We should try to pass gun control on the ballot.

Yet there is apparently a need to question policies that are not agreed with or supported, even when the justification they use for such is the very same.

Such is simply too bad then. The united state supreme court is indeed involved, and it will be deciding the matter. If they decide the city of the New York does not have the authority to prevent residents from traveling outside of city limits while legally transporting a firearm, the city will have no recourse but to accept such.

The district of columbia made numerous arguments for why their absolute prohibition on handguns was necessary, but the united state supreme court rejected each and every single one of them. Now the district finds itself in the position of being required by law to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone and everyone who applies and can legally possess a firearm, and can do absolutely nothing to prevent the carrying of firearms in public spaces by their owners for whatever purpose they may desire.

 

DC is not the same thing, it is a federal district and thus politically different from NYC. The city simply needs to show necessity. They will hopefully bring up the gang and mafia wars that happened in the city's past, and the situation in Chicago and then show that cities do have a legitimate interest in regulating firearms.

It would be one thing if the city had no ranges, but they have 7 and those who wish to go to ones outside the city should have to make the case why they specifically have a need or want to use ones outside because their argument sounds fishy as ****.

 

Such is ultimately why the McDonald ruling exists in addition to the Heller ruling, and stated in unequivocal terms the standard set for the district of columbia applies equally to all cities and states within the united states.

The city of Chicago already attempted such in the McDonald ruling. The united state supreme court still said such was not good enough, and stated the actions of known criminals is not a legitimate reason to prevent the law-abiding ownership and use of firearms by those who are not engaged in illegal activity.

Such a proposal interferes with the constitutional right of free travel. One may as well attempt to argue a private citizen should be required to show a legitimate need for traveling outside of their city of residence all together.

Essentially the argument being presented on the part of yourself, is that the city owns its residents as if they were physical property, and has total say over how they live their lives and conduct themselves daily.

 

Not much of a fan of freedom, huh? Perhaps you would like to have to ask the government permission to brush your teeth?

 

First and obvious comment is who do you believe can enforce your policy?

Regarding objectivity; how many fewer gun deaths do you anticipate from installing your policy?

What are you proposing to do about the 300 million firearms already in circulation?

I can theorize that every person, under the right circumstances, will use a firearm causing injury and death to others; how will your policy deal with people in stressful scenarios, in mental illness scenarios, in perceived vindictive scenarios, in drug and alcohol abuse scenarios?

Lastly, the biggest problem in problem solving is clearly and concisely defining the problem as it pertains to a particular goal. For example, many people focus on assault rifles being the 'problem' yet most all semi-automatic weapons are capable of the same outcome? Another example is people focusing on large capacity magazines being the 'problem' yet anyone who understands firearms knows it only takes 3-4 seconds to change out low capacity magazines to achieve similar outcomes? I would call these and other short-sighted ideas Band-aid solutions that won't critically change the outcomes.

Why does a person enter a facility and start shooting causing injury and death to others? You think the answer is because the person has a gun and did not follow rules like you propose above. I disagree...

 

Tecnically the NYC reason is different as it is a cultural reason, guns are restricted because of cultural tensions that have spilled over several times in the past. Ruling against such would make Roberts liable for any bloodshed that may follow.

Only such precedent has already been set on being able to restrict what one can travel with within the country, airports require ID, and prohibit all sorts of things. If that is constitutional so is the prevision.

All they have said is that since guns are not used to hunt food or protect against wildlife, and not used in self defense as you SYG and Castle doctrine are not a thing in NY the obvious conclusion would be that a gun must be unloaded and locked unless on a range. The MYnute minority who want the to freely enter and exit with their guns are completely free to move elsewhere. The rules that are set inplace are serving over 94% of the population completely fine and without complaint.

What ever % you put that is big enough to overturn the will of the majority on issues not pertaining to a discrimination, is the number that you must agree is large enough to have everything translated into their language.

 

Except handgun accuracy sucks. Especially at distances more than 10 yards and during stressful situations. Ar 15s are among the very best home defense weapons..

 

Except that many revolvers have spare cylinders, you just exchange them, and it's quick. Others use speedloaders, which allow dropping in all 6 shells at once.
A couple weeks ago I watched a shooter at long-range target match put three bullets in the air at once, using a bolt-action rifle- the last being fired before the first even struck the target, (which all three did)- at 1,000 yards away. It appears you know very little about guns, about their purpose or the people who use them- perhaps even less about the people who abuse them.

