Category: RKBA

3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory.

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for a rehearing in the Second Amendment Foundation’s victory in a case challenging Pennsylvania statutes that prohibit law-abiding young adults from carrying firearms for self-defense and prevents them from acquiring a state license to carry (LTCF) because of their age. The case is known as Lara v. Evanchick.

The petition for an en banc rehearing had been filed by attorneys representing the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, including Madison M. Lara, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf at Cooper & Kirk, Washington, D.C.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan explained, “The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court en banc, is DENIED.”

“We’re satisfied with the court’s decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It’s an important win. The Third Circuit has affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to young adults, and that 1791 is the historical marker for understanding the right to keep and bear arms. Finally, the court has said 18-to-20-year-olds can open carry during a state of emergency in Pennsylvania.”

“We’ve been fighting this battle for more than three years,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is a Pennsylvania resident and practicing attorney in the state. “The court’s decision is an important step forward to getting this issue resolved.”

Americans Disapprove Of Biden On Guns—And Most Other Issues.

If you thought Americans strongly disapproved of the way President Joe Biden’s economy is working out, you ought to see what people think of the way he has handled the gun issue.

According to a recent survey by The Economist and YouGov, a full 52% of Americans disapprove of how Biden is handling economic issues. Breaking it down, 91% of Republicans, 55% of Independents and even 11% percent of Democrats aren’t too fond of the strangling consequences of “Bidenomics.” And by age, a majority of Americans over 30 disapprove of Biden’s economic performance.

But believe it or not, even more Americans disapprove of the job Biden has done concerning firearms, which 81% of respondents said was an important issue. In total, 54% of Americans disapprove of how the president is handling the gun issue, compared to 28% who approved. That includes a whopping 88% of Republicans and 52% of Independents who gave the president low marks. Disapproval was also very high by race and age: whites, 61% disapproved; Blacks, 35%, Hispanics, 46%; age 18-29, 43%; 30-44, 57%; 45-64, 57%; and 65-plus, 60%.

Continue reading “”

Hawaii Man Victorious in Case involving Suitable Persons’ and Carry Permits

So-called “suitable persons” provisions in permitting laws are verboten per several Supreme Court opinions. When an issuing authority makes a subjective decision through their own thought process rather than through objective and definable criterion, it’s unconstitutional. Back in December I wrote about a guy that was denied a carry permit in Hawaii for allegedly being “not of ‘good moral character’ and/or ‘suitable.’” They other day Mr. Blake Day’s case received a stipulation to dismiss his case with prejudice, since he was eventually issued a Hawaii license to carry.

Mr. Day was denied a license to carry in the County of Hawaii for being “not of ‘good moral character’ and/or ‘suitable.’”

Drawing details from the complaint that was filed on the 6th of December, 2023, Mr. Day’s alleged lack of “good moral character” and suitability arises from what the Hawaii County Chief of Police stated was “due to ‘recent violent conduct.’” The so-called “violent conduct” is in reference to an incident where Mr. Day was forced to defend himself – with non-lethal force – while executing his duties as a contractor for a bank. The conflict resulted in no criminal charges.

The non-lethal force Mr. Day used was “a pepper spray air gun, firing it several times in self-defense,” because he was aggressively approached by a resident of a property that was supposed to be vacant. The resident was “yelling obscenities and ‘what are you doing at my house?’” at Mr. Day. Day stated that the resident “appeared to have something in his right hand and [he] believed it was a weapon.”

The stipulation was filed on March 28, 2024 and is as follows:

Continue reading “”

Advancing 2A Rights After Constitutional Carry

With Constitutional Carry now on the books in 29 states, there’s a real question about how to continue supporting and strengthening the right to keep and bear arms. Some pro-2A lawmakers in Tennessee decided to take aim at “gun-free zones” this session, but their bill failed to make it out of a Senate committee on Tuesday after objections from the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations, and the state’s Department of Safety.

A bill that would have effectively let some people bring guns into places where guns are prohibited, as long as they had a concealed carry permit, failed in a Senate committee on March 26.

SB 2180 would have required those people, if asked to leave, to at least take their guns out of the building or else face a criminal trespassing charge. They also would not have faced penalties for violating postings that prohibit guns from the area.

During the meeting, the department said the bill may have effectively protected people who bring guns into areas like Department of Children’s Services offices, jails or driver’s license centers. The department also said it was concerned people at businesses that prohibit guns may need to confront armed people themselves.

