Welcome to the APBWeb.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44
  1. #1
    dadyswat's Avatar
    dadyswat is offline Officer First Class
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    02-16-06
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    984
    Rep Power
    449917

    Second Admendment Supreme Court Ruling

    They are expecting the Surpreme Court to issue their ruling today on the DC gun ban. Let's all hope for a broad ruling even though the make up of the court leans toward a watered down ruling if it's in favor of individual rights.

  2. #2
    dadyswat's Avatar
    dadyswat is offline Officer First Class
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    02-16-06
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    984
    Rep Power
    449917
    DC Gun Ban Ruling Coming Tomorrow
    By Susan Jones
    CNSNews.com Senior Editor
    June 25, 2008

    (CNSNews.com) - Does the District of Columbia's ban on handgun ownership violate the Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"? The U.S. Supreme Court will issue its ruling tomorrow.

    But it did issue several other major rulings on Wednesday, including one involving execution for child rapists. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices decided it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute people who rape children. The case stems from an appeal by Patrick Kennedy of Louisiana, who was sentenced to death for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

    Turning to the landmark Second Amendment case: A federal appeals court in the District of Columbia struck down the city's 31-year-old handgun ban in March, ruling in favor of several Washington residents who wanted guns for self-defense.

    The court ruled that "the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

    The city appealed to the Supreme Court. "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point during oral arguments in March.

    Even a major gun-control group has called this "the most significant Second Amendment case in the nation's history."

    Even a major gun-control group has called this "the most significant Second Amendment case in the nation's history."

    The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence urged the Supreme Court to "uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families."

    A ruling that the District's gun ban is unconstitutional "would grant courts unprecedented authority to nullify elected officials' decisions to adopt laws they believe are necessary to protect their communities from gun violence," the Brady Campaign says on its Web site.

  3. #3
    dadyswat's Avatar
    dadyswat is offline Officer First Class
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    02-16-06
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    984
    Rep Power
    449917
    OK the ruling is out and it's an individual right, duh! Let the law suites begin!



    Court strikes down gun ban

    Gary Emerling (Contact)
    Thursday, June 26, 2008

    Photo removed by Site Moderator MacLean - it was about five times too large for the forum.

    The Supreme Court this morning struck down the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns, ruling that the right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not only to militias.
    In a 5-4 decision, the justices' landmark ruling affirmed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in March of last year that gutted much of the District's stringent gun statutes. Justice Antonin A. Scalia wrote the court's majority opinion.
    "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," Justice Antonin A. Scalia wrote in the syllabus of the court's majority opinion. "The Districts total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."
    The case marked the first time in roughly 70 years that the country's highest court had examined the 2nd Amendment, which states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It also drew nationwide attention as a bellwether vote on the limits of gun control.
    Nearly 70 amicus briefs were filed on behalf of more than 320 members of Congress, 36 states and other interested parties on both sides of the case some of whom were concerned about the potential consequences on gun laws and criminal convictions elsewhere in the country if the District's laws were struck down.
    But the court's majority opinion holds that its decision "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
    The District's gun ban, the most stringent in the nation, was passed in June 1976 in a 12-1 vote by the D.C. Council.
    It prohibits city residents, with few exceptions, from registering handguns and keeping them in the city. It also requires legal firearms such as shotguns and rifles to be stored disassembled or bound with trigger locks.
    In February 2003, special police officer Dick Anthony Heller and five other residents sued the city in U.S. District Court, hoping to win the right to keep handguns and an assembled shotgun in their homes for self-defense.
    Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, appointed to his post by President Clinton in 1994, dismissed the case about a year later. However, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the decision in March of last year with a 2-1 ruling.

  4. #4
    TXCharlie's Avatar
    TXCharlie is offline Former & Future Reserve Officer
    Join Date
    12-29-05
    Location
    Dallas Area
    Posts
    5,528
    Rep Power
    3224965
    I hope NYC, Washington DC, California, and all the rest GO BANKRUPT fighting lawsuits. Would serve them right for thinking they're above the Constitution.

    Question: Why does this not mean I can now go into a College building with a concealed handgun? On the surface it would seem that's a right, but in the specific ruling it still doesn't permit that - They've left themselves open to another challenge.

    (\__/)
    (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
    (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

  5. #5
    Kate's Avatar
    Kate is offline Corporal
    Join Date
    05-22-08
    Location
    Cleveland, Tennessee
    Posts
    509
    Rep Power
    0

    Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

    Source


    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

    The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

    The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

    Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

    The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

    In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

    He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

    Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

    Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

    Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

    The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

    The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

    Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

    The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

    Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

    In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

    The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

    Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense

  6. #6
    TXCharlie's Avatar
    TXCharlie is offline Former & Future Reserve Officer
    Join Date
    12-29-05
    Location
    Dallas Area
    Posts
    5,528
    Rep Power
    3224965
    Here is the official text of the ruling. Note that some trigger-lock and storage laws have also been struck down.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


    (\__/)
    (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
    (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

  7. #7
    213th's Avatar
    213th is offline Solipsist
    Join Date
    12-19-05
    Location
    64.3 N 149.1 W
    Posts
    3,672
    Rep Power
    1712095

    Thumbs up Justice Prevails

    Lets just hope this means Wisconsin and Illinois will stop illegally prohibiting citizens from rightfully carrying as well
    He who has the money, signs the cheques.
    He who signs the cheques, makes the rules.
    He who makes the rules, has the power.
    He who has the power, has the money.