No concepts of control matter in any aspect except to appease the fears of those who see guns like snakes, and assume that guns think and stalk people to kill on their own.
They fail to realize that a gun is not a murder weapon until a PERSON with murderous intent decides to choose it.
Those people don't give a damn about the law or regulations, so your control plans affect only the people who do not need to be controlled- and accomplish nothing but harassment.
That same premise applies to knives, clubs, rocks, fists, and any or the myriad of things that may become weapons in the hands of a violent person.
NOW- if you want to do something about tracking and controlling violent persons instead of mechanical devices that have no malice, I'm all for it-
because that is the common denominator present in every case of violence of every kind.

Otherwise- your rules must apply to ALL things that a violent person may choose as his weapon.
There are more people killed each year with clubs, hammers and blunt objects than with rifles of all kinds combined. Thus we must therefoere register and control all blunt objects and tools like ball bats, candlesticks, hammers, rocks and screwdrivers, because we are- TOO STUPID TO CONTROL THE VIOLENT PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO TURN INANIMATE OBJECTS INTO MURDER WEAPONS.

 

Such is of no relevance. The reason for why the city has attempted to restrict legal travel with firearms outside of the city makes no difference if the restriction is unconstitutional. No other city in the entire united states has attempted to argue that legal firearm owners cannot legally transport their property outside of city limits, meaning the very notion is unprecedented from a legal standpoint. It does not matter how justified the city feels it may be in its position, its feelings on the matter carry no legal weight.

The same sentiment could have easily been brought up regarding the Heller ruling.

The implement utilized for travel may be restricted, but not the act of travel itself. There is a significant difference between the two.

Such is still not relevant if the restriction violates the united state constitution. And since a city cannot legally tell its citizens that they cannot legally travel outside of city limits, there is little reason to believe such a law would ever withstand legal scrutiny. This nonsense would never even pass intermediate scrutiny.

Homosexual individuals make up less than five percent of the population of the united states. Yet the united state supreme court still determined that homosexual marriage was a constitutional right that applied throughout the entire nation, and could not be abridged simply because it did not negatively effect enough individuals.

 

More Communists trying to take away guns, /sigh.

Meanwhile, in 2018, a total of 300 people were killed with "rifles"

Keep telling people completely false facts, it is making Generation Z see you guys as arbiters of avoiding the truth.

 

Yeah, wouldn't want that.
Oops! Look how easy it was to pour gas on people and set them on fire.

 

Japan literally has less than 400 homicides a year. The east asian countries all have 0.3-0.5 homicide rates, maybe we should take a look at incorporating their laws here?

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with matters pertaining to law. It has everything to do with matters pertaining to culture. Literally centuries and centuries of constant indoctrination to eliminate matters of individuality, until all members of the public understand that they owe a debt to the benefit of society at the expense of their own well being. Such is ultimately why their suicide rate is so much higher than the united states, as so many individuals simply cannot live with the shame of being regarded as a failure. The nation of Japan literally has school-aged children who choose to commit suicide because their grades are not outstanding enough.

 

The city then needs to play hard ball and do two things first, create new housing contracts, that require them to sign consent to the city to be able to restrict travel with any item they please, and two, hand the licensing to a private group, who will set such restrictions on the licences making it private not public doings.

It is still worth bring up, who knows it could make one of the conservative judges Primarily Roberts or Neil feel enough guilt to vote with the liberals. "Justices, are you prepared to take responsibility for the possible rise in death that may result from a ruling against this law?"

They are not saying no one can leave the city, they are saying you can not take weapons across city lines. It is not in any way inhibiting someone's ability to travel. No different than evacuation orders saying you can not take your pets because shelters will not allow them. Lastly there is a thing about not going out of your way to disrupt the culture or laws of another place. It is infinitely cheaper to get housing outside the city, those who are so in love with their firearms can simply go to the rural area and buy or rent a house and not have to deal with it anymore. They can't even use "I would have to commute to work" as an excuse since they commute to do whatever they do with their guns.

They are not saying "You can not travel" they are saying "You can not travel with your gun" Just like "You can not be with in X number of feet from a school with a gun, or a government building, or a park, or daycare, or any other number of things"

The thing is though, Gays and Lesbians getting married has 0 affect on anyone else's lives, gun do have an effect when people get shot either because someone accidently mishandled the gun, or did it propose.

 

Which would never pass constitutional muster.

Which, again, would not pass constitutional muster. Private individuals cannot be employed on the part of government, and tasked with carrying out actions that would amount to a violation of the united states constitution if such actions were committed by government itself. The law of the united states simply does not work in such a manner.

The united state supreme court already answered this question in the affirmative when they ruled in the Heller decision.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. 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. 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.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.


It is so ordered.