If armed people didn’t leave the business, or take their guns outside, then the business would need to wait for law enforcement to arrive.

Republican lawmakers said they were worried making people leave guns in their cars may increase the chance they are stolen.

“I think most people who are concealed probably ignore the sign, and I think 100% of criminals ignore the sign,” said Sen. Kerry Roberts (R-Springfield). “What I’m really getting at is this, which is a bigger issue — someone to leave their gun in a car for it to be potentially stolen, or to bring it with them?”

Robert’s argument is a valid one, but the legislation still arguably intrudes on the rights of property owners. So what, if anything, can lawmakers to do keep strengthening our Second Amendment rights once they’ve put Constitutional Carry in place?

On today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co, however, we have a few suggestions for legislators that stand a better chance of getting enacted into law; including one that might be even more effective at getting rid of “gun-free zones” on private property.

Continue reading “”

Gordon Signed Four Second Amendment Bills, Vetoed Another

Governor Mark Gordon signed four bills today that strengthen Wyoming’s status as a Second-Amendment friendly state. The Governor signed SF0073 – Concealed firearms-permit eligibility, SF0105 – Wyoming Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, SF0109 – Prohibit Red Flag Gun Seizure Act., and SF0086 – School safety and security-funding.

SF0105 protects the privacy and sensitive financial information of people purchasing firearms, firearms parts, or ammunition in Wyoming by prohibiting credit card processors from using firearms or firearm-related merchant category codes. It also prohibits government or private entities from keeping any registry of privately-owned firearms or the owners of those firearms created or maintained through the use of a firearms code.

SF0109 prohibits red flag gun laws from being enforced or implemented in Wyoming, while SF0073 amends the concealed carry permit regulations to make those who have had their firearms rights restored, eligible. SF0086 creates an account to reimburse school districts for costs related to possession of firearms on school property by school district employees.

The Governor vetoed HB0125 – Repeal gun free zones and preemption amendments due to concerns that HB0125 exceeds the separation of powers embodied in Article 2 of our Wyoming Constitution. If the bill were enacted, any specific policy, further regulation, or clarification of the law could only be implemented by the Legislature.

“House Bill 125/Enrolled Act No. 49, erodes historic local control norms by giving sole authority to the Legislature to micromanage a constitutionally protected right,” Governor Gordon wrote in his veto letter. “Any further clarification of the law, if this bill were enacted, would augment the Legislature’s reach into local firearms regulation.”

The Governor noted the bill would require each state facility, such as the University of Wyoming, Wyoming State Hospital, or the Wyoming Boys School, to receive legislative approval to restrict carrying firearms, or even to set policies as practical as proper weapon storage. It would also repeal the statute that has allowed school districts to establish specific policies allowing concealed carry in their districts.

“Every piece of legislation must stand for critical review, particularly those affecting our constitutional rights,” the Governor wrote. “As delivered to my desk, this bill lacks sufficient review and debate. A bill covering such a sensitive topic does not lend itself to successive tweaks to correct flaws, and therefore I believe the Legislature should be open to debating and fully working this bill through its established processes.”

The Governor concluded he will direct the State Building Commission to begin a process to reconsider rules to allow concealed carry permit holders to exercise their rights within the Capitol and other appropriate state facilities. That process will involve significant public input.

The Governor’s veto letter may be found here.

How Should We Defend Our Rights?

Let’s keep this simple. The “rule of holes” says that the best way to get out of a hole you’ve created is to first stop digging. Our legal system doesn’t work. It has been turned against millions of honest citizens, and it is time to admit it is broken. What our legal system should do in theory is not what we see in practice, and this isn’t the first time we’ve had this problem.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
This new office is another way for the Biden administration to make it appear as if it is doing something about violent crime, when it is actually making it harder for lawful gun owners to keep and bear arms.

HOT TAKES: Social Media Slices and Dices Biden’s New Anti-Gun Red Flag Center

The Biden administration is stepping up its war against the right to keep and bear arms. On Saturday, Vice President Kamala Harris traveled to Parkland, Florida, to stand on the graves of the children who perished in a tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School six years ago.

The vice president spoke at the school, pushing for red flag laws and other restrictions on lawful gun ownership ostensibly to combat gun violence. During her visit, she touted a brand spanking new anti-gunner initiative: The National Extreme Risk Order Resource Center.

The new office is supposedly aimed at helping local and state law enforcement agencies enforce red flag laws to stop mass shootings and other forms of violence before they happen. Naturally, not everyone is on board with this anti-gun endeavor.

Gun Owners of America, a pro-gun rights organization, wrote a post on X, accusing the White House of weaponizing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, while taking a shot at Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who supported the legislation.

Continue reading “”

Former names include the Stasi, Gestapo and Santebal.
Here we go with the Federal goobermint getting involved in enforcing state laws.

Justice Department Launches the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center

The Justice Department launched the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center (the Center) which  will provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service and social service providers, community organizations, and behavioral health professionals responsible for implementing laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others.

“The launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence.”

Continue reading “”

FPC and FPCAF File Brief in Support of Lawsuit Challenging NYC Long Gun License Requirements

NEW YORK (March 21, 2024) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced the filing of an important brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Plaintiff-Appellee Joseph Srour in Srour v. New York City, which challenges New York City’s shotgun and rifle licensing requirements. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“There is no historical tradition of requiring a license to possess a firearm,” argues the brief. “The only historical laws requiring a license to possess a firearm applied to persons without recognized rights at the time, namely African Americans and American Indians. These repugnant laws cannot form the historical tradition necessary for the government to satisfy its burden for several reasons.”

“New York City continues the existing trend of authoritarian governments relying on blatantly racist and discriminatory laws in an attempt to justify their modern gun control efforts,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s Vice President and General Counsel, and counsel for FPC. “In reality, there is no historical basis for New York City’s modern requirement that individuals acquire a license merely to possess firearms. As such, its law is blatantly unconstitutional.”

 

Most Prog/Leftists are actually so stupid, they think we’re so stupid, we’ll accept their BS as fresh cattle feed.

RETIRED JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER GASLIGHTS BRUEN DECISION

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer wants America to know that today’s high court isn’t pragmatic. For good measure, he declares that he is, especially when it comes to interpretating law.

That’s not just conjecture. That’s laid out in the title to his new 250-page book, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism.” It’s a gaslighting of the U.S. Constitution, an attempt to sway opinion that rights protected by the founding document aren’t applicable today, since society and technology have changed since 1791. Justice Breyer argues that the words written don’t mean what the Founders meant because reading them over 200 years later changes the meaning.

The liberal justice retired under pressure from Democrats to ensure President Joe Biden would appoint at least one younger liberal justice to the Supreme Court. In 2022, Justice Breyer was succeeded by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Breyer clerk.

Dueling Jurisprudence

The Washington Post offered a glowing review of Justice Breyer’s book, which rejects the legal doctrines of originalism and textualism that have been the favored approaches by several sitting Supreme Court justices, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. That was also the legal philosophy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Originalism is the theory that constitutional text should be given the original public meaning at the time in which a law was enacted. Textualism is the legal interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of a text of laws, emphasizing how the Constitution was understood at the time of ratification in 1788 and the subsequent Bill of Rights’ ratification in 1791.

That contrasts sharply with Justice Breyer’s constitutional pragmatist approach, which instead of focusing on what lawmakers meant with the words they chose to include in the Constitution and laws, considers what is the likely consequence of interpretations. Justice Breyer believes in a “living Constitution” or one that isn’t anchored by words lawmakers chose. Rather those meanings are reapplied by modern interpretations of those meanings. This judicial philosophy is an excuse to allow judges to act like kings (or queens) make law instead of interpreting and apply the law as enacted by the “people’s” elected representatives or the Founding Fathers.

Continue reading “”

Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc of Panel Decision Holding Gun Ads Restriction Is Likely Unconstitutional

The order came down today; it noted that no judge called for a vote on the en banc rehearing petition. Here’s my post on the panel decision, from September.

[* * *]

California Restriction on Gun Ads That “Reasonably Appear[] to Be Attractive to Minors” Likely Unconstitutional

From Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. v. Bonta, decided today [Sept, 13, 2023] by Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, joined by Judges Randy Smith and Lawrence VanDyke:

This case is not about whether children can buy firearms. (They cannot under California law.) Nor is this case about whether minors can legally use firearms. (California allows minors under adult supervision to possess and use firearms for hunting, target practice, and other activities.) And this case is not about whether California has tools to combat the scourge of youth gun violence. (It does.)

Rather, this case is about whether California can ban a truthful ad about firearms used legally by adults and minors—just because the ad “reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” So, for example, an ad showcasing a safer hunting rifle with less recoil for minors would likely be unlawful in California. Under our First Amendment jurisprudence, states can ban truthful and lawful advertising only if it “materially” and “directly” advances a substantial government interest and is no more extensive than necessary. California likely cannot meet this high bar.

While California has a substantial interest in reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors, its law does not “directly” and “materially” further either goal. California cannot straitjacket the First Amendment by, on the one hand, allowing minors to possess and use firearms and then, on the other hand, banning truthful advertisements about that lawful use of firearms.

There is no evidence in the record that a minor in California has ever unlawfully bought a gun, let alone because of an ad. Nor has the state produced any evidence that truthful ads about lawful uses of guns—like an ad about hunting rifles in Junior Sports Magazines’ Junior Shooters—encourage illegal or violent gun use among minors. Simply put, California cannot lean on gossamers of speculation to weave an evidence-free narrative that its law curbing the First Amendment “significantly” decreases unlawful gun use among minors. The First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government’s muzzling of speech.

California’s law is also more extensive than necessary, as it sweeps in truthful ads about lawful use of firearms for adults and minors alike. For instance, an advertisement directed at adults featuring a camouflage skin on a firearm might be illegal because minors may be attracted to it….

Judge VanDyke concurred, adding:

California wants to legislate views about firearms. The record for recently enacted California Assembly Bill 2751 (AB 2751) indicates a legislative concern that marketing firearms to minors would “seek[] to attract future legal gun owners,” and that that’s a negative thing. No doubt at least some of California’s citizens share that view. They may dream that someday everyone will be repulsed by the thought of using a firearm for lawful purposes such as hunting and recreation. But just as surely some of California’s citizens disagree with that view.

Many hope their sons and daughters will learn to responsibly use firearms for lawful purposes. Firearms are controversial products, and don’t cease to be so when used by minors. But as the majority opinion explains well, there are a variety of ways a minor can lawfully use firearms in California. And the State of California may not attempt to reduce the demand for lawful conduct by suppressing speech favoring that conduct while permitting speech in opposition. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination.

That is precisely what California did in Assembly Bill 2751. Under this law, those who want to discourage minors from lawfully using firearms (such as for hunting or shooting competitions) are free to communicate their messages. Certain speakers (“firearm industry members”) who want to promote the sale of firearms to minors, however, are silenced.

I agree with the majority opinion that, even assuming intermediate scrutiny applies, California’s nascent speech code cannot withstand it. I write separately to emphasize that laws like AB 2751, which attempt to use the coercive power of the state to eliminate a viewpoint from public discourse, deserve strict scrutiny. Our circuit’s precedent is ambiguous about whether viewpoint- discriminatory laws that regulate commercial speech are subject to strict scrutiny. In the appropriate case, we should make clear they are…

Anna M. Barvir (Michel & Associates PC) argued for plaintiffs; Chuck Michel (Michel & Associates) and Donald Kilmer also represent plaintiffs. Thanks to Don Kilmer for the pointer on the denial of en banc rehearing.

FBI Figures Show Crime Fell as Americans Stocked Up on Guns in 2023

FBI figures reported by NBC News on March 19, 2024, show that crime fell during 2023, a year in which there were over one million background checks a month for gun purchases.

On July 4, 2023, the Washington Examiner noted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) checks for gun purchases have been over a million a month for 47 straight months.

On March 19, 2024, Breitbart News spoke with National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Mark Oliva and he said it has now been 55 consecutive months of one million-plus NICS checks.

This means, leading up to 2023 and throughout 2023, Americans were pouring into gun stores to acquire firearms, yet “fourth-quarter numbers” reported by NBC News showed “a 13% decline in murder in 2023 from 2022, a 6% decline in reported violent crime and a 4% decline in reported property crime.”

Former CIA analyst Jeff Asher commented on the lower crime figures, saying, “It suggests that when we get the final data in October, we will have seen likely the largest one-year decline in murder that has ever been recorded.”

There was a similar situation after gun sales surged in 2013. Breitbart News pointed out that private gun sales skyrocketed during 2013 with 21,093,273 background checks, and, according to the FBI, “offenses” in the categories of violent crimes and property crimes decreased during the first six months of 2014.

On a broader scale, Breitbart News observed a 2012 Congressional Research Service study showing gun ownership jumped from 192 million privately owned guns in 1994 to 309 million in 2009. At the same time, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” of 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993 fell to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 and as far as 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.

Already unconstitutional per SCOTUS in Heller and controlling on state laws per McDonald.

D.C. v Heller (IV para5)
We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Bill would require Rhode Island gun owners to lock firearms when not in use

The Rhode Island Senate approved a bill Tuesday that would require all firearms, when not being used by the owner or another authorized user, to be stored in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock.

Under the bill, the unsafe storage of a firearm would be considered a civil offense that could be punished by a fine of up to $250 for a first offense and $1,000 for a second. Any subsequent violation would be punishable by up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $500.

The measure passed by a 28-7 vote.

The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. Pamela Lauria, said responsible gun owners already take precautions, but those steps should be a requirement, not an option.

Continue reading “”

Law Enforcement Trainers File Scotus Amicus Brief against Maryland Rifle Ban: Citizens should be able to choose the same high-quality defensive arms that peace officers choose.

Last week the International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Association filed an amicus brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging Maryland’s ban on many common semiautomatic rifles. The case is Bianchi v. Brown, and it has an unusual procedural posture; it is a petition for certiorari before judgement. Yet the case is one on which the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled.

This post will first summarize the amicus brief, and then provide the procedural background, which is detailed in the Bianchi plaintiffs’ cert. petition.

The facts about the banned rifles

As detailed in the amicus brief, the semiautomatic rifles banned by the Maryland General Assembly fire only one shot each time the trigger is pressed. This is the same rate of fire as the most common semiautomatic handguns, such as those made by Glock, Smith & Wesson, or Ruger.

The claim by gun prohibition advocates that such guns fire 300 to 500 times per minute has no basis in fact, and is contrary to common sense. It would take a superhuman trigger finger pull a trigger at the rate of 5 to 8 times per second, let alone do so for a full minute.

Nor are the banned rifles, including those based on the AR-15 platform, more powerful than nonbanned rifles. To the contrary, their standard ammunition is .223 inch or 5.56mm bullets that are small compared to most other rifle ammunition. Accordingly, their kinetic energy is lower.

Because the banned rifles are more powerful than handguns, but less powerful than most other rifles, the relatively low wounding power of this ammunition has been confirmed by decades of study by the US Army’s Ballistic Research Laboratory.

Moreover, as documented in police training manuals, the banned rifles are the safest for defensive use within buildings, because their ammunition is especially unlikely to penetrate a wall.

Continue reading “”

If so, we can only hope the Court takes these cases and crams their rulings in Heller, Caetano, McDonald and Bruen down the lower court’s and state’s throats

Groundswell of Second Amendment Cases Seems Destined for the Supreme Court
Federal courts in blue states seem to be upholding the majority of gun control laws, even after landmark Supreme Court decisions upholding the fundamental right to keep and bear arms

We recently posted about the New York Second Amendment case challenging New York’s concealed carry permit law that requires that a permit applicant prove to a local official that he or she is of “good moral character.” Not only is this an absurd requirement (how exactly are you supposed to prove that you have “good moral character”), but even after doing so, said local official then has complete discretion on whether to approve the applicant’s permit request . . . or not. The challengers in the case just asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case after the Second Circuit approved the “good moral character” requirement:

From our report: Second Circuit’s Partial Upholding of New York’s Gun Carry Law Appealed to SCOTUS:

The key part of the Petition [asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case] is its discussion of the New York law’s requirement that New Yorkers prove that they have “good moral character” before obtaining a concealed carry permit:

[T]his case would allow this Court the opportunity to clarify that government may not selectively disarm law-abiding members of “the people” whenever licensing officials feel they are of poor character, potentially dangerous, or otherwise unworthy of enjoying the natural right to self-defense with which they were endowed by their Creator….

In Bruen, this Court rejected New York’s requirement that, to be authorized to bear arms in public, citizens first must demonstrate “proper cause” — defined as “a special need for self-protection.” Here, the panel sanctioned New York’s stand-in requirement that citizens convince licensing officials of their “good moral character” prior to licensure. As the district court explained, New York simply “replaced” proper cause with good moral character, “while retaining (and even expanding) the open-ended discretion afforded to its licensing officers….”

New York’s “good moral character” standard is…a prohibited “suitability” determination and, as the district court noted, is merely a surrogate for the “proper cause” standard that was struck down in Bruen…Indeed, under the CCIA, New York officials decide whether a person “ha[s] the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon….”

It is quite difficult to understand Bruen’s criticism of “suitability” not to include “good moral character.” And it is even more difficult to believe that this Court would approve the discretionary power to deny carry licenses to “all Americans” unless they first “convince a ‘licensing officer’” of their general morality.

In doing some research to see if other cases exist that are working their way through the courts, I was surprised to find out that there are — a lot of them.

Continue reading “”