  8. #8
    HudsonHawk's Avatar
    HudsonHawk is offline Moderator
    Premium Lifetime Member
    Verified LEO
    Site Moderator
    Join Date
    01-17-06
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,535
    Rep Power
    1710441

    Supreme Court ends DC gun ban

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

    High court strikes down gun ban

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
    A gun ownership supporter holds a placard in March outside the Supreme Court in Washington.





    The justices voted 5-4 against the ban, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.
    At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether Washington's ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.
    "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
    Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who are all considered conservative voices on the court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote, also joined the majority.
    District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.
    In March 2007, a federal appeals court overturned the ban, which keeps most private citizens from owning handguns and keeping them in their homes.
    It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled a gun law unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.
    City attorneys urged the high court to intervene, warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."
    There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted.
    The Second Amendment says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    The wording repeatedly has raised the question of whether gun ownership is an individual right, or a collective one pertaining to state militias and therefore subject to regulation.
    In an Opinion Research Corp. poll of 1,035 adult Americans this month, 67 percent of those surveyed said they felt the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own guns. Thirty percent said it provided citizens the right to form a militia. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    The Supreme Court has avoided the question since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The high court last examined the issue in 1939 but stayed away from the broad constitutional question.
    Only Chicago, Illinois, has a handgun ban as sweeping as Washington's, though Maryland, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California, joined the Windy City in issuing briefs supporting the district's ban.
    The National Rifle Association, Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and the transgender group Pink Pistols -- along with 31 states -- filed briefs supporting the District of Columbia's gun owners.
    In February, a majority of U.S. congressmen -- 55 senators and 250 representatives -- filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Washington's ordinance."Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others," Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said at the time.



    Washington's ban applies only to handguns. The city allows possession of rifles and shotguns, although it requires that they be kept in the home, unloaded and fitted with locks or disassembled.
    "never bring paws to a gunfight" - Jenna

  9. #9
    Dustoff262's Avatar
    Dustoff262 is offline Retirement date: December 29, 2019
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    06-07-08
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    301
    Rep Power
    151877
    It does not totally ends the gun ban. It only ends the gun ban in the home. There will be alot of challenges to other laws restricting personal carry, concealed and open. For now, I agree with this particular decision. Home defense is a necessity.
    "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." -- George Orwell

  10. #10
    bird1's Avatar
    bird1 is offline Corporal
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    05-17-06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,435
    Rep Power
    584860
    Chicago's gun bann is next to get the axe
    " The hardest thing about disarming an armed suspect is not slipping on your own shit "

    Michael P. Gordon E.O.W 08 Aug 2004




    The opinions given in my posts DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are MY PERSONAL OPINIONS and I accept sole responsibility as such.

  11. #11
    Pudge's Avatar
    Pudge is online now Site Admin
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    12-04-05
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    10,320
    Rep Power
    8591417
    Threads merged, and placed in "In the news"
    "Like" us on facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Offic...93147194083228

    Follow members of O/R as they tweet a "Ride a long" on their shifts on the front page of the site and on twitter at the following links:

    www.twitter.com/PoliceRideAlong
    www.twitter.com/lewisipso
    www.twitter.com/ORgopher
    www.twitter.com/SecondChance122
    www.twitter.com/pojmm
    www.twitter.com/ORGIB

    The opinions given in my posts & threads DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "Pudge" on Officerresource.com

  12. #12
    MacLean's Avatar
    MacLean is offline O/R Gun mod
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    09-05-07
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    11,802
    Rep Power
    4584773
    Quote Originally Posted by Dustoff262 View Post
    It does not totally ends the gun ban. It only ends the gun ban in the home. There will be alot of challenges to other laws restricting personal carry, concealed and open. For now, I agree with this particular decision. Home defense is a necessity.
    Read the decision, and pay particular attention to how Scalia used the term defined by Ginsburg in her own dissent regarding the term "bear arms".

    New York City and Chicago are going next.
    I'm your huckleberry...

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!

    You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.


    I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
    but every girl I found was either one way or the other...



  13. #13
    dadyswat's Avatar
    dadyswat is offline Officer First Class
    Verified LEO
    Join Date
    02-16-06
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    984
    Rep Power
    449917
    This one of the most common sense decisions I've seen come from the court. Scalia put it in simple terms that idiot could understand. The really scary part is it was 5-4 decsion so that means you 4 on the court that want to re-write the admendment to suit their own liberal cause.