The city is stating that one is not free to travel if their intention is to try and exercise their constitutionally recognized and protected rights.

Free travel is not in any way, shape, or form, comparable to an evacuation order during a declared state of emergency.

Such is not a legitimate excuse for cities attempting to infringe on the protections of the united states constitution. Such an argument would never stand up in a court of law.

What is the legal authority a city possesses over its citizens, to dictate that they are not free to enter and exit as they please, when the reason for their travel is exercising of a constitutional right? What legal authority does a city possess to dictate that constitutional rights do not apply beyond the limits of its own individudal borders?

Meaning that when firearms are used in a legal manner, they have zero effect on the lives of anyone, and the negative effect comes into play only once one makes the conscious decision to use a firearm for the purpose of deliberately committing a crime. Thus meaning the legal use of firearms does not yield a negative consequence and should not be subjected to restrictions that amount to nothing more than blatant harassment.

 

Landlords have the absolute right to regulate what people can do on their property, even if the government rewarded people with tax deductions for putting an anti firearm clause in their contracts it would still be constitutional because it's not the government prohibiting it. It's basically a reverse sin tax, which is constitutional regardless of for what reason.

The courts have done nothing to punish the 4th amendment violations of police who are employed and never seem to use a warrant. Surely the court would never pick and choose enforcement of the constitution.

Then they need to ask 3 questions.

1. What part of the 14th amendment states that the bill of rights is applied to the states
2. If that is what is meant by that part of the amendment then does that mean every amendment is upheld?
3. If not then how is this anything other than the court picking and choosing what states and cities must follow based on political preference.

Call them out on BS.

It is rather easy for any person of honest intent to recognise that any person saying, they want to travel outside of the city and commute to do an activity that is doable much closer inside the city, is probably trying to do something that is illegal inside the city and then try to bs "Grandfather" their item as legal when they enter the city.

States of emergencies are allowed to be called for violence as well so its not that much different. If you can call one to stop a riet, you can call one to prevent mass violence.

It goes against the spirit of the 11th amendment. People lose their **** over people making suggestions to improve the nation if they are not from this nation yet its okay for people to try and demand that their way of life must be accommodated for over the will of just about everyone else.

They have actually said, if you want to live in our city, you need to follow our laws and that if you wish to circumvent our laws by going somewhere else to get in your possession something prohibited within our city limits, then you will be prosecuted. Those trying to circumvent it are probably just like 1% of the total gun owning population in NYC who are trying to be *******s. The courts should really stop taking such frivials cases.

The marriage of LGBT persons in no way shape or form legally or illegally harm or disturb anyone else. Guns can and thus laws that prevent such situations from being possible to allow someone to use a gun illegally are justified.

 

You should know how to program a forum before using one.

 

Landlords in the united states do not possess the legal authority to stipulate that paying tenants must essentially sign away their constitutional rights as a requirement of usage of said property.

Such is not relevant to the discussion at hand. The actions of law enforcement officers do not translate into actions committed by private individuals being employed by the government for the express purpose of violating constitutional rights.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Such is indeed the case. Every constitutionally recognized right within the bill of rights does apply equally across all united states territory. There are no exceptions where one amendment applies in some states but not in others.

What nonsense is being proposed on the part of yourself in the above now?

Why an individual wishes to travel from one location to another is not of any concern, legal or otherwise, to the city in which they may reside, when they are ultimately traveling for wholly legal purposes.

What is the basis for utilizing state of emergency powers to restrict travel outside of the city for exercising constitutional rights, when there is no state of emergency in place? Simply to demonstrate that the city has sole authority over the lives of the citizens that reside within it?

In this particular case, the city of New York is attempting to claim the laws of the state of New York do not apply within its territory, and the rest of the state must accommodate its legal decisions. The eleventh amendment of the united states constitution does not apply in this case, either in letter or in spirit.

Exactly what laws of the city of New York are residents seeking to circumvent by traveling beyond the border of the city while in possession of their firearms for practice at dedicated firing ranges? What possible circumvention could occur under such circumstances?

How exactly is someone supposedly allowed to use a firearm in an illegal manner? How does one go about getting legal permission to commit a crime? Can one homosexual rape another homosexual and legally not commit a crime in the process?

What is not understood on the part of yourself, is that constitutional rights cannot be abridged on the mere basis that someone may potentially choose to commit a crime at some point down the line. The law of the united states simply does not work in such a manner. The cornerstone principal of its entire legal system is innocent until proven guilty, meaning one is not punished for something that they have not done, and have no interest of doing.

 

By "here", I'm assuming that you mean the US and Japanese gun laws would violate our Constitution.

