Category: Gun Schtuff

Analysis: The First Crack Forms in Federal Machinegun Ban

For the first time, a federal judge has ruled the Second Amendment protects civilian machinegun possession.

On Wednesday, US District Judge John W. Broomes dismissed charges against a Kansas man for possessing a fully automatic .300 blackout AR-15 and Glock 33 handgun. He ruled that the federal ban on possessing or transferring machineguns (with limited exceptions) was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant.

“To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation,” Judge Broomes wrote in US v. Morgan.

In many ways, the decision is the epitome of what some gun-rights advocates hoped the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision and the new test it laid down would bring to bear on America’s gun laws. The 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), which marked the first time the federal government regulated machineguns by requiring registration and a $200 tax stamp, has rankled a vocal section of activists. The same is true of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, a provision of which known as the Hughes Amendment—18 USC § 922(o)—functionally banned civilian ownership of automatic weapons manufactured after its enactment.

Those activists view the federal regulations, enacted for the first time more than 140 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment, as incompatible with the Bruen standard because it prioritizes Founding-era approaches to weapons regulation when evaluating modern regulations. They see the ultimate liberalization of machinegun, suppressor, and short-barreled rifle regulations as the natural apotheosis of courts faithfully applying the Bruen test to America’s modern gun-control regime.

But court after court to address the question in recent years has rejected the idea the Second Amendment protects machineguns, largely based on the Supreme Court’s own words. Most often, they cite a section of the majority opinion in DC v. Heller that discusses the idea that fully automatic M-16s, which are functionally identical to the rifle at issue in Morgan, “may be banned.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in Heller. “Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Broomes interrogated this reliance on Heller’s brief discussion of M-16 rifles and reached a different conclusion on how much it binds courts confronting an explicit challenge to the federal ban on new machineguns.

Continue reading “”

ATF Requested Stay Denied in Force Reset Trigger Case

Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor for the Northern District of Texas denied the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) request for a stay on his ruling that blocked the ATF from taking enforcement actions over force reset triggers (FRT).

Earlier, Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the ATF exceeded its authority when it determined that FRTs were machine guns in the National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland. FRTs use the bolt carrier group (BCG) of an AR-15-style firearm to reset the trigger of the gun. This reset allows the shooter to increase the rate of fire of a firearm. The ATF claimed that since the rate of fire approaches that of a machine gun, it made the device a machine gun conversion device. Under federal law, any device that converts a semi-automatic firearm to a machine gun is itself a machine gun.

Machine guns are defined under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The actual law doesn’t reference a fire rate when determining a machine gun. According to the law, a machine gun fires multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger. An FRT doesn’t work that way. A firearm equipped with an FRT expels one round per trigger function. The ATF made the same argument about bump stocks in the Cargill case, but the Supreme Court ruled against the government and stated that bump stocks were not machine guns.

The statute reads: “For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

The plaintiffs claim that since an FRT requires that the user pull the trigger between each round, it could not be considered a machine gun. In the past, the ATF tried to use Chevron deference to change the meaning of a law, but because of the recent Supreme Court opinion in the Loper Bright Enterprises case, Chevron deference is dead. Chevron deference says when a law is unclear or ambiguous, the agency of authority has the final say as to the law’s meaning. This decision stripped the ATF of using Chevron deference in this case, even though it probably would not have been successful.

The ATF tried to use Chevron deference in the Cargill case, but SCOTUS rejected that tactic, stating that the definition of a machine gun is not unclear or ambiguous. Chances are high that the court would come to the same conclusion in this case. The ATF claimed that not issuing a stay would cause irreparable harm to public safety. The judge rejected the argument, saying that the only people charged with having an FRT were also charged with other crimes, so possessing an FRT was only an “add-on” crime. He also stated he did not believe that the defense was likely to succeed on the merits of the case.

The judge extended the time frame the ATF has to return the approximately 11,884 Rare Breed Triggers FRT-15s and Wide Open Triggers (WOT) it had confiscated from owners. Initially, Judge O’Connor gave the ATF 30 days to return all the triggers it confiscated from gun owners. The ATF went door to door to seize the triggers from owners but stated it could not return them in 30 days. The judge increased the time of the deadline by five months. The ATF now has six months to return all the triggers to their owners.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal (ECF No. 104),” the order reads. “The Court grants Defendants an additional SIX (6) MONTHS to comply with the affirmative obligation, which SHALL be completed by February 22, 2025. This extension does NOT apply to the Individual Plaintiffs or members of the Organizational Plaintiffs who specifically request the return of their FRT devices and provide sufficient documentation to the ATF. ATF shall return those as soon as is practicable following the specific request.”

