Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

California Gun Restraint Bill; Joe the Plumber Says "Dead Kids Don't Trump Gun Rights"; Sterling Pens Scathing Letter to NBA

Aired May 28, 2014 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: A grieving father unleashes his rage after yet another deadly shooting spree.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD MARTINEZ, FATHER OF CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ: I don't want to hear that you're sorry about my son's death. I don't care if you're sorry about my son's death. You go back to Congress and you do something.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Now, state lawmakers in California are doing just that. They say they're pushing for a new way to stop the killing, but it's not without controversy.

Then in Mexico, you have to prove your innocence, it seems. Today, a U.S. Marine going before a judge there. He was jailed for crossing the border with three registered guns. His mom says it was an accident. Hear what the Mexicans say.

And her image is all over the Internet, including websites that trade in pornography. So, who's to blame? The model says she's not that kind of girl and she wants Google and Yahoo! to pay for ruing her good name.

Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. It's Wednesday, May the 28th, and welcome to LEGAL VIEW. Let's begin here.

Just days after a young California man with a long and documented history of mental illness killed a half dozen other young adults and then killed himself, some California lawmakers want to make it easier for the police and for the courts to think ahead and anticipate bloodshed before it happens, thereby preventing it. Classmates, friends and families of the murdered UC Santa Barbara students gathered late yesterday in their honor.

By now you know three were fatally stabbed in the killer's apartment in the community of Isla Vista last Friday. Two others were shot to death at a sorority house. And a sixth was killed at a convenience shop and deli. That student's father has channeled his all-consuming anguish into a passionate demand for new and tougher gun laws and contempt for politicians who do little but offer their regret. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD MARTINEZ, FATHER OF VICTIM: I've had Congress people call me and express their condolences and sympathy. And when that happened, when that's happened, I've told them, don't call me and tell me you're sorry about my son's death. I don't want to hear it from you. I don't want to hear that you're sorry about my son's death. I don't care if you're sorry about my son's death.

You go back to Congress and you do something, and you come back to me and tell me you've done something, then I'd be interested in talking to you. But till then, don't call me again. And I don't care whether it's the president of the United States or any other politician, do not call me and tell me you're sorry about my son's death until you do something now. It's ridiculous. It's contemptible. The fact that this situation has gone on so long is just utterly ridiculous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: That was Richard Martinez talking to our Anderson Cooper here on CNN.

But, as I mentioned, some politicians are taking action. In California, two state assembly members and a state senator are pushing legislation that would give relatives, friends and, quote, "intimate partners," the same power that therapists have to alert the police when someone, potentially the next Elliot Rodger, poses a threat to himself or to someone else. Police could then investigate.

And this is crucial. They could then seek a court order that would bar that person from buying or owning guns. Let me repeat that. A court order that would bar someone from is essentially what people will say is their Second Amendment right. And there is the controversy.

One of the sponsors of that measure is Assemblyman Das Williams. And I'm also joined by my legal team, CNN commentator and legal analyst Mel Robbins and HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson.

Assemblyman, I'd like to begin with you. You know, at first blush, some people would say it sounds like a good idea. But then you hear the controversy. You hear the issue about the Second Amendment. It is a guaranteed constitutional right. So if your amendment is the solution, why isn't it already legislation?

DAS WILLIAMS (D), CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY: Well, I think that's a great question. And I think the father, Richard Martinez, is right. Why haven't we done something before nationwide? And how many mass killings have to occur before we are spurred to action? And I, for one, do not want to let California not move forward. I think that if you don't believe that guns should be removed from people who are mentally unstable or mentally ill, you're not going to agree with my legislation. Of course, I think most people agree that we do not want to have guns in the hands of people who are mentally ill or mentally unstable. And this was the least invasive way that we could determine to do that. BANFIELD: Mr. Williams, there are those out there listening right now who would wholeheartedly agree with your position and there are others who would say you're coming for my guns and I'm a law abiding citizen and this kind of legislation would give someone who may have a different incentive, let's say, something retributive, to report me falsely to the police, thereby they get my guns and I'd have to prove my innocence. What would you say to those people?