I'm afraid you're assuming that additional gun laws would have an impact on those who already ignore our existing gun laws.
What makes you think that additional gun laws would change the way American criminals go about their "business" when American society is so vastly different from Japan?

Please consider the following observation:

"The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan."CONTINUED

 

By "here", I'm assuming that you mean the US and Japanese gun laws would violate our Constitution.

I'm afraid you're assuming that additional gun laws would have an impact on those who already ignore our existing gun laws.
What makes you think that additional gun laws would change the way American criminals go about their "business" when American society is so vastly different from Japan?

Please consider the following observation:

"The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan."CONTINUED

 

I wasn't addressing their laws but simply pointing out how "easily" a person can kill others if they have that desire. It has nothing to do with guns. Gasoline is much more available in the US than guns. All it takes is a crazy with a can and a lighter.

400 homicides. If that number is correct this guy in Kyoto accounted for 9% of them all at once. Lets hope we never get that kinda of crazy in the US. A few fire bombings and arsonist attacks and mass shooting deaths will become insignificant news.

 

A landlord can 100% say you are not allowed to own firearms on their property. They are not the government so it's not a violation of that person's rights.

So its an issue for the government to tell private individuals to violate constitutional rights but its not an issue for the government to let government agents violate constitutional rights got it.

Note true, states are not required to have grand juries, or have unanimous juries.

The point above. Not all 8 have been fully incorporated.

"I want Dunkin Donuts" Lets go to the one 1 mile from our house "No I want the one 50 miles away" this is their logic. It is not 100% known they have legal intentions.

Actually yes. It's like the civil war, it was the federal government finally saying, we are stronger get in line. The city would benefit from showing they are in control and getting those people to either leave or stop complaining.

NYS gives not one single fud about what NYC does. King Cuomo is definitely on their side. They keep NYS democrats in power so its completely fine with them.

Getting illegal accessories.

You get it legally you use it illegally, simple.

Gun crimes do not happen in a bubble which is why its important to allow government to catch people preemptively though checks and red flags

 

Except for the fact that such a claim is factually incorrect, and there is no case law that can be cited on the part of yourself to demonstrate otherwise. Landlords and property managers do not have the legal authority to demand that tenants relinquish their constitutional rights in order to be tenants.

What is being stated is that the diversionary discussion attempt being utilized on the part of yourself is not relevant to the discussion at hand, and the bait will not be taken.

Show which states do not require such, and under which circumstances such is supposedly allowed.

And yet such has not actually been demonstrated on the part of yourself.

Such is the basic concept of freedom in the united states. One does not have to demonstrate perfect logic in their decisions in order for their decisions to be regarded as legal.

To try and argue otherwise, would be supporting the notion that no private individuals should ever be able to legally possess more than the absolute minimum necessary to survive, carefully rationed out by the government to ensure no one ever manages to acquire more than what is determined as their fair share.

So what is supported on the part of yourself is the legal concept of slavery and a police state, where private individuals are not free to travel without express written permission from the government. Such would never pass constitutional muster.

It does not matter what is "fine" with the elected officials who make the decisions by which others must live. The purpose of the bill of rights in the united states constitution is to protect the people from overreach by government. Elected officials are the enemy of the people when they put their own interests above those of the voting constituents they are supposed to represent.

Such as what, precisely? What so-called "illegal accessories" are being sold legally in the state of New York, that are illegal in the city of New York?

Beyond that matter, why is it these so-called "illegal accessories" can apparently only be acquired when the firearm owner is traveling with their firearm in tow, rather than traveling without their firearm?

Such is not the same thing as being allowed to engage in illegal activity. Such is not even close to being the same thing. Nor can laws be made to address such a notion. One commits crime because they choose to, not because they are allowed to.

The government is not interested in preemptive stops or preventing crimes from being committed. Every year, the government either fails or outright refuses to prosecute known and convicted felons who attempt to illegally acquire firearms, even when they possess ample evidence the illegal attempt was committed. The government has even stated that it does not have the resources to prosecute every individual who commits a firearm-related offense.

Then there is the case of the individual Nikolas Cruz. He was reported to law enforcement numerous times for making various threats, even threatening family members and neighbors with a firearm, but he was never arrested. He was even reported to the FBI for making an announcement on a public forum of planning to commit a mass shooting, and the FBI refused to investigate the matter at all. As far as the FBI was concerned, the chief law enforcement organization for the entire united states, Nikolaz Cruz presented absolutely no threat. How well that decision turned out is well known.

 

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.o...-amendment-rights-on-others-private-property/
Private property owners do not have to abide by the bill of rights. It only protects you against the government. The only exception is when private citiens act like a government, although I think this current supreme court would overturn that.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/11/which-states-use-criminal-grand-juries.html
All states have the option but not all states require grand juries be used
5th amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The other is not expressly stated in the amendment.

5th amendment makes clear that all civilian cases must be presented to a grant jury.

This can be simply fixed by simply requiring that all phones that opperate in the city have an app that can not be uninstalled that tracks where they go and what they do outside the city. Sending a record of transactions and locations to the government to keep people honest

Actually it does not because this is not an economic policy but a socio-political policy.

What is being expressed is that if one wishes to live in the city they must abide by the laws if they wish to leave and hate the city then by all means go.

They could tell all the gun owners to go to staten island and then close all entry points from the island to the main city that way they can play with guns all they want without threatening the rest of the city.

They have not put their own interests over the people, they put the interests of those who voted for them over the interests of those who didn't which is how government is supposed to work. The government need not address or even care about the wants or feelings of those who are the political minority. If I were in NY I would just give the rural areas complete autonomy from the state, then have a NY Suburban NYC and NY rural. Would make things easier and get those who annoy the state off their hands.

It is not only constitutionally allowed (they would still have to vote federally as a state but can be internally divided) it also would force them to survive without the wealth of the liberal anti gunners and then they would realise either a. Give up the fight for gun rights or b. Have guns but live in a really poor and aweful economy that would not get federal aid money due to still being one state.

Hard to buy things for a gun that you can't check to make sure works.

Then they should stop the war on drugs and turn it into a war on guns.

That's why the red flag laws need to be automatic. To where they have to act they can't have and discrepancy.

 

The above citation pertains only to the right of freedom of speech in the form of protest, and only with regard to publicly accessible venues. The standard does not apply with regard to private residences.

It would appear a miscommunication on the part of ourselves has occurred, as it was assumed juries in general were being discussed, rather than grand juries specifically.

Grand juries are only used in determining whether or not a particular case should proceed to the trial phase, where a different jury will be used in determining whether the accused is guilty of the charges against them. In cases where a grand jury is not used, the prosecutor working for the state decides whether or not there is enough evidence to warrant prosecution. But regardless of grand jury or prosecutor, trial by jury is the norm.

Not all phones are the type that can use such programs. Even if they were, government could never present good cause to justify such intrusive surveillance of private citizens going about their daily routines, when said individuals have done absolutely nothing wrong that would amount to criminal activity.

How does it ultimately differ when decisions that are judged as being illogical are being rejected, simply because the one making the decision could achieve the same results through a simpler, more convenient course of action? What authority does the government possess to dictate that an individual cannot conduct themselves in a manner deemed as wasteful and extravagant due to utilizing more resources than is absolutely necessary?

And yet the law of the united states simply does not work in such a way. Why is such a simple fact ultimately proving to be so difficult to comprehend?

Elected officials always put their own personal interests above all else, including their voting constituents. Their only concern is remaining elected to public office for as long as possible, so that they do not have to live at the same level as everyone else.

Then ultimately what is serving to prevent such a course of action from being utilized with regard to matters of race?

Not relevant to the discussion. If one can legally own a firearm in the city of New York, they are obviously of age for purchasing and possessing firearms in general, so what meaningful difference is made to warrant the city of New York attempting to state legal firearm owners cannot travel outside of the city with their firearms for use elsewhere?

Through countless discussions, with countless individuals across this form, many attempts at weak logic have been presented to justify nonsensical standards. But the above may be the weakest of logic that has ever been read in all of them.

Any individual who owns a firearm is well-versed in what accessories will and will not work with their given platform. Firearms are standardized in their construction and production, meaning there is no guesswork necessary. If one knows what particular model of firearm they possess, it is quite easy to find accessories that will work with it. Accessories that are perfectly legal for sale and use within the state of New York.

Once again, the question becomes a matter of what is the legal justification for the city of New York to dictate that legal firearm owners who reside within the city, are not free to leave the city when transporting their legally possessed firearms for use outside of the city limits?

And be met with the same if not even worse abject failures and resistance?

The government has fought many so-called "wars" against things it deemed a public menace, and in each war it has been met with nothing but loss. Simply because it cannot overcome the public desire for these supposed menaces. It failed with regard to alcoholic beverages. It has failed with regard to illicit narcotic substances. It will fail with regard to firearms. This is especially so, because firearms are constitutionally protected against such government actions, and nothing short of another constitutional amendment will ever serve to change that.

How will such laws work if the authorities continue to fail at following through, just as they are right now?