The ATF is appealing the judge’s decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, although since this is the same court that ruled against the ATF in Cargill, it seems like a long shot that they will side with the ATF. The arguments in both cases are almost identical.

U.S. Government Appeals Pistol Brace Decision to 5th Circuit

After nearly three months of silence, the U.S. Government has now appealed the June 13, 2024, pistol brace decision to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The appeal was announced on August 12, 2024. The case is Mock v. Garland, and it was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition.

The ATF pistol brace rule targets stabilizer braces attached to AR pistols, claiming the braces turn AR pistols into short barrel rifles (SBRs). And since SBRs are regulated under the National Firearms Act (1934), the ATF issued its rule on AR-pistol braces to stop what it saw as a way around SBR regulations.

Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction against the AR pistol brace rule on November 8, 2023.

Kacsmaryk observed that the “court is not insensitive to the ATF’s concerns over gun industry gamesmanship and attempts to circumvent the rules on SBRs.” But he followed that acknowledgement by quoting Bruen (2022), noting that the government may not justify the passage and/or existence of a regulation by “simply [positing] that the regulation promotes an important interest.”

In a decision dated June 13, 2024, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor vacated the ATF’s AR pistol brace rule, saying it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The U.S. Government has now appealed the pistol brace decision to the Fifth Circuit.

Breitbart News pointed out the Fifth Circuit decided against another ATF rule–a ban on bump stocks–on January 6, 2023. The court did so in light of the ATF’s arbitrary recategorization of bump stocks as “machine guns.”

Second court crushes Biden’s assault on AR-style pistols.

Today [the 9th]  another federal court rejected President Joe Biden’s war on guns, ruling against his effort to require 3 million to 7 million owners of AR-style pistols to register and pay a $200 tax on their firearms or face prison.

In the latest blow to liberal gun control politicians and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s plan, claiming it was likely to get tossed by the Supreme Court.

For now, the millions of users of guns equipped with “pistol braces” can keep them without fear of being fined or jailed.

The court said the ATF rule was poorly written and vague and gave the agency too much leeway to go after owners of the popular firearms.

Continue reading “”

ATF Moves to Halt Forced Reset Trigger Ruling, Appeals Decision

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is arguing in a new filing that it cannot meet a federal court’s order to return the forced reset triggers (FRTs) they collected when they effectively banned the devices last year.

Last month, U.S. Federal Judge Reed O’Connor ordered the vacatur of an ATF rule classifying FRTs—a rapid-fire trigger device—as regulated machinegun parts. O’Connor further ordered the ATF to return, within 30 days, any FRTs it seized from manufacturers, resellers, or individual owners while its rule was in effect.

The ATF has since filed motions challenging O’Connor’s ruling, including appealing the ruling up to the U.S. Fifth Circuit of Appeals and requesting a stay of the lower court’s decision.

Arguing their motion to stay O’Connor’s ruling, the ATF said it would be difficult to meet the requirement to turn over any seized FRTs within 30 days.

“ATF does not know the identities of the Organizational Plaintiffs’ claimed members,” the federal agency wrote in its Aug. 1 filing, referring to the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights.

“Thus, ATF has no ability to determine who must be returned devices under the Order,” the ATF’s legal filing continues. “And even if an individual approaches ATF and self-identifies as an Organizational-Plaintiff member, ATF does not have the means to verify the accuracy of that representation, or whether they were, in fact, a member at the time the complaint was filed, as is necessary to receive relief.”

O’Connor’s order for the ATF to return seized FRT’s didn’t stipulate that the agency should only return the devices to the organizational plaintiffs. Rather, his ordered simply directed all of the seized devices be returned.

“The Court ORDERS Defendants to return to all parties, including manufacturers, distributors, resellers, and individuals, all FRTs and FRT components confiscated or seized pursuant to their unlawful classification within thirty (30) days of this decision,” O’Connor’s July 23 instruction states. Continue reading “”

July Gun Sales Up, NICS tops 1 Million Each of Last 60 Months in a Row

All signs point to Americans continuing to reach for their wallets when it comes to practicing the right to keep and bear arms

Last month was the fifth highest July on record in terms of federal background checks for likely over-the-counter gun transfers since the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System was established over 20 years ago.

The unadjusted figure of 2,021,235 checks conducted through NICS last month is 1.7 percent higher than the unadjusted FBI NICS figure of 1,987,650 in July 2023.

Crunching the numbers for last month by the National Shooting Sports Foundation to remove gun permit checks and rechecks, the adjusted figure stands at 1,064,790, which is a 4-percent bump compared to the July 2023 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,023,903.

