2017.
The survey of institutional investors and family offices was conducted at the inaugural Context Summits Europe event hosted by Context Summits, the preeminent producer of investment summits for the alternative asset management industry. More than 300 institutional allocators, family offices and managers, representing more than $245 billion in cumulative assets under management, attended Context Summits Europe 2017, which was held in Barcelona, Spain on 7-9th May 2017 at the Hotel W Barcelona.
The results from Barcelona closely mirror survey results from Context Summits Miami 2017, where more than half (51%) of investors surveyed were optimistic about the industry and 72% planned to increase their allocations to alternative fund managers in 2017. A majority of European allocators (75%) also said they prefer investing with emerging managers rather than established managers, significantly more than the 59% of allocators polled at Miami earlier in the year who said they felt the same way.
"Europe represents a major growth opportunity for the alternative asset management industry, and we are pleased to help facilitate conversations between European-focused allocators and managers via our one-on-one format," said Mark Salameh, co-founder and CEO of Context Summits. "As the data shows, European allocators—like their US focused counterparts—are overwhelmingly optimistic about the future of the industry. While challenges remain, particularly in the political and regulatory realms, the overall consensus is that there is strong demand for new strategies and ideas."
John Culbertson, chief investment officer of Context Capital Partners, added: "Europe has experienced several market shocks in recent years, such as the Greek bailout and more recently the Brexit vote, which has caused European investors to approach the market with caution. However, while there are legitimate questions about the future of the EU and the solvency of some member countries, the overall appetite for alternative investments continues to grow."
Key findings include:
(Source: Context Summits)
Crowell & Moring LLP has released its third annual regulatory outlook, "Regulatory Forecast 2017: What Trump Means for Business." The report provides in-depth analysis on how the new administration, Congress, and the federal courts are changing the regulatory landscape and what it means for business in the months ahead.
"The first year of a new administration always brings change, but this is no ordinary transition. This administration has extended an open invitation to industry to come to Washington and share its ideas. For businesses with longstanding regulatory concerns and objectives, the opportunity to engage with Washington is now," said Angela Styles, chair of Crowell & Moring and former administrator for federal procurement policy within the Office of Management and Budget at the White House. "Our insights will help businesses understand the shifting landscape and identify the opportunities and risks ahead."
Regulatory Forecast 2017
The Regulatory Forecast provides in-house counsel and business leaders with forward-looking insight on the issues most affecting US and international businesses, including government contracts, antitrust, health care, energy, environment, international trade, cybersecurity, consumer protection, tax, and labor and employment. An infographic highlights the complex path for achieving regulatory reform in Washington.
Feature articles in the Forecast include:
(Source: Crowell & Moring LLP)
The following is a statement of Matthew L. Myers, President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids:
New disclosure documents filed this week show the big tobacco companies are spending huge sums and hiring an army of lobbyists to influence Congress and the Trump Administration, including giving $1.5 million to President Trump's inauguration.
It's no secret what the tobacco companies want: They're waging a multi-pronged assault on a new rule the Food and Drug Administration issued last year for electronic cigarettes and cigars – products that are sold in a huge assortment of sweet flavors and threaten to hook a new generation of kids. If draining the swamp of special interests is to mean anything, it should start with protecting America's kids and not the tobacco industry.
The new disclosure documents reveal the tobacco industry is going all out to get its way:
In Congress, tobacco companies are pushing two bills that would greatly weaken FDA oversight of e-cigarettes and cigars and protect tobacco companies' ability to market candy-flavored products that are so enticing to kids. Tobacco lobbyists and their congressional allies are working to insert these harmful provisions in the spending bill Congress must pass by April 28 to keep the government open:
The big tobacco companies are behind these efforts. The New York Times has reported that Altria drafted the first of these bills and that it was endorsed by R.J. Reynolds. The Times reported that the bill as initially introduced "pulled verbatim from the industry's draft." Reynolds and Altria make two of the best-selling e-cigarette brands in the US (Vuse and MarkTen).
Fifty-one leading public health and medical groups recently wrote Congress to urge rejection of these harmful measures.
In addition to this legislative attack, e-cigarette and cigar interests have filed several lawsuits against the FDA's rule. While the Department of Justice under the Obama Administration vigorously defended the rule, the Justice Department under the Trump Administration recently filed a motion requesting an extension "to more fully consider the issues raised." The government's counsel on the motion included Chad Readler, the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division, who previously represented R.J. Reynolds when he was a partner at the Jones Day law firm.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other public health groups recently urged the Justice Department to recuse any lawyers who represented tobacco companies from any tobacco-related litigation while serving in the government, specifically mentioning Mr. Readler and Noel Francisco, the nominee for Solicitor General, who long represented R.J. Reynolds in tobacco litigation while at Jones Day.
Congress must reject the tobacco industry's efforts to weaken FDA oversight of e-cigarettes and cigars, and the Trump Administration must continue to vigorously defend the FDA's authority. They should side with America's kids, not the tobacco industry.
Background on E-Cigarettes and Cigars
While the US has reduced youth cigarette smoking rates to record lows, efforts to reduce overall youth tobacco use have been undermined by the popularity of e-cigarettes and cigars, which are marketed in a wide array of sweet flavors that attract kids. Studies have found more than 7,700 e-cigarette flavors and 250 cigar flavors – including flavors like gummy bear, cotton candy and cherry crush for e-cigarettes and sticky sweets, tropical twist and banana smash for cigars (for details, see our recent report, The Flavor Trap).
Current e-cigarette use among high school students increased from 1.5% in 2011 to 16% in 2015, surpassing use of regular cigarettes, according to the government's National Youth Tobacco Survey. Another national survey, the 2016 Monitoring the Future survey, showed the first evidence of a decline in youth use of e-cigarettes, but e-cigarettes continue to be the most-used tobacco product among kids. In addition, more high school boys now smoke cigars than cigarettes (14% vs. 11.8% in the 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey).
Both cigars and e-cigarettes pose significant health risks. According to the National Cancer Institute, cigar smoking causes cancer of the lung, oral cavity, larynx and esophagus.
A 2016 Surgeon General's report on e-cigarettes concluded that e-cigarette use among youth and young adults "is now a major public health concern." The report warned that youth use of nicotine in any form is unsafe, can cause addiction and can harm the developing brain. The report also found that e-cigarette use is "strongly associated" with the use of other tobacco products among youth and young adults, including conventional cigarettes.
(Source: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids)
Focusing on the overall impact of US tax policy on Canadian businesses, here Rhonda Sisco, US Corporate Tax Consulting Leader at Grant Thornton LLP in Toronto, tells Lawyer Monthly readers all about the potential impacts, both direct and indirect, of the expected US administration’s reviewed policies, in what Rhonda describes as a straightforward tax philosophy with complex repercussions.
Preparing for the storm
Canadian companies can expect a flurry of US tax policy changes.
Although many of the specific details remain unclear, significant changes to US tax legislation are definitely on the way under the new Trump administration. With his clearly stated mission to bring jobs and business back to the country, President Trump is planning to introduce a number of policies essentially designed to lower tax rates across the board.
As far as business and the economy are concerned, Canada can expect to be significantly impacted by the Trump administration’s anticipated changes to US corporate and personal tax rates, overall changes to the US tax system and a potential shift from an income tax to a VAT-like tax referred to as a destination-based cash-flow tax. In order to support “America First,” a border tax is also being discussed to ensure the intended effects of the VAT-like tax. In this shifting landscape, what measures will have the most significant impact and what should executives across the country be focusing on as they consider how to respond?
Tax changes directly impacting business and the economy
Canadian companies will be most concerned by tax changes that directly impact operations, earnings, trade and repatriation of financial assets, as well as the overall economic and competitive environment. For example, potential changes to how US companies’ foreign profits are taxed could lead many US headquartered corporations to repatriate cash from Canada, which may lead to reduced investment in Canadian operations and possible Canadian job losses. Should skilled Canadian workers follow the jobs across the border, we could see a “brain drain”—and resulting negative effects with which we’re already familiar.
Moreover, tax mismatches could result which, while creating some opportunities, could also create many pitfalls for those not closely following the changing environment.
Border tax implications
The US plan is to tax all goods and services entering the US while avoiding taxing goods or services exiting. This “destination tax,” designed to keep manufacturing jobs in the US, could negatively affect Canadian businesses that currently leverage trade agreements to sell and ship to the US “tax-free.”
Personal Income tax changes will affect business as well
In Canada, the combined effect of federal and provincial taxes puts the top marginal tax rate for high-income earners over 50% in six provinces. Under the new US plan, the top personal rate—already lower than Canada’s—could decrease still further from 39.6% to 33%. A newly-lowered top US federal tax rate, combined with a strong US dollar and recent Canadian tax increases on high-income earners, could make the US more attractive to highly-skilled Canadian workers—and ex-pat US citizens—potentially compounding the talent drain.
The federal government would face pressure to move in similar directions to the US, not only to retain investment and jobs, but simply to reap the gains of having a tax system aligned with that of our largest trading partner. One possible result could be our federal or provincial governments considering lowering our top tax rates to be more in line and more competitive with the US.
A straightforward tax philosophy with complex repercussions
Ultimately, the US plan comes down to reducing taxes, broadening the tax base and simplifying tax filing, with Trump’s promise to reduce the corporate tax rate having the biggest effect on Canada. If any or all of these “America first” measures are implemented, it could significantly impact Canadian businesses. Though the measures could spur on US economic activity that Canadian companies could significantly benefit from, certain of the tax measures may be harmful for Canadian exporters and may lead to a loss of investment in Canada and a loss of top talent to the US
Canadian companies will be facing a new economic reality when it comes to doing business in the US, conducting trade with the US and staying generally competitive with a country planning to substantially trim down both personal and corporate tax obligations.
The February issue of Wolters Kluwer's Blue Chip Economic Indicators suggests that Congress is likely to pass – and President Trump is likely to sign - comprehensive legislation aimed at reforming the tax code this year.
This month's report suggests that, while the Trump Administration's pledges of tax cuts, infrastructure spending and regulatory relief have propelled consumer and business confidence to multi-year highs and lifted US equity indices to record levels, panelists remain reluctant to significantly alter their forecasts of US economic performance for 2017 and 2018. The report also notes that securing congressional passage of major tax reform and infrastructure-related legislation is expected to be fractious and time consuming, and that there is considerable opposition to inclusion of a border adjustment (effectively a 20% tax on all imports).
"The consensus anticipates comprehensive tax reform legislation, but fewer than one third of panelists believe that a border adjustment component will be included as part of any tax reform that is approved," said Randell E. Moore, executive editor of Wolters Kluwer's Blue Chip Economic Indicators.
The consensus indicates that US economic growth in 2017 and 2018 will be somewhat stronger than last year. Real GDP growth is predicted to grow 2.3% this year and 2.4% in 2018, compared to 1.6% in 2016.
Other consensus findings from this issue of Wolters Kluwer's Blue Chip Economic Indicators exclusive survey include:
(Source: Wolters Kluwer)