WILLIAMS: Well, we've tried to balance both public safety and speed and the need to have a process that moves quickly with due process. And so there is a requirement in the legislation to have a hearing where the person in question, who is being said of is mentally unstable and should not possess weapons, that individual can come before the court and profess that they are in good state of mind and keep their Second Amendment rights. I think that we have to, in this democratic society, trust judicial discretion at some level. If we don't, we can't trust our system at all.

BANFIELD: But it takes a judicial discretion. And effectively what you're saying, and this is different from a domestic restraining order, because effectively, if you have a domestic restraining order slapped on you, your freedom's not taken away, you just can't go contact that person who's worried until you prove that you are not a threat. In this respect, they take your gun away or they take your right to own a gun away until you go to the judicial authority and prove your case. And that's where I'm wondering if you don't find you're going to see an uphill battle with a very strong lobby. Effectively, what are the odds you think this kind of a bill can prevail when on Capitol Hill you can't even get background checks?

WILLIAMS: Well, if I was in Congress, I would be much more daunted about getting this passed. But I think here in California, people have determined that enough is enough. We're sick and tired of people dying in mass killings. And that it is not intrusive if the judge still has discretion over the matter at the end of the day.

And we believe that in this case -- I'm not omniscient. I can't tell you for sure that the tragedy would have been avoided -- but what's unique about this case is that the mother and father knew there was going to be a problem. And at this point, in current law, there's no way for them to do something about it. This would give parents, spouses, loved ones, the ability to intervene. And if a judge determines that that individual that they're worried about is a danger to themselves or others, to be able to prevent a suicide, a homicide or a mass killing.

BANFIELD: I don't think anybody would question your motives and the laudable end that you're seeking. It's the struggle that you'll have in getting there. I just want to quote you something that comes from someone who tried to be a politician, ran to be a politician, did not prevail, but is nonetheless quite famous in politician circles. It's Joe Wurzelbacher. And maybe people would recognize the name, "Joe the Plumber." He wrote an open letter to the parents of the victims who were killed, effectively the parents who were - parents of the children who were killed by gunfire in this rampage. Just want to excerpt a small bit of it. "As harsh as this sounds, your dead kids don't trump my constitutional rights." This is a direct quote. It goes on to say, "Mr. Martinez and anyone calling for more restrictions on American's rights need to back off and stop playing into the hands of the folks who merely capitalize on these horrific events for their own political end." He goes on to say, "they don't care about your family or your dead children at all."

I want that to ruminate over the break because I'm going to ask my legal guests about that. I'm also going to ask the assemblyman what he thinks about that because that is an effective and it is a strong feeling out there and that is the road to hoe for those who want this kind of a bill passed. After the break you'll hear about that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Welcome back.

Right before the break I read some choice words from a letter that was just released by "Joe the Plumber" in which - it's a letter to the family members who lost children to the gun violence in Santa Barbara, effectively saying, "your dead kids don't trump my constitutional rights." Harsh indeed, admittedly so, from "Joe the Plumber."

Mr. Assemblyman, I'd love it if you'd stand by. We have Das Williams with us from California who is introducing legislation to make it easier to get what's effectively considered to be a gun prevention restraining order for those who might be considered dangerous by friends or family.

Mel Robbins and Joey Jackson, you're here. I say this is a tough row to hoe because there are people who feel so strongly about the Second Amendment that this kind of language -

MEL ROBBINS, CNN COMMENTATOR: Right.

BANFIELD: Your dead kids don't trump my rights, is fine to them, just days after all of these people have lost their children. That's why I say this is tough. Do you see any shot, even in California?

ROBBINS: Absolutely. And, look, "Joe the Plumber" lost the election with that kind of rhetoric. He may be a mouthpiece for the NRA, but that's going to be who California's up against. But let's put this into perspective. California has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. They already have a 10-day waiting period. They already have a 30-day waiting period between guns. They already have a federal and a state background check. They already have safety training that's required. And so on the --

BANFIELD: Big list (ph). But guess what, this kid passed all that and killed all those others.