But perhaps the biggest piece of news when looking at last month’s NICS figures is that July 2024 marks the 60th consecutive month – five solid years – that has exceeded 1 million adjusted background checks in a single month.

And with America headed into a contentious election cycle where one side is on record advocating strict gun control and the other is kind of dialing it in when it comes to gun rights, you can likely expect those figures to keep on climbing.

Should You Suppress a Home-Defense Gun?

Just a year or two ago things were looking up for suppressors. With the Hearing Protection Act written and in the legislative works, a semi-friendly House of Representatives and Senate, and the White House seemingly friendly towards signing a bill, things seemed positive for getting suppressors out of NFA jail. No more tax stamps, photos, fingerprints, body probes, and year-long waits just to make your gun run quieter.

Then, politicians did the politician dance, meaning they didn’t do a damn thing except fundraise and stump for reelection. Now, the House has flipped and there’s a better chance that Alyssa Milano will become the new NRA President than the Hearing Protection Act passing before Wolf Blitzer takes an anchor job with the Blaze.

Even still, you can buy one, just like before, as long as you’re prepared to wait. So, today’s question is, with all that headache and waiting around just to get your hands on a suppressor, should you ever consider using one on a home defense firearm? As with anything else, there are pros and cons to consider. Here’s a list of things to ponder.

Continue reading “”

N.J.’s ban on AR-15 ‘assault’ rifles is unconstitutional, federal court rules

A federal court judge on Tuesday ruled New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles is unconstitutional, a decision that could force the state to lift its decades-old prohibition on certain semi-automatic weapons.

The judge’s ruling was limited in scope — it applies only to one type of firearm, the Colt AR-15, and allows “for use of self-defense within the home.”

It marks the latest clawback of New Jersey’s famously strict gun laws following several recent pro-Second Amendment decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision was hailed as a partial victory by gun rights advocates who challenged New Jersey’s ban, arguing in court papers the law “blatantly violates the fundamental rights of the state’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes.”

State Attorney General Matthew Platkin said Tuesday his office would appeal the ruling, arguing it “weaponizes the Second Amendment to undermine public safety.”

“The AR-15 is an instrument designed for warfare that inflicts catastrophic mass injuries, and is the weapon of choice for the epidemic of mass shootings that have ravaged so many communities across this nation,” Platkin said.

In a 69-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Peter Sheridan, a George W. Bush appointee, criticized “the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are ‘off the table’ when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes.”

However, Sheridan wrote, he was bound by the higher court’s rulings in two cases, known as Bruen and Heller.

“This principle — combined with the reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our Nation — necessitates the Court’s decision,” the judge wrote.

The judge’s ruling concerned dual challenges to New Jersey’s Assault Firearms Law, enacted in 1990, and a 2018 law signed by Gov. Phil Murphy that limited magazine sizes to 10 rounds.

While Sheridan ruled the AR-15 ban unconstitutional under the new Supreme Court rulings, he upheld the state’s large-capacity magazine ban under the same framework.

The Supreme Court’s ruling “forbade a complete prohibition on a class of gun ownership,” he wrote, noting that AR-15 rifles are commonplace in gun-friendly states.

But the judge’s ruling only applies to the Colt model because of the “variety of firearms regulated in the Assault Firearms Law and the nuances that each individual firearm presents” and because the evidence in this case concerned the AR-15.

The gun rights groups, including the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs and the national Firearms Policy Coalition, filed notice appealing the judge’s ruling upholding the magazine ban, court records show.

“Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are immoral and unconstitutional,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement Tuesday.

“FPC will continue to fight forward until all of these bans are eliminated throughout the United States.”

Supreme Court to hear disputes over ghost guns, veteran disabilities, pollution during new term

The Supreme Court will return from its summer recess in October and hear legal battles involving ghost guns, veteran disability claims and water pollution in the justices’ first sitting of the new term.

On Friday, the court released its October calendar, which includes four notable disputes:

Ghost guns

On Oct. 8, the justices will take up a dispute over ghost guns — firearms that can be assembled and lack serial numbers. It will be the second day for the justices after they return from a three-month recess to kick off the 2024-25 term.

The Biden administration asked the justices to review a case in which a federal appeals court struck down a regulation governing the sale of kits to make ghost guns, saying it stretched the definition of “firearm” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Justice Department lawyers say ghost guns have turned into an end-run around federal gun control laws, allowing “anyone with access to the internet to anonymously buy a parts kit or partially complete frame or receiver that can be assembled into a working firearm in as little as 20 minutes.”

Gun rights advocates say if the government wants to regulate the sale of ghost guns, it must pass a new law, arguing the feds can’t stretch the 1968 legislation that far.

Running The Defensive Lever-Action Rifle.

Any firearm has its own manual of arms, and the lever-action rifle is no exception. The armed citizen who chooses to use a lever gun for personal defense should know safe carry techniques and efficient and safe loading and unloading methods. And, just as with any other defensive firearm, we need to practice safe, efficient techniques when firing at the range and during dry practice.

When not carrying the lever gun I prefer that the magazine be loaded and the chamber empty. When encountering a threat or potential threat I have the option of levering a round into the chamber when I pick up the rifle and then lowering the hammer to the safety notch or, in the case of later model guns, engaging the external safety. The other option is to run the lever, chambering a round as I bring the gun to my shoulder and address the threat.

Whether the gun has a safety or not, I don’t like the idea of walking around with the hammer cocked. It is just an added safety measure to lower the hammer unless one is actually about to fire the gun. And no time is lost when the shooter cocks the hammer as he brings the gun to his shoulder and the sights onto the target.

In practice sessions it is important to get into the habit of firing and cycling the action without taking the gun down from the shoulder. The gun stays in the shoulder pocket while we fire our shot, cycle the action with a live round, and get back on target. With practice, one can also top off the magazine (tactical reload) without removing the gun from the shoulder.

Since the majority of lever-action rifles load from the right side of the receiver, the shooter will have to use their right hand to reload, regardless of whether they are right or left-handed. And one will just have to practice a little with a belt-mounted ammo slide or butt cuff on the gun to see what works best for the individual. Obviously, loose cartridges in a pocket should be avoided if at all possible. Just as with our defensive handguns, dry practice with the lever action is important. Dummy rounds can be purchased and used to practice various loading and unloading methods.

With most lever-action rifles the only way to unload them is to cycle the live rounds through the action and eject them. The only safe way to do this is to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction and make doubly sure that the trigger finger is nowhere near the trigger. It is critical to pay close attention to the unloading operation, go slowly, and focus on safety.

When firing and cycling a lever action it is important to do it with some force; my friend Richard Mann says, “Do it like you’re killing snakes.”  Running the lever gently can lead to what we call a short stroke, that is when the bolt fails to chamber a round. You run the action with the same forcefulness that you run a pump shotgun.

In short, the lever-action rifle can be an excellent choice for personal defense, but it is critical that the armed citizen learn how to run it safely and efficiently. Those who haven’t grown up hunting with lever guns would be well advised to sign up for one of the several defensive classes that are offered. In fact, professional classes are always a good idea regardless of a person’s experience level.

New FBI rule gives gun dealers access to stolen firearm records; Springfield law enforcement and gun store owners weigh in

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (KY3) – A new ruling by the FBI gives federal firearm licensees access to FBI records of stolen firearms.

Before this new ruling, firearm dealers had to use their best judgment when buying guns from strangers.

“People that bring in a used gun, I have no way of knowing if it’s stolen or not and if I do purchase it, and it is stolen, I lose the money I put into it and the gun,” 417 Guns owner Brent Ball said.

We asked how he verifies whether a gun is stolen or not without the database tool. Ball said he was in law enforcement for many years and tries to use his best judgement when buying firearms, but there’s not been a way to verify whether it’s stolen or not until now.

“If I’m not comfortable with the situation, I have them leave. I don’t need that business,” Ball said.

Major Tad Peters with the Springfield Police Department said this new ruling is a good thing, especially since the city has experienced issues with stolen firearms before.

Continue reading “”

What with today’s decision reversing Chevron deference, I see no way that the bureaucrap’s rule on unfinished receivers stands.

BLUF
Fortunately, we will not have to wait too long to see if Cargill stands alone or reflects a broader trend of checking ATF claims of authority. On April 22, 2024, the Court granted certiorari in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case challenging the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule as beyond the scope of the agency’s authority. A decision in VanDerStok will likely come during the Court’s next term.

Garland v. Cargill: The Court’s Textualists Stick to Their Guns

Because it involves guns, Cargill v. Garland has been seen by supporters and opponents alike as a Second Amendment case. That is not really correct. Rather, it presents a question of basic statutory interpretation. And in answering that question, Cargill is a triumph of textualism and separation of powers concerns over purpose-driven interpretation and legislative intent.

For the majority, the words on the paper are what matter, even if the Congress that wrote them might have done things differently. It does not matter if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck if it doesn’t have the features that Congress used to define a duck.

On the separation of powers front, Cargill is a victory for congressional lawmaking authority. Administrative agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) cannot step in and rewrite statutes by administrative fiat just because Congress is not acting as quickly as they might wish.

Continue reading “”

CFIUS Clears Sale of The Kinetic Group to CSG

Represents Final Regulatory Approval Required to Close the Transaction

Board of Directors Continues to Recommend Stockholders Vote in Favor of Merger Agreement Proposal at Special Meeting on July 2, 2024

ANOKA, Minn.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Vista Outdoor Inc. (“Vista Outdoor,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our”) (NYSE: VSTO) and Czechoslovak Group a.s. (“CSG”) announced today that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) has cleared CSG’s proposed acquisition of Vista Outdoor’s The Kinetic Group business (the “Transaction”). Vista Outdoor and CSG received written notice from CFIUS that CFIUS has concluded its review and investigation of the Transaction and has determined that there are no unresolved national security concerns. CFIUS clearance was the final regulatory approval required under the merger agreement with CSG for the closing of the Transaction.

Michael Callahan, Chairman of the Board of Directors, said “We are very pleased that CFIUS has carefully vetted the Transaction and, as we expected, determined that there are no unresolved national security concerns.”

CFIUS is an interagency committee of the U.S. government authorized to review certain transactions involving foreign investment in the United States to determine the effect of such transactions on U.S. national security.

“The CFIUS process involved a thorough review and investigation of the Transaction by numerous U.S. Government departments and agencies with a range of national security and other mandates,” Callahan said. “We believe the end result supports our view that CSG—which has deep expertise in supply chain excellence and ammunition manufacturing and strong support for NATO and allied nations—will be an excellent owner of The Kinetic Group. CSG is fully committed to supporting our American workforce, American hunters and domestic and allied military and law enforcement partners.”

The closing of the Transaction remains subject to receipt of the approval of Vista Outdoor’s stockholders and other customary closing conditions. The special meeting of Vista Outdoor stockholders to, among other things, consider and vote on a proposal to adopt the merger agreement with CSG is scheduled to be held virtually on July 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. Central Time.

The Board continues to recommend Vista Outdoor stockholders vote in favor of the proposal to adopt the merger agreement with CSG. Vista Outdoor is confident that the Transaction will maximize value for our stockholders by

  • Providing for a $2 billion purchase price, representing a $90 million increase from the original $1.91 billion purchase price,
  • Allowing stockholders to benefit directly from additional excess cash generated by the Company prior to closing,
  • Delivering $18.00 in cash consideration per share at closing, representing a $5.10 increase from the original cash consideration of $12.90 per share, and
  • Enabling stockholders to capture the long-term intrinsic value that is embedded in Revelyst’s business plan as a standalone public company……..

RUGER DEBUTS MARLIN 1894 TRAPPER CARBINE IN .44 MAG

Ruger this week reintroduced a factory stainless big loop Marlin 1894 Trapper model chambered in hard-hitting .44 Magnum/Special and shipping with a 16.1-inch barrel.

Originally patented on Aug. 1, 1893, by L.L. Hepburn, the Model 1894 was the first flat-top lever action with a side eject receiver. However, across its production run, Marlin typically liked to make the 1894 in longer barrel lengths, only making limited runs of short “trapper” carbines. This abbreviated take on the model, in a stainless-steel (1894SS) format, returned to Marlin for brief runs (e.g. 351 guns made for Davidson’s in 2006) and in a stainless big-loop (SBL) variant that popped up in the catalogs for 2011 and 2018.

Now, Ruger has brought it back for 2024.

the new Ruger Marlin 1894 Trapper in .44 shown in a lightbox
Using a stainless-steel barrel and receiver mated to black laminate furniture, the carbine is handy, taping out at just 33.25 inches overall while still keeping a 13.38-inch length of pull. Weight is 6.3 pounds. (Photos: Marlin)
the new Ruger Marlin 1894 Trapper in .44 shown in a lightbox
Chambered in .44 Magnum, the underbarrel magazine tube accepts 8 rounds, or when using shorter .44 Special cartridges, will hold nine. 
the new Ruger Marlin 1894 Trapper in .44 shown in a lightbox
The 1894 Trapper has an adjustable rear and blade front sight made by Skinner, while the cold hammer-forged 1-in-20-inch twist barrel ends with a threaded muzzle (5/8×24 TPI pattern) for muzzle devices and suppressors. 

 

The ask on the new Ruger Marlin 1894 Trapper in .44 is $1,499, a price generally lower at retail. That price matches the current Model 1895 Trapper in .45-70 and the Model 336 Trapper in .30-30, with each of those carbines having a 5+1 capacity.