Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws

Red-Flag-Laws-Beth-PP-Featured-9-24-19

Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws
Beth Alcazar – 09/24/2019

Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws

A terrible tragedy occurred in my home state of Alabama last month. As reported by the local news, a father and his son were involved in an argument that led to the 70-year-old father shooting his 45-year-old son in the chest in what he claims was self-defense.

Soon afterward, the Alabama chapter of Moms Demand Action shared the news — along with a comment — on social media. They posted:

’Investigators said James Adams and his son, Alfred Dewayne Adams, were involved in an argument Sunday night. They further stated they believe James told Alfred he was going to bed. Alfred then walked into the bedroom and James shot him in the chest. Some of the neighbors and some other family members can tell us about stuff that was happening through [sic] the years.’ This life could have been spared by utilizing a red flag law.

Some Questions

“This life could have been spared by utilizing a red flag law?” That’s quite a statement. And I wanted to post a few questions to Moms Demand Action. First of all, I wanted to ask: If the father truly used a weapon in self-defense, would a “red flag” law have disarmed him … and then spared the life of his violent son? Would the father be dead, then, in this particular situation? Beyond that, do “red flag” laws cover all weapons in the home? What if the suspect had decided to use a knife? Or what about prescription drugs or poisons? Does it cover a person’s bare hands and/or body? Could we confiscate those weapons, as well, whenever we feel there’s “some stuff that was happening through the years?”

Some Examples

And what about the terrible case in which a son killed his father and wounded his mother with a knife? Two months ago, in Arizona, the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office reported that when the older couple returned home, “they noticed their 33-year-old son had consumed a large amount of beer. The parents argued with him over their drinking concern. He threw his phone at them and then went into the kitchen and grabbed two large knives. When he tried to stab his mother, his father intervened and attempted to restrain him while he was still in the kitchen. The son began attacking his dad. As the struggle moved from the kitchen into the living room, the son was able to stab his dad in the chest. The father collapsed to the floor.”

Or there’s this recent horror story from Illinois: A man in a Chicago suburb was arrested by local police after killing his own mother by stabbing her repeatedly with a samurai sword in the chest. Park Ridge Police had removed the murderer’s firearms two times, with the last time being in July 2019. So the suspect didn’t have a gun … but he still had evil intent. And he used whatever weapon he could find.

There’s also the atrocity from Nevada a few weeks ago in which a 36-year-old man bludgeoned a woman to death with a sledgehammer in what Las Vegas police said was a random attack at a laundromat.

I could go on. But I won’t. Perhaps you see the point.

Some Red Flags

Beyond the fear of just anyone pointing out someone else with a gun for no good reason or people wrongly having their firearms taken from them because of mistaken identity or possibly just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, there are so many red flags about “red flag” laws. Undoubtedly, we’d love to be able to stop crimes and keep bad people from harming or killing others. But this is not the movie Minority Report, in which police can employ some sort of psychic technology to arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crimes. Ultimately, we have to ask: Will “red flag” laws actually target violent people … or just people with guns? Because as the above examples (and countless others) show, the problem isn’t the firearms.

About Beth Alcazar

Author of Women’s Handgun & Self-Defense Fundamentals, associate editor of Concealed Carry Magazine and creator of the Pacifiers & Peacemakers column, Beth Alcazar has enjoyed nearly two decades of teaching and working in the firearms industry. She holds degrees in language arts, education and communication management and uses her experience and enthusiasm to share safe and responsible firearms ownership and usage with others. Beth is certified through the NRA as a Training Counselor, Chief Range Safety Officer and Certified Instructor for multiple disciplines. She is also a Certified Instructor through SIG Sauer Academy, ALICE Institute, DRAW School, TWAW and I.C.E. Training and is a USCCA Certified Instructor and Senior Training Counselor.


How many times have we heard about someone running over a bunch of people too. Even the car or truck can be a deadly weapon. If someone is dead set that they are going to kill, for whatever reason, they will find the tool to kill others with!

