Tag Archives: 2nd Amendment News

What happens if you are considered “dangerous”?


Gun owners wary of government overreach in the name of “public safety,” take heed.

We all agree that laws should seek to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people. But the details of these laws are important. Who is considered “dangerous”? What information supports that decision? Who gets to make “dangerousness” determinations and by what standards? Who provides oversight or review of these decisions? Could such a determination apply to you? If you were unfairly and inaccurately labeled dangerous, would you have effective recourse to clear your name?

Now imagine a country in which the government maintains a secret list of what it considers dangerous people. No one outside the government is allowed to see the list or know who is on it. No one outside the government is allowed to know the information that led to a person’s inclusion on the list.

Yet being on the list has very serious consequences. It means a person is being watched, and his or her activities are being documented. It can lead to a denial of freedoms, like the freedom to use ordinary modes of interstate and international travel. These denials, in turn, can hurt a person’s educational, business, or personal prospects, not just freedom of movement. If they are obvious enough, they can damage the person’s reputation in the community.

The person will know weird things are happening, like denials of rights and services, but he or she won’t know why. In some cases, the person will be told he or she can fill out a form to have someone in the government investigate the matter. Months or maybe years later, the person will receive some sort of “determination.” It will neither confirm nor deny the person is on the list. It will neither confirm nor deny that further restrictions will occur. It will simply tell the person the case has been reviewed, and perhaps, that the person can ask a court for relief.

If the person does ask a court for relief, the person still won’t have access to any of the government’s information about his or her case. The government will insist that this information will be provided to the court for the court’s own consideration, but no one except the government will know whether the court really did get all the information. The person will get to describe his or her experience to the court, but he or she won’t get to answer the specific evidence or allegations the government presents in secret to the court. He or she won’t even know what accusations the government is making.

After additional months or years, the court will make a decision on the case and either determine the government followed its own secret procedures for including the person on the list or it didn’t. If the court finds the procedures were not followed, it can refer the case back to the government and order the government to correct the problems. But the person himself or herself will not get to know what is supposed to be fixed or be able to evaluate whether or not the fix was made (other than noticing whether the mistreatment and deprivations continue).

The government, however, will insist that this is all for the benefit of public safety and order and that the people involved are professionals who can be trusted. It will defend these practices as fair to the individual, because even though the individual will have no idea what is happening or why it’s happening, bureaucrats and judges will be looking out for the individual’s best interests.

This may sound like a dystopian novel of a dark future or an account from place a like North Korea. In fact, this is a summary of facts from the case of Latif, et al. v. Eric. H. Holder, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States. This case examines the shadowy world of the U.S. government’s Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), otherwise known as the “Terrorist Watchlist.” The plaintiffs include American citizens and permanent residents, some of them U.S. military veterans, who the government denied the opportunity to travel in commercial aircraft originating from, landing in, or traveling over U.S. airspace. They were not told why, and when they went through the “administrative appeals” process, they were not given relief or explanations. They claimed, however, that the government’s actions arose from their inclusion on the “No-Fly List,” a component of the TSDB.

Eventually, their cases found their way to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Last August, the courtissued an opinion that concluded these deprivations intruded upon the plaintiffs’ constitutionally-protected liberties of international air travel and of being free from false government stigmatization. Although the government refused to admit whether or not the plaintiffs were actually on the government’s No-Fly List, it was willing to stipulate for the purpose of the court case that they could be. After the August decision, the court ordered additional proceedings to determine if the procedures the government provides to protect the rights of passengers on the No-Fly list are constitutionally permissible.

On Tuesday, in a strong rebuke to government secrecy and overreach, District Judge Anna J. Brown held the government’s procedures were legally inadequate. Specifically, Judge Brown found the procedures for contesting inclusion on the No-fly list violated procedural due process and were “arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

Regarding the due process claims, the court focused upon the extremely low (and entirely one-sided) “reasonable suspicion” threshold for the government to place someone on the No-Fly List. While this standard requires more than a hunch, it is even less than what is required to arrest someone for a crime. The court found that this could lead to erroneous inclusions on the No-Fly List and noted that even the government’s own reviews had found “many errors” on the list that had persisted for years, even after they were identified.

Judge Brown also found the court procedures necessary to correct erroneous listing were ineffective, as people challenging their listings have to guess at the accusations against them and what sort of evidence they should present on their own behalf. Moreover, the challengers have no opportunity to correct errors or omissions in the record the government presents to the court. Thus, people who pose no demonstrable risk whatsoever could be snared by the list and unable to extricate themselves from it.

Regarding the APA claims, the court held the No-Fly list review process “entirely fails” Congress’ instruction that passengers delayed or denied boarding as security threats be able “to appeal such a determination and correct information in the system.”

Judge Brown ordered the government to correct these deficiencies by creating a review process for the No-Fly list that includes notice of one’s placement on the list and a sufficient explanation of the reasons to allow the affected person to submit evidence in response to those reasons. She also ruled the plaintiffs’ evidence has to be included in the record at every stage of review.

How is this relevant to gun owners? As we have reported, anti-gunners in Congress have been engaged in a long-term effort to make inclusion on the Terrorist Watchlist a basis to deny a person his or her Second Amendment rights. Meanwhile, we have also reported on efforts to portray ordinary, law-abiding gun owners as “terrorists” or public safety threats simply because of their views on the Second Amendment. Judge Brown’s opinion validates concerns we have raised about the constitutional and legal problems inherent in the government using secret and essentially unchallengeable lists as a basis to deny people their rights.

While this and other recent judicial curbs to President Obama’s executive actions are welcome developments, the fight is far from over. Some gun controllers are becoming more sophisticated in their tactics. Rather than challenging law-abiding gun owners head-on, they create ominous-sounding categories of presumptively “dangerous” people who they claim shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. Once the category is established, however, permissive standards of inclusion