ROBBINS: I got it. But you know what, here's the thing that's troubling, is that the police showed up, right, at this murder's house. And there were six of them there. And that was the one opportunity we had to thwart this from happening. And the problem is, is that based on the laws right now, particularly with mental health, Ashleigh, they didn't have the authority to take him into custody. They also didn't have the authority to do any kind of search or seize any kind of guns. To me, this is a necessary step (INAUDIBLE) 100 percent is.

BANFIELD: Joey, you weren't here yesterday.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: There's a couple of things.

BANFIELD: We had that conversation about the warrant.

ROBBINS: Yes.

JACKSON: Yes.

BANFIELD: But what -- when an assemblyman wants -

JACKSON: Yes.

BANFIELD: Something like a restraining order on your ability to buy and own guns, it's different than the warrant to go in and look to see if you have any. Or would it give you that?

JACKSON: Let's be clear about a couple of things. We do have constitutional rights. We enjoy them. It's a beautiful country. You don't have the right, the constitutional right, to kill anybody. You don't have it. If it's self-defense, it's another matter.

However, acting out this legislation, it requires responsible gun ownership. What is the matter with responsible gun ownership? Should a person who's been receiving therapy since they were eight years old have a gun in hand when the therapy has been constant?

Let's look at the list. Columbine massacre, 1999. Virginia Tech, 2007. Tucson shooting, 2011. Aurora, 2012. Sandy Hook, 2012, again. What is it going to take?

What the assemblyman's measure provides -- it's not taking guns away from people. It's not stripping rights from anybody. People should be responsible who have weapons. Everyone would agree with that proposition.

ROBBINS: And here's the other thing, Ashleigh. Right now, we have no way -- once somebody gets a gun legally, there's absolutely no mechanism to be able to take a gun away. So you read about all these stories. Forget about mass murder. What about domestic violence? What about people that commit acts of violence every day, people that are unstable?

There's no mechanism for the police or for the public or for a mental health professional to basically say, we need to take a look at this individual, just like we might yank somebody's driver's license for acting recklessly, right?

JACKSON: And one other brief point --

ROBBINS: And then there's a hearing. Due process is not a problem here, because there is a hearing. We suspend your right to get a gun. We suspend your right to own a gun.

You can show up at a hearing and now the burden is on you to prove to us that you are going to be a responsible gun owner.

JACKSON: That's the deal.

And one other point to be made. The police were there at his home, OK, the Rodger person who massacred innocent, beautiful people, OK?

The police should not be in the business of making mental health assessments. They should not be. Police, as wonderful and as heroic as they are, do not have the ability of a psychotherapist to analyze a person on the spot and make a determination whether they should be eligible for civil commitment.

They can't do it. Someone else needs to. I think this measure that the assemblyman has is a positive step forward. It's about time that it passes.

And, Mr. Martinez, God bless him, that's a father who's grieving. That's a father who's broken. That's a father who's hurt. And God bless him for coming forward and taking people to task to do something so that massacres don't occur again.

ROBBINS: And doing something that's reasonable.

BANFIELD: I will say this. You know, when we see Mr. Martinez speak the way he does, this is a pain that many of us, most of us, will never, ever experience.

JACKSON: Thank God.

BANFIELD: I'm just going to give an open letter to you, Mr. Joe the Plumber, doesn't matter what your point is, there are a lot of people who agree with the Second Amendment, and you are doing them no favors, no favors, by attacking that man, a grieving father.

And God help you if your child comes to you and is worried about a kid in class. What will you do, Joe the Plumber? What will you do? Will you write a letter like this to yourself?

Still to come, Donald Sterling is certainly putting up a big old fight. He's refusing to back down and accept the NBA charges against him.

And then we're going to take you to Mexico where you have to prove your innocence, and one U.S. Marine is learning that the hard way. He claimed he crossed the border accidentally, and today he pleads his case.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: First, he sounded like he'd given up the fight, and then he sounded like the game was back on. Days later, Donald Sterling yet again seemed to relinquish control of his beloved L.A. Clippers to his long-suffering wife, Shelly. But get ready for a little whiplash, folks, because he's reportedly back in the ring to pound the NBA for taking action against him because of those nasty little, recorded racist rants. In 26 scathing pages obtained by "USA Today," Sterling has written the NBA to say it has no right to make him sell the team, but his language is a little more colorful.

CNN's Rosa Flores lays it all out.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The letter does not hold back, 26 pages ripping into the NBA, calling the penalties draconian, the process a sham and unconstitutional, and vowing to fight to the bitter end.

The main argument of the letter, quote, "a jealous rant to a lover never intended to be published cannot offend the NBA rules," the letter describes this taped outburst as a, quote, "inflamed lover's quarrel" in which he was clearly distraught.

DONALD STERLING, L.A. CLIPPERS OWNER: Don't come to my games. Don't bring black people and don't come.

FLORES: After the tape went public Sterling was banned for life from NBA facilities and functions and ordered to pay a record $2.5 million fine. Sterling and his lawyers say the tape was illegally recorded and cannot be used against him. And though Sterling himself apologized in an interview with CNN --

STERLING: I'm so sorry. And I'm so apologetic.

FLORES: -- he now says those offenses, though not justified, don't compare to these committed inside the NBA, like Kobe Bryant using a homophobic slur at a ref. Bryant was fined $100,000 for that.

To make even more confusing, his wife Shelly reportedly has written permission from Sterling to sell the team and a source says she's moving quickly, having already met with several perspective buyers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FLORES And about those buyers, Shelly Sterling reportedly wants to seal the deal this week, her attorney saying, quote, "Donald Sterling has authorized Shelly Sterling in written to negotiate the sale of the Los Angeles Clippers.

"While no formal offers have yet been received, Shelly and the NBA are working cooperatively on the transaction."

And, of course, we should add, the NBA board of governors meets on June 3rd.

Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: Rosa, you've got an assignment on June 3rd. Thank you. Joining me now to talk about Sterling's response to the NBA and its possible intentions to sell the Clippers, two very quiet people who rarely weigh in on topics like this, CNN legal analyst Mel Robbins and HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson.

First thing I thought, Mel, when I heard this, isn't all of this just moot? This isn't a legal proceeding in civil court. This is a proceeding in this tiny little club called the NBA and its constitution. What is he doing?

ROBBINS: It's actually not moot. What we're seeing is two parallel tracks, and believe me, the Sterlings are acting in concert. Shelly's off trying to sell for as much as possible, and Donald has an obligation if he wants to preserve any legal claim to follow the procedure that's happening over here with the NBA.

So what he's doing by filing this and, you know, we've read the 29 panels and it reads more like a TMZ article than it does any kind of legal appeal that I've ever seen, but what he's trying to do is preserve his right to argue this. Let's say Shelly only gets an offer for half a million bucks -- not half a million, $500 million.

BANFIELD: Half a billion.

ROBBINS: And they don't want to sell it.

BANFIELD: Sure.

ROBBINS: Now we've got to make sure in the Donald Sterling camp that he's actually mounting a fight.

BANFIELD: Joey, does the NBA just go ahead, or do they have to accommodate what they've got, these 20-some-odd pages of rambling, "draconian sham," "unconstitutional." Unconstitutional, really?

JACKSON: He has a right to defend himself in any proceeding. He will defend himself. He will lose. Why? Three quick reasons.

Constitution, what does the constitution have to do in a private entity? This is not a governmental actor. Due process is one thing. The Constitution is quite another

Number two, he talks about private conduct. It's private conduct that affected the public. He reiterated it on "Anderson." He's done.

BANFIELD: Hey, private conduct, when he went on CNN with Anderson and --

(CROSSTALK)

ROBBINS: Anderson's quoted in here.

BANFIELD: Anderson just sat there and it all happened. This was -- he was not lured into this. Anderson didn't do a "gotcha" moment. It was just this verbal (inaudible) that effectively was pretty besmirching of the league, right? JACKSON: What's going to happen with these pages?

BANFIELD: Oh, lord.

ROBBINS: Shredder.

BANFIELD: That's what I had a feeling you were going to say.

All right, Mel, Joey, thank you.

Stay tuned. Got another story that's brewing. This one takes you south of the border to a guy who's trapped in Mexico. He's not just any guy. He's a U.S. Marine. And his colleagues say he's a great one. Yet he's been jailed and he's facing a Mexican judge for taking registered legal guns south of the border. His mom says it was an accident, a missed turn, but you should hear what they say down south.

That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)