These gun grabbers want any possible way to take our protection from us. And these same gun grabbers are socialists/communists.

Impeachment can go more ways than one. These politicians that want to do away with the Second Amendment, work for us. When they were sworn in, they swore to honor and uphold the Constitution. Trying to do away with any of the Amendments to the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is not honoring and upholding the Constitution. Violating one’s Oath of Office is usually grounds for them to be removed.

I say let’s remove their asses!
(Please note, I usually don’t comment on my own posts).

Advertisements

Universal Background Checks Won’t Stop Criminals Getting Guns

guns-640x480
In this Jan. 19, 2016 file photo, handguns are displayed at the Smith & Wesson booth at the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show in Las Vegas. Backers of an expanded gun background check ballot measure approved by Nevada voters in 2016 are arguing that the Nevada governor and attorney …AP Photo/John Locher, File

NRA: Universal Background Checks Won’t Stop Criminals Getting Guns
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/05/nra-universal-background-checks-wont-stop-criminals-getting-guns/
AWR HAWKINS5 Sep 2019

The NRA is warning universal background checks will not keep criminals from getting guns to use against innocents.
This warning comes as politicians as divergent as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) argue in favor of taking action against private gun sales. Patrick specifically argued that the NRA ought to get behind the effort to close the private sale “loophole.”

But the NRA notes that universal background checks are riddled with problems, not the least of which is that they will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns.

The NRA tweeted:
NRA

@NRA
So-called “universal” background checks won’t stop criminals from obtaining guns, would criminalize private transfers and loans between friends and family, and is completely unenforceable. Criminals don’t follow the law.

A BIG NO FROM US! https://twitter.com/NBCDFW/status/1168969378660007936

NBC DFW

@NBCDFW
Do you support universal background checks for all firearm purchases?

3,054
2:46 PM – Sep 4, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,473 people are talking about this
Down Range with AWR Hawkins. Sign up today!
Enter your email address
SIGN UP
The NRA also notes universal background checks make it difficult for guns to be transferred between friends and family. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) made this same point earlier in the week by citing a Houston woman who was able to save herself from alleged robbers by pulling her handgun and shooting the suspect. He noted, “With universal background checks, I wouldn’t be able to let my friends borrow my handgun when they travel alone like this. We would make felons out of people just for defending themselves.”

California has had universal background checks since the early 1990s, yet criminals in that state continue to be armed.

On December 9, 2018, Breitbart News reported California’s firearm homicides witnessed an 18 percent rise in firearm homicides from 2014 to 2016. How is this possible with universal background checks in place, unless such checks do not actually prevent criminals from getting and/or possessing guns?

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Judge Issues Ruling In Pubic Housing Gun Battle The case centered around a woman who was threatened with eviction from public housing if she kept a firearm in her own home.

Hagedorn1-780x392
Judge Hagedorn had zero chance of winning election to the state Supreme court less than four weeks ago, but a grass-roots effort helped galvanize voters.
50 States
PUBLISHED: 1:15 PM 14 Apr 2019
UPDATED: 5:05 PM 14 Apr 2019
Judge Issues Ruling In Pubic Housing Gun Battle
The case centered around a woman who was threatened with eviction from public housing if she kept a firearm in her own home.
Georgette by Georgette

One Tiny Election Shows Americans Fed Up With Liberal Manipulation, Assaults

It is no longer legal for the state to prohibit gun ownership for low-income people.
SIGN up for conservative daily post news alerts

In East St. Louis, if a person lives in public housing, they are not allowed to own or have a firearm on the property. That is… that was the previous ‘policy.’

Now, a judge has ruled the action is a violation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The Belleview News-Democrat reported:

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the East St. Louis Housing Authority cannot deny, through rules and regulations, a tenant’s right to lawfully own a firearm.

“Among whatever else, the Second Amendment protects the rights of a law-abiding individual to possess functional firearms in his or her home for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense and defense of family,” US District Court Judge Phil Gilbert said in the ruling.