  14. #14
    MacLean's Avatar
    MacLean is offline O/R Gun mod
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    09-05-07
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    11,802
    Rep Power
    4584773
    Quote Originally Posted by dadyswat View Post
    This one of the most common sense decisions I've seen come from the court. Scalia put it in simple terms that idiot could understand. The really scary part is it was 5-4 decsion so that means you 4 on the court that want to re-write the admendment to suit their own liberal cause.
    It's pretty much inline with public opinion too, the last poll showed 67% of the populace in favor with this outcome.
    I'm your huckleberry...

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!

    You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.


    I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
    but every girl I found was either one way or the other...



  15. #15
    Five-0's Avatar
    Five-0 is offline Super Moderator
    Premium Lifetime Member
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    05-15-06
    Posts
    10,982
    Rep Power
    8357018
    5-4 is too damn close. 4 Supreme Court Justices voted to get rid of part of the Bill of Rights. Am I the only one that has a problem with this?

    Meanwhile, fishing in Russia:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat

    "Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway

    The opinions given in my signatures & threads DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "Five-0" on Officerresource.com

  16. #16
    MacLean's Avatar
    MacLean is offline O/R Gun mod
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    09-05-07
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    11,802
    Rep Power
    4584773
    Quote Originally Posted by Five-0 View Post
    5-4 is too damn close. 4 Supreme Court Justices voted to get rid of part of the Bill of Rights. Am I the only one that has a problem with this?
    Just think about how this would have gone if Kerry had been elected and chosen two justices.
    I'm your huckleberry...

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!

    You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.


    I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
    but every girl I found was either one way or the other...



  17. #17
    Five-0's Avatar
    Five-0 is offline Super Moderator
    Premium Lifetime Member
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    05-15-06
    Posts
    10,982
    Rep Power
    8357018
    Quote Originally Posted by maclean View Post
    Just think about how this would have gone if Kerry had been elected and chosen two justices.

    Even if the anti-individual types take over they will need someone to take the public's guns away. [Five-0 kicks pepples and goes looking for jaywalkers and other more important things to do on duty.]

    Meanwhile, fishing in Russia:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat

    "Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway

    The opinions given in my signatures & threads DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "Five-0" on Officerresource.com

  18. #18
    MacLean's Avatar
    MacLean is offline O/R Gun mod
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    09-05-07
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    11,802
    Rep Power
    4584773
    Quote Originally Posted by Five-0 View Post
    Even if the anti-individual types take over they will need someone to take the public's guns away. [Five-0 kicks pepples and goes looking for jaywalkers and other more important things to do on duty.]

    I hear you, but there are those of us who would do it.

    Thankfully, this decision prevents such nonsense. It remains to be seen what will come of the hundreds of suits which will be forthcoming.

    The way I read what Scalia had to say, there is little doubt of the court's intent, but already everyone is angling for their version.
    I'm your huckleberry...

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!

    You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.


    I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
    but every girl I found was either one way or the other...



  19. #19
    Xiphos's Avatar
    Xiphos is online now I Void Warranties
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    03-09-08
    Location
    Thermopylae
    Posts
    8,378
    Rep Power
    7772239
    From what I've seen now this is still pretty narrowly focused to having handguns in the house. It doesn't prevent the gummint from banning mean black guns. It also isn't going to stop Prime Minister Obama and his politburo from a national prohibition on conceal carry. I think we will be hard pressed to get Kennedy on board with turning over those issues. The only hope I see there is that I think the Supreme Court would say that's a local issue, not a national one. Of course that would also over ride HR 218 or whatever it's called now.

    But it is a good first step. Barring any major changes I don't think we'll ever see a door to door confiscation because of this ruling.
    Pleasing nobody, one person at a time.

    That which does not kill me, better start fucking running.

    If I lived every day like it was my last, the body count would be staggering.

    I intend to go in harm's way. -John Paul Jones

    Hunt the wolf, and bring light to the dark places that others fear to go. LT COL Dave Grossman

  20. #20
    MacLean's Avatar
    MacLean is offline O/R Gun mod
    Verified LEO
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    09-05-07
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    11,802
    Rep Power
    4584773
    Quote Originally Posted by Xiphos View Post
    From what I've seen now this is still pretty narrowly focused to having handguns in the house. It doesn't prevent the gummint from banning mean black guns. It also isn't going to stop Prime Minister Obama and his politburo from a national prohibition on conceal carry. I think we will be hard pressed to get Kennedy on board with turning over those issues. The only hope I see there is that I think the Supreme Court would say that's a local issue, not a national one. Of course that would also over ride HR 218 or whatever it's called now.

    But it is a good first step. Barring any major changes I don't think we'll ever see a door to door confiscation because of this ruling.
    Read the opinion, where Scalia points out that the Second Amendment "refers to the arms in common use at the time."

    He tossed more bones into that brief than many have realized, and the man is too smart to have done it on accident.
    I'm your huckleberry...

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentus telum est!

    You can be the weapon, and the gun in your hand is a tool - or the gun is a weapon and you are the tool.


    I was looking for a saint who was a devil of a lover,
    but every girl I found was either one way or the other...



 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •