Latest news with #Reconstruction-era
Newsweek
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Trump's Los Angeles Response Violates Federal Law
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The unfolding crisis in Los Angeles represents more than civil unrest over immigration enforcement—it has become a stress test of American constitutional limits that the Trump administration is catastrophically failing. What began as protests against ICE raids has escalated into a brazen display of presidential lawlessness, complete with illegal military deployments, and threats to arrest political opponents. The implications extend far beyond California, revealing dangerous cracks in our system's ability to constrain executive overreach. The most egregious violation is President Donald Trump's order to deploy hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles. This action directly contravenes the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits using federal military forces for domestic law enforcement. The statute exists for good reason—to prevent the militarization of civilian governance that characterized Reconstruction-era abuses. National Guardsmen overlook protesters outside of the Edward Roybal Federal Building on June 9, 2025, in Downtown Los Angeles, Calif. National Guardsmen overlook protesters outside of the Edward Roybal Federal Building on June 9, 2025, in Downtown Los Angeles, as of this writing and prior to issuing these orders, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, the primary legal mechanism that would exempt military forces from Posse Comitatus restrictions. When pressed about invoking the Act, Trump himself acknowledged the threshold hasn't been met, saying "It depends on whether or not there's an insurrection." Moreover, he explicitly claimed that things in LA were "well under control" and ''headed in the right direction." Yet he has since deployed Marines there anyway. This isn't creative legal interpretation—it's blatant law breaking by the president. The administration appears to be attempting a constitutional end-run, claiming emergency authority while avoiding the formal legal processes that would actually justify such deployments. The Insurrection Act exists precisely to balance presidential emergency powers with legal constraints. Trump's refusal to invoke it while deploying Marines suggests he knows the legal standards aren't met but is proceeding illegally nonetheless. The legal foundation becomes even shakier with Trump's prior decision to federalize thousands of California National Guard troops without Governor Gavin Newsom's consent. Trump cited 10 U.S.C. § 12406 as the legal authority to justify this, claiming the protests "constitute a form of rebellion." However, this statute requires that orders "shall be issued through the governors of the States"—language that mandates state cooperation, which he does not have, making California's lawsuit challenging this act highly likely to succeed. Even if Trump were to prevail on the federalization of the National Guard issue, without invoking the Insurrection Act, the troops still cannot perform general law enforcement functions. This constrains their role significantly—assuming the administration intends to follow the law at all. Perhaps most disturbing is Trump's support for arresting Governor Newsom. This threat, echoed by border czar Tom Homan, lacks any credible legal foundation. Newsom's actions—filing lawsuits, making public statements, and formally requesting troop withdrawal—constitute protected political speech and the legitimate exercise of state sovereignty. The very suggestion of arresting the governor and mayor represents a dangerous authoritarian impulse to criminalize political opposition. The situation exposes a critical vulnerability in our constitutional system. The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States provides broad presidential immunity for official acts, so Trump's role as commander in chief shields him from prosecution for military deployment decisions, even illegal ones. This creates a perverse situation where even clear statutory violations such as this by the president are normal criminal enforcement. Meanwhile, as California officials sue to halt the illegal deployment of troops in their state, civil litigation is sure to move slowly while these constitutional violations proceed rapidly in real time. Congressional oversight remains the primary check, but with Republicans controlling both chambers and illustrating a slavish devotion to Trump, impeachment is politically unrealistic regardless of legal merit. This crisis transcends partisan politics. The precedent being set is that presidents can deploy military forces domestically without proper legal authority, then threaten to arrest state officials who object. This fundamentally threatens both federalism and the rule of law. Today it's California and immigration; tomorrow it could be any state and any federal priority. The Trump administration's escalating pattern of behavior—from highly questionable National Guard federalization to clear Posse Comitatus violations to threatening political arrests—reveals a presidency increasingly untethered from legal constraints. This isn't governing; it's the systematic breakdown of constitutional order. Whether our institutions can withstand this assault may determine whether American democracy emerges from this crisis intact. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What the acquittals in the Tyre Nichols case reveal about American policing
The acquittals of three former Memphis police officers in the brutal killing of Tyre Nichols are a devastating moral failure and a damning indictment of a system devalues Black and Brown lives. Despite video evidence showing Nichols being beaten to death by multiple officers while crying out for his mother, an all-white, out-of-town jury found the officers not guilty of all charges. By seating an all-white jury from outside Memphis—a majority-Black city with a long history of police violence—the system silenced the voices of the community. This decision was about finding a jury more likely to view the defendants with sympathy and more likely to see Nichols as a threat. The result was a jury disconnected from the city's racial reality, its trauma, and its demands for justice. That was exactly the point. The trial was never meant to deliver justice. Some have pointed to the officers' federal convictions as a sign that justice was served. But that narrative is misleading. The officers were acquitted in federal court of the most serious charges and now face sentencing before U.S. District Judge Mark Norris, a far-right Trump appointee with a well-documented history of hostility to civil rights, police accountability, and criminal legal reform. The federal case may result in some punishment, but it will not deliver justice. The closest thing to justice would have been a conviction in state court on charges that fit the crime: murder. The killing of Tyre Nichols could not have been more public, more brutal, or more clear-cut. And yet the legal system failed, just as it has so many times before. We are witnessing, once again, the same playbook used after the beating of Rodney King more than 30 years ago: undeniable video evidence, national outrage, and a verdict that defies basic humanity. The message is clear: Officers can murder someone on camera and still walk free. This case is emblematic of the systemic racism that is ingrained in American policing—a system designed to enforce racial and social hierarchies. Its roots lie in slave patrols that hunted down Black people seeking freedom and enforced the violent order of white supremacy. That legacy never disappeared; it merely shifted. From Reconstruction-era Black Codes to Jim Crow enforcement, to the modern criminalization of poverty, substance use, and protest, policing has always been a tool of social control aimed primarily at Black, Brown, poor, and otherwise marginalized communities. Opinion: Block Mayor O'Connell's transit plan? It may be only way to secure much-needed MNPD reform Officers—regardless of their individual backgrounds—are trained and empowered by institutions built to surveil, control and punish. This is not a problem of rogue officers or isolated misconduct. Policing functions through intimidation, brutality and impunity, and it is upheld by courts, lawmakers and police unions. What happened to Tyre Nichols is not an aberration. It's the predictable result of a system that is violent and oppressive at its core. What makes this case even more infuriating is how little has changed in Memphis since Nichols' death. The SCORPION unit, responsible for his killing, has been disbanded, but its tactics and culture persist. The Memphis Police Department continues to operate without meaningful oversight or structural changes. A 2024 report from the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed what residents and advocates have said for decades: that MPD engages in discriminatory, violent and unconstitutional policing—particularly against Black residents. Even after that damning report, city officials refused to enter into a consent decree with the DOJ that would have mandated reform. Instead of embracing accountability, they chose resistance. And what little progress has been proposed has been swiftly gutted by the Tennessee General Assembly, dominated by white, Christian nationalist legislators who have waged relentless campaigns to suppress local autonomy and crush grassroots demands for change. This verdict must be a wake-up call for the entire country. We cannot rely on the very systems that protect and perpetuate racial violence to suddenly deliver justice out of goodwill or shame. History tells us that justice will never arrive if we wait patiently or meagerly. We must instead challenge injustice wherever it lives—in statehouses, in the courts, on the streets and beyond. We must speak when it's uncomfortable, demand change when it's unpopular, and organize when it's hardest. The system will not fix itself. It will only change if we force it to. Tyre Nichols' life mattered. His death—and the system's failure to hold his killers accountable—must not become another footnote in the long, shameful legacy of racial injustice in this country. Tyler Foster is a Memphis-based law student, community organizer, and formerly incarcerated advocate working at the intersection of criminal legal reform and broader social justice movements. He serves as vice president of the Memphis Interfaith Coalition for Action and Hope (MICAH) and as a board member of the Formerly Incarcerated College Graduates Network (FICGN). This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Memphis' Tyre Nichols verdict reveals racism in policing | Opinion
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Could Take Another Shot at Voting Rights
It is impossible to understand the United States without understanding the Civil War and Reconstruction. The American constitutional order went through more changes during those two decades than in the other 230 years of its existence combined. Now the Supreme Court may soon have another opportunity to revisit their contested aftermath. A group of Virginia election officials asked the justices last month to effectively nullify one of the Reconstruction-era laws that set the terms for the state's postwar readmission to the Union. In doing so, they hope to maintain a strict regime of disenfranchising Virginians with felony convictions that the Reconstruction-era Congress sought to prevent. Should the justices let the lower court's decision stand, it could breathe new life to a long-forgotten congressional effort to protect multiracial democracy in the South. The case springs from a decade-long conflict over the Virginia state constitution and its strict felon-disenfranchisement provision. Twenty-four states impose some sort of legal barrier on their residents' right to vote after being convicted of a felony. Many of those states restore a prisoner's voting rights after they complete their sentence, including probation and parole. Others make it permanent for certain crimes. Virginia is an outlier: Anyone convicted of a felony in the state is automatically and permanently disenfranchised upon conviction. (They are also excluded from jury service and certain other civic rights and duties.) Under the state constitution, which was most recently rewritten in 1971, Virginians with felony convictions can only regain their right to vote after their 'civil rights have been restored by the governor.' This discretionary power has led to uneven policy approaches over the last decade by Virginia's chief executives. Republican Bob McDonnell spent his tenure as governor from 2010 to 2014 working to modernize the state's patchwork criminal databases, hoping to make it easier to identify Virginians who would be eligible for having their rights restored. His successor, Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, initially issued an executive order in 2016 that sought to restore voting rights en masse, which was estimated to affect roughly 200,000 Virginians at the time. The Virginia Supreme Court overturned his order later that year and held that governors must restore voting rights on an individual basis. In response to the ruling, McAuliffe spent the rest of his term approving Virginians' restorations by signing individual orders almost every day. By the time he left office after the 2018 election, he had restored voting rights to exactly 173,166 Virginians. His successor, Ralph Northam, a fellow Democrat, said that he had restored voting rights for an additional 69,000 Virginians by 2021. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, has moved at a far more glacial pace. After restoring more than 4,300 Virginians' rights in his first year, he dismantled the accelerated procedures adopted by his predecessors and restored a mere 1,641 people's rights in 2024. The Supreme Court has long held that felony-disenfranchisement measures do not typically violate the federal Constitution, citing the widespread historical practice in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In 2023, however, voting rights groups brought a novel legal challenge to Virginia's disenfranchisement clause in federal court by arguing that it violated the Virginia Readmission Act of 1870. The somewhat obscure Reconstruction-era federal law imposed certain conditions on the formerly rebellious state before it could regain its representation in Congress. The Civil War is often described as a conflict between 'the Union' and 'the Confederacy,' with two competing groups of states that were organized under two different 'national' governments. Legally speaking, however, the Confederate States of America never existed. No foreign government ever recognized it as an independent country. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1869 case Texas v. White that secession had been unconstitutional and that the 'Confederate states,' including Virginia, never actually left the Union during the Civil War. How those states would be governed after the war was the principal question of Reconstruction. In 1867, Congress passed its first Reconstruction Act to divide the South into five military districts and place them under martial law. The goal was to 'readmit' the states into the Union by drafting new state constitutions that, among other things, enfranchised the formerly enslaved Americans. Since those states had never legally left the Union, readmission in this context meant the restoration of both civil government in each state and, most importantly, their representation in Congress. Congress reserved the right to approve the newly drafted state constitutions and compel changes before readmitting their representatives. In the Virginia Readmission Act, Congress required Virginia to never deprive any citizen from holding office on 'account of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude' and forbade the state from amending its constitution to 'deprive any citizen or class of citizens' of the 'school rights' provided by that state constitution. The implicit goal was to ensure that free Black Americans could fully participate in postwar civil society. Most importantly, at least for this lawsuit, the Virginia Readmission Act required that Virginia's state constitution 'shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the right to vote by the Constitution herein recognized, except as a punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law.' To that end, the state's 1870 constitution only disenfranchised Virginians for a handful of specific high crimes like bribery, embezzlement, and treason, in addition to other common-law felonies. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s, however, Redeemer governments in Virginia sought to roll back the state's expansive franchise. Those efforts culminated in the state's 1902 Constitutional Convention, which suppressed Black voting power in Virginia by enacting the usual menu of Jim Crow tactics, including poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses. It also added provisions to deny the vote to anyone convicted of certain non-felony crimes like 'petit larceny' and 'obtaining money or property under false pretenses' that could be arbitrarily applied to Black Virginians. Most of those barriers were dismantled by the Supreme Court's civil rights rulings and federal voting rights laws in the 1950s and 1960s. The felon-disenfranchisement provision reached its current form when Virginia rewrote its constitution for the most recent time in 1971: 'No person who has been convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored by the governor or other appropriate authority.' Its breadth and the wholly discretionary nature of its relief are unmatched by any other state. In their 2023 lawsuit, a group of Virginians and voting rights organizations argued that the 1971 language violated the Virginia Readmission Act of 1870. They claim that the federal law only allows Virginia to disenfranchise for felonies that would have existed at the time. 'In 1870, 'common law' felonies were widely understood to be a distinct category of crime from 'statutory' felonies,' the complaint explained. 'The nine 'common law' felonies were murder, manslaughter, arson, burglary, robbery, rape, sodomy, mayhem, and larceny.' Virginia's current criminal statutes include numerous felonies that were not treated as such in the Reconstruction era. Some of the individual plaintiffs pointed to the state's drug laws, since controlled-substance crimes would not emerge for another few decades, to address opium. 'In fact, Virginia first criminalized drug sales in 1904, punishing as a misdemeanor certain sales of opium, and then made possession of cocaine with intent to distribute a statutory felony in 1908,' they claimed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected part of their lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs could not use Section 1983—the primary legal mechanism for federal civil rights claims—to sue Virginia or state officials on these grounds. But it allowed the claims to go forward under a Supreme Court precedent known as Ex parte Young. In that 1908 case, the high court held that litigants could sue a state in federal court in some circumstances for allegedly violating a federal law, even if that law does not provide an explicit right to do so. The defendants, which currently include the state Board of Elections and its members, had argued for a narrow interpretation of Young. They argued, among other things, that Young did not apply if Congress had a different enforcement mechanism in mind when drafting the law in question. In this case, they pointed to Congress's ability to expel Virginia's congressional delegation as an alternative way to enforce the law. They also argued that there were no 'judicially manageable standards' for a federal court to use when crafting a remedy, which the Supreme Court has previously required in Young cases. In its 18-page ruling, the Fourth Circuit panel concluded otherwise. It rejected the notion that Congress's expulsion power was envisioned as the remedy, calling it a 'far cry' from the usual practice of finding a more explicit means to enforce the law. The panel also found it feasible to craft a consistent rule to enforce the law. 'To be sure, interpreting and applying this statute may not always be easy,' the court conceded. But it added that interpreting federal statutes is 'a familiar judicial exercise, one for which there is a superabundance of tools that federal judges employ every day.' The defendants asked the Supreme Court to intervene in March, describing the lower court's ruling as a threat to state sovereignty. 'The Fourth Circuit's ruling that the Readmission Acts are judicially enforceable invites courts to wade into the political decisions that restored the rebel states to federal representation more than 150 years ago, calling into question Congress's continuing determination that the states have republican governments and are entitled to representation,' they told the justices in their petition for review. 'This alarming consequence flows from the lower court's misinterpretation of the Readmission Acts, which Congress never intended private parties to enforce.' The implications of the Fourth Circuit's ruling go far beyond the Old Dominion. As the Virginia officials noted in their petition, they are not the only state for whom Congress drafted a Readmission Act during Reconstruction. The attorneys general for Texas and 16 other states filed a friend-of-the-court brief where they raised a cavalcade of objections to the Fourth Circuit's ruling beyond its interpretation of Young. 'Judicial enforcement of the Acts against the States would also violate the anticommandeering doctrine, allow Congress to control voter qualifications, and violate the equal-sovereignty doctrine by treating the ten covered states different [sic] from all others,' Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told the justices in the brief. (Tennessee, the eleventh state held by Confederates, had already regained congressional representation before the Readmission Acts were passed.) He also argued that the dispute was a 'political question' reserved for the elected branches. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case or sides with the lower court, the Fourth Circuit's decision will radically reshape Virginia's approach to felon disenfranchisement. It could also have significant consequences for the other nine states. Paxton noted, for example, that Mississippi and Texas would be bound by similar language on disenfranchisement from the Readmission Acts. While the two states have less restrictive disenfranchisement measures than Virginia, allowing the ruling to stand could expand them even further. Paxton also pointed to a 2020 Fifth Circuit ruling that allowed a Young claim under the Readmission Acts to go forward against Mississippi. Like its Virginia counterpart, the Mississippi act included a provision requiring the postwar state constitution to create a 'uniform' system of free public schools. Subsequent versions of the Mississippi state constitution dropped the 'uniform' part, which the plaintiffs claimed had led to significant disparities in school funding and quality, depending on the community's racial makeup and income level. 'School litigation is complicated enough under state law—it does not need a federal overlay,' Paxton claimed, quoting from a dissenting Fifth Circuit judge. 'But litigants could see the Fourth Circuit's decision, as well as the Fifth Circuit's, as an opportunity to combine the Readmission Acts with Ex parte Young to 'pave the way for federal court orders to effect a major restructuring of state school funding.' The Court should reject such efforts.' These arguments will likely meet a friendly ear at the high court. The six-justice conservative majority has spent the last two decades dismantling federal protections for voting rights and civil rights, often by invoking the doctrines cited in the states' briefs. Chief Justice John Roberts all but pulled the equal-sovereignty doctrine out of thin air to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in 2013. Just last year, the court effectively wrote the disqualification clause out of the Fourteenth Amendment, a postwar measure to keep rebels and insurrectionists out of public office, to avoid applying it to then-candidate Donald Trump. The justices have already signaled some interest in the case. After the Virginia officials filed their petition in March, the plaintiffs waived their right of response, a common time-saving move in appeals that the responding side thinks are unlikely to succeed. The court specifically requested that the plaintiffs file a response less than two weeks later. That does not guarantee the court's intervention down the road, by any means. But it signals that at least some of the justices may be interested in taking it up. They will likely announce a final decision on whether to hear the case by the end of the current term in late June.
Chicago Tribune
13-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Chicago Tribune
Today in History: Dr. Jack Kevorkian sentenced
Today is Sunday, April 13, the 103rd day of 2025. There are 262 days left in the year. Today in history: On April 13, 1999, right-to-die advocate Dr. Jack Kevorkian was sentenced in Pontiac, Michigan, to 10 to 25 years in prison for second-degree murder for administering a lethal injection to a patient with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. (Kevorkian ultimately served eight years before being paroled.) Also on this date: In 1743, Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, was born in Shadwell in the Virginia Colony. In 1861, Fort Sumter in South Carolina fell to Confederate forces in the first battle of the Civil War. In 1873, members of the pro-white, paramilitary White League attacked Black state militia members defending a courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana; three white men and as many as 150 Black men were killed in what is known as the Colfax Massacre, one of the worst acts of Reconstruction-era violence. In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated the Jefferson Memorial in Washington on the 200th anniversary of his birth. In 1964, Sidney Poitier became the first Black performer to win an Academy Award for acting in a leading role for his performance in 'Lilies of the Field.' In 1997, 21-year-old Tiger Woods became the youngest golfer to win the Masters Tournament in Augusta, Georgia, finishing a record 12 strokes ahead of Tom Kite in second place. In 1999, right-to-die advocate Dr. Jack Kevorkian was sentenced in Pontiac, Michigan, to 10 to 25 years in prison for second-degree murder for administering a lethal injection to a patient with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. (Kevorkian ultimately served eight years before being paroled.) In 2005, a defiant Eric Rudolph pleaded guilty to carrying out the deadly bombing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and three other attacks in back-to-back court appearances in Birmingham, Alabama, and Atlanta. In 2009, at his second trial, music producer Phil Spector was found guilty by a Los Angeles jury of second-degree murder in the shooting of actor Lana Clarkson. (Later sentenced to 19 years to life, Spector died in prison in January 2021.) In 2011, A federal jury in San Francisco convicted baseball slugger Barry Bonds of a single charge of obstruction of justice but failed to reach a verdict on the three counts at the heart of allegations that he knowingly used steroids and human growth hormone and lied to a grand jury about it. (Bonds' conviction for obstruction was overturned in 2015.) In 2016, the Golden State Warriors became the NBA's first 73-win team by beating the Memphis Grizzlies 125-104, breaking the 72-win record set by the Chicago Bulls in 1996. In 2017, Pentagon officials said U.S. forces struck a tunnel complex of the Islamic State group in eastern Afghanistan with the GBU-43/B MOAB 'mother of all bombs,' the largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat by the military. Today's Birthdays: Singer Al Green is 79. Actor Ron Perlman is 75. Singer Peabo Bryson is 74. Bandleader-drummer Max Weinberg is 74. Chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov is 62. Golf Hall of Famer Davis Love III is 61. Actor-comedian Caroline Rhea is 61. Actor Rick Schroder is 55. Actor Glenn Howerton is 49. Actor Kelli Giddish is 45. Singer-rapper Ty Dolla $ign is 43. Actor Allison Williams is 37.
Boston Globe
13-04-2025
- Boston Globe
Today in History: April 13, Tiger Woods wins first Masters by record margin
In 1861, Fort Sumter in South Carolina fell to Confederate forces in the first battle of the Civil War. In 1873, members of the pro-white, paramilitary White League attacked Black state militia members defending a courthouse in Colfax, La. Three white men and as many as 150 Black men were killed in what is known as the Colfax Massacre, one of the worst acts of Reconstruction-era violence. In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated the Jefferson Memorial in Washington on the 200th anniversary of his birth. Advertisement In 1964, Sidney Poitier became the first Black performer to win an Academy Award for acting in a leading role for his performance in 'Lilies of the Field.' In 1997, 21-year-old Tiger Woods became the youngest golfer to win the Masters Tournament in Augusta, Ga., finishing a record 12 strokes ahead of Tom Kite in second place. In 1999, right-to-die advocate Dr. Jack Kevorkian was sentenced in Pontiac, Mich., to 10 to 25 years in prison for second-degree murder for administering a lethal injection to a patient with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. (Kevorkian ultimately served eight years before being paroled.) Advertisement In 2005, a defiant Eric Rudolph pleaded guilty to carrying out the deadly bombing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and three other attacks in back-to-back court appearances in Birmingham, Ala., and Atlanta. In 2009, at his second trial, music producer Phil Spector was found guilty by a Los Angeles jury of second-degree murder in the shooting of actor Lana Clarkson. (Later sentenced to 19 years to life, Spector died in prison in January 2021.) In 2011, a federal jury in San Francisco convicted baseball slugger Barry Bonds of a single charge of obstruction of justice, but failed to reach a verdict on the three counts at the heart of allegations that he knowingly used steroids and human growth hormone and lied to a grand jury about it. (Bonds' conviction for obstruction was overturned in 2015.) In 2016, the Golden State Warriors became the NBA's first 73-win team, by beating the Memphis Grizzlies 125-104, breaking the 72-win record set by the Chicago Bulls in 1996. In 2017, Pentagon officials said US forces struck a tunnel complex of the Islamic State group in eastern Afghanistan with the GBU-43/B MOAB 'mother of all bombs,' the largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat by the military.