A lawsuit filed in federal court was brought by Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, who argued that firearm bans in government-subsidized housing is unconstitutional.

Their case focused on an East St. Louis woman, identified as N. Doe, who was beaten and sexually assaulted in her home.

The assault ended only when one of her children pulled a gun on the attacker.

Doe alleged in the suit that the East St. Louis Housing Authority threatened to terminate her lease unless she could prove she did not have a gun at home.

She said she was told the building was safe and that she didn’t need a gun after she protested to housing authorities, the lawsuit states.

The ban applies only to people of low-income who live in public housing and denies them the right to keep and bear arms because they can’t afford private housing, the lawsuit states.

The Belleville News-Democrat reported that Doe’s lease says “residents are not to display, use or possess or allow members of (Doe’s) household or guest to display, use or possess any firearms, (operable or inoperable) … anywhere in the unit or elsewhere on the property of the authority,” according to the lawsuit.

Violating the lease can lead to its termination, something Doe feared.

The East St. Louis Housing Authority did not respond to a request for comments.

ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson said of the ruling:

“The right to defend your life and your property is a right for everyone regardless of where they live …” Pearson said. “It is sad that this woman had to go to these lengths just to defend herself. The threats to her are real.”

“Thankfully, she will be able to legally own a firearm and defend herself, but it is truly sad that it takes a federal judge to do what should have been done a long time ago,” he added.

But many people point out that the Second Amendment is not solely designed for the use of self-defense.

Scholars agree that the Founding Fathers placed that right early because 1.) without the power to defend your other rights, they can be taken away, and 2.) the people must have the power to dispossess an unjust government.

Thankfully, this judge understands the rule of law and upheld one of the most basic rights Americans have.

The fact that the liberal public housing authority tried to derive this woman of her right is unconscionable.

Of course, such as asinine policy has not stopped the gun violence and deaths plaguing the projects in East St. Louis. A few months ago, six people were shot in ‘unrelated’ incidents in one night, and the deaths continue to rise.

Perhaps now that decent people who are living in public housing have the ability to defend themselves from the liberal filth that has been perpetuated, deaths will decrease.

NYC officials caught up in pay-to-play gun licensing scandal… the Second Amendment only applies to those with the right political connections

New-York-City-Manhattan-Water-Ocean-Skyscrapers-765768277
Image: NYC officials caught up in pay-to-play gun licensing scandal… the Second Amendment only applies to those with the right political connections

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-02-08-nyc-officials-caught-up-in-pay-to-play-gun-licensing-scandal.html

Friday, February 08, 2019 by: JD Heyes

(Natural News) Americans may think they get fed up with ‘divided government’ — when one party controls Congress and the other party controls the White House, or vice versa — but the alternative, which is uni-party government, is worse.

In a uni-party system, where there is no serious opposition, the party with the power is never held accountable. And when its members aren’t held accountable, corruption becomes rampant. As the old saying goes, power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Take New York City, for example. Like most major cities, it’s controlled by Democrats and, in fact, has been for a number of years. The Democrat Party machine has not only taken over the governor’s mansion, known as Gracie Mansion (the official residence of the NYC mayor — currently socialist Democrat Bill DeBlasio), but also NY City Hall and most all of the boroughs, with a few exceptions.

Politically speaking, it’s a pretty sweet deal. It’s an arrangement that allows the party to make up rules as it goes along. Like, for instance, who is “allowed” to enjoy their Second Amendment rights and who isn’t.

As reported by the New York Daily News, Charlene Gayle, a well-connected Brooklyn real estate agent, set up what were called “de Blasio specials” with privileged ‘clients’ — easy peasy gun permits via the NYPD’s “corrupt license division in early 2014,” the paper reported, citing multiple sources.

The paper reported that Gayle was given “VIP treatment” when she accompanied members of NYC’s Jewish Orthodox community as they sought gun permits so they could better protect and defend themselves against potential threats, even as ordinary New Yorkers were either routinely denied similar permits or never bothered to apply because they knew they probably couldn’t get one thanks to NYC’s grotesquely restrictive gun laws. (Related: Recent concealed-carry study shows that relaxing carry laws does not increase violent crime.)

A former NYPD lieutenant, Paul Dean, told prosecutors that the permissively corrupt licensing environment was, in effect, sanctioned by former Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, the Daily News reported in a separate story last month. Some of those who allegedly received special consideration, Dean said, included former NYC resident and now-President Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., the president’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, and an unidentified associate of de Blasio.

Reforms are badly needed — even the NRA agrees
According to Dean’s attorney, his supervisor told the lieutenant, “This person takes care of Mayor de Blasio and in return, we are supposed to take care of this person.”

The Daily News reported further:

Sources identified the businesswoman as Gayle, a longtime donor to de Blasio who served on his 2014 inauguration team. She is currently on the board of advisers to the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City.

It is unclear if Gayle’s alleged role in arranging the upgrades was improper. A spokesman for Manhattan Federal prosecutors declined comment. Gayle did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dean discussed what was happening at the licensing division over three meetings with federal investigators in 2017, the paper said. He added that ex-Sgt. David Villanueva, another License Division employee, also told the Feds about Gayle.

In April 2017, the NRA reported on its website that the corruption was a sure sign that reforms are needed within the NYPD, mostly because it is ripe for abuse.

“New York City has an incredibly onerous handgun licensing scheme. Under this may-issue regime, law enforcement is granted wide discretion to grant or deny a license. Applicants can be denied for something as simple as ‘a poor driving history,’ or as vague as any ‘other good cause,’” the gun rights group noted.

“The process is also expensive. Applicants must pay a $340.00 application fee and an $89.75 fingerprinting fee.”

It’s bad enough that Democrats are the party of gun control; it’s worse when the party is so corrupt it denies those rights to ordinary Americans while reserving them for friends, allies, and ‘protected’ classes.

But that’s what happens when no one is around to hold Democrats responsible.

Read more about Democrat Party corruption at Corruption.news.

Sources include:

NRAILA.org

NYDailyNews.com

TheNationalSentinel.com

CA Assault Weapons Registration…Chalk Up One More for CA!

CA Assault Weapon Registration Website Crashed As Deadline Loomed

Posted at 6:00 pm on July 2, 2018 by Tom Knighton

California wanted all so-called “assault weapons” to be registered by July 1, 2018. The state wanted it so badly that it created a website in hopes that it would make the process easy enough that most would comply with the rule. It was smart, not because registration will do anything, but in that, if you want people to comply with the law, you’d better make it easy.

However, as with so many other things in California, what worked well, in theory, turned into a colossal case of fail.

As the deadline looms for California gun owners to register their firearms that have been re-classified as “assault weapons,” the registration system has been crashing, preventing compliance with the law if the site is not fixed.

California passed a bill expanding its already lengthy definition of “assault weapon.” Under SB 880 and AB 113, which became effective in January 2017, “assault weapon” now includes firearms that are required to be equipped with a bullet button or a similar magazine locking device.

…

All applications must be completed and submitted by Saturday at 11:59 p.m. PDT. With less than a day until the deadline, the California Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS) has had difficulty processing the high volume of applications, according to the Firearms Policy Coalition. The spike in traffic repeatedly crashed the CFARS website, preventing gun owners from registering properly.

If firearms are not registered before the deadline, gun owners could be charged with a felony and receive up to eight years in prison.

Now, waiting until the last minute is usually not a recipe for success, but as long as there was time on the clock, people are free to procrastinate. It’s up to the state of California to make sure its website works.

And it didn’t.

Constant crashes delay people being able to comply with the law, and it’s not their fault. Like I said, waiting until the last minute might not be ideal, but it’s not illegal, and it’s not their fault the state can’t build a working website.

Now, those who weren’t able to register their guns despite trying to may well be guilty of a felony as you read this. Hopefully not. So far, though, there’s been no mention of an amnesty for those who tried but were turned away by the state’s ineptitude.

To err is human. To really foul stuff up, though, you need the government involved.

This is a prime example.

Meanwhile, the state has made modern sporting rifles an endangered species, and the state’s violent crime rate has increased over the last couple of years despite the full-court press on “assault rifles.” Maybe it’s not the guns that are the problem in the first place? You know, California, I’m just throwing that out there for consideration.

Unfortunately, it’s not like the state is known for listening to reason or doing anything except the most anti-gun thing it can manage to do. California has never met a gun control proposal it didn’t like, and there’s no reason to expect that to change in the near future.

Wicked Hearts and Evil Purposes, By Beth Alcazar, USCCA


Wicked Hearts and Evil Purposes
By Beth Alcazar // 04/03/2018
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/wicked-hearts-evil-purposes/?j=8958&sfmc_sub=3148047&l=15_HTML&u=165492&mid=7295358&jb=434

Are you tired of hearing it, yet?

Guns are the problem.

The NRA is the problem.

The GOP is the problem.

Well, here’s the deal. What if guns, the NRA or the GOP really were the problem? What if we just abolished all three?

What if we banned all U.S. citizens from having guns — just took them all away? Would we be safer? Would crime stop? Would bad people with evil intentions change their ways? Would violence end?

People like to point to Australia as an example of this all-out gun ban. However, murder was the only serious crime that experienced a consistent decline post-ban. Murder rates dropped 31 percent, from a rate of 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1994 to 1.1 per 100,000 in 2012. In fact, according to the Australian government’s statistics, manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping and armed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the firearms ban, and most of these crimes remain near or above pre-ban rates. In the meantime, America was more than doubling the number of firearms manufactured but saw a nearly identical drop in homicides with the use of firearms. So, although Australia may have fewer firearms-related murders, when you disarm law-abiding civilians, violent crime increases because there is nothing to deter criminals. And as the country has seen, a criminal with a knife will still rob, rape and kill.



https://globalnews.ca/video/embed/3778879/

What if we got rid of the NRA — just shut down the whole organization? Would all guns disappear? Would murders suddenly end? Would children in gun-free zones be completely safe and protected because this educational organization was gone?

The National Rifle Association was started to educate and inform. Specifically, union veterans began the NRA in order to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,” as one of the founders wrote. And this organization with more than 5 million members continues its commitment to training, education and marksmanship to this day. Thousands of classes, events, shows and meetings occur all over the U.S. every year, but none have ever reported any incidents of violence with firearms.

Of course, education and training are not all the NRA does. It has grown and expanded to include the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), established in 1975. The ILA is the lobbying arm for the NRA, responsible for the legislative, political and legal arenas. It’s this arm that supports and fights for responsible, law-abiding gun owners, not criminals.

What if we outlawed the GOP — just said people can’t be part of government anymore if they are Republican? No more Grand Old Party. Would our nation come together? Would we be united? Would all the problems just go away?

Organized political parties have played an interesting role in our country because they’re intended to promote political competition and accountability. But we know problems would continue to occur with or without the fearless elephant and the two-party system. The important thing to note in this case is that guns are not a political thing: They’re an American thing. Libertarians believe that every person has the right to arm himself or herself in self-defense. The New Independent Party believes that the Constitution guarantees individual citizens the right to bear arms. There is also a large amount of Democrat gun owners. And while most people are quick to suggest that most liberals would rather ban guns, many liberals are interested in gun safety and support the use of firearms. And what about groups like The Liberal Gun Club, a gun-advocacy group whose membership ranges from socialists to anarchists to Reagan Democrats?

The thing is, guns alone are not the problem. They never have been. It’s the person holding the firearm who poses any potential problems. Only the person with the weapon (whether it’s a knife, a pen, a vehicle or any other object) can actually use that tool to either do good or do evil. And getting rid of tools, organizations or even political parties can never solve the problems of wicked hearts and evil purposes.

From USCCA: Of course I trust Governor Moon Beam, that those 2.3 million illegal immigrants are “hard-working families” and therefore trustworthy and law abiding(!)


California Condition Orange
By Rick Sapp // 10/27/2017
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/california-condition-orange/

I’m not planning to visit California soon. No one there will lose sleep over that announcement, I suppose, but California recently became America’s first “Sanctuary State.” Apparently, by signing Senate Bill 54, Governor Jerry “Moon Beam” Brown limited the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to “hold, question and transfer” individuals at the request of federal immigration authorities. The law takes effect in January 2018.

Brown called California’s 2.3 million illegal immigrants — most, I presume, from Latin America — “hard-working families” which, to my way of thinking, is nice but irrelevant. Thus, he chooses which national laws he likes and will enforce and those which he will not. (If the U.S. were attacked by North Korea, could he, for example, sign a bill forbidding California residents to join the military or pay the federal Income Tax? A traitor is a traitor, no matter how large … or small.)

There’s an interesting passage in a book I’m reading, Kim MacQuarrie’s Life and Death in the Andes. He writes about Sendero Luminoso, the vicious Communist Shining Path guerrilla movement of Peru:

“Like Marx, [Abimael] Guzman [Shining Path’s leader] began to believe that a glorious, stateless future awaited humanity — although that future might have to be prodded into existence with the help of guns.”

Like America’s Communist Left, Shining Path maintained that anyone who did not believe as they did was an enemy and should be killed. Thus, following the Las Vegas murders, Hayley Geftman-Gold, CBS vice president and senior counsel, tweeted: “If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing. I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”

California Governor Jerry “Moon Beam” Brown says the illegal immigrants in his state are just ordinary hard-working people. He lusts for the Marxist vision of a stateless society, where only his cops have guns (“To each according to their need. From each according to their ability.”) rather than the Jeffersonian model of a well-regulated, equal opportunity capitalist enterprise where individuals rise according to their energy and merit, and where individual responsibility begins with self-defense.

America’s Communist Left has reversed the course of classical Marxist strategy: Rule the countryside and the cities, bourgeoisie centers of wealth and oppression, will inevitably fall. In America, the Communist Left has subtly seized the news media and universities like the University of California at Berkeley.

So how do you carry in California, a “may-issue” state? The Center for Investigative Reporting at revealnews.org maintained that in mid-2015, “requests from more than 16,000 Californians to carry a concealed gun in public are in limbo…” Reporter Matt Drange said, “San Francisco has issued fewer permits in the last five years than any other county in the state. This is partly because so few people apply, knowing they are unlikely to receive a permit and not wanting a denial on their record. Each of the 13 applications submitted to the city’s police department last year still are pending.”

According to California’s Dept. of Justice Bureau of Firearms, 70,593 Californians possessed a concealed carry permit in 2015, about 0.2 percent of the state population … well below the national average. There are about 13.5 million concealed firearms permits nationwide, 5 percent of the population.

California and other centers of the Communist Left do not recognize national laws they don’t like. They are becoming a law unto themselves, although they still want Federal (i.e. your) support in any emergency — from earthquakes to forest fires. California does not recognize any other state permit and does not issue permits to residents of other states. My Georgia, Utah and New Mexico permits notwithstanding, I cannot carry on the Left Coast which wants, in Karl Marx’s mythological world, “a glorious, stateless future.” Plus unicorns and rainbows, I suppose.

So should I have to visit California — and it is a land of marvelous scenic attractions — I’ll leave my Walther behind. I’ll depart without my Smith & Wesson or my Kel-Tec. I won’t attempt to hide them in my luggage or beneath the car. (Cops are smarter at finding than I am at hiding.)

Instead, I’ll just avoid traveling there — and Chicago (my erstwhile birthplace) — and Massachusetts. In short, any state that doesn’t have reciprocity with my carry permits.

If I do go however, I’ll try to maintain a sense of awareness, vigilance, a Condition Orange status … which is exhausting. Of course I trust Governor Moon Beam, that those 2.3 million illegal immigrants are “hard-working families” and therefore trustworthy and law abiding(!). It’s the other 37.5 million residents who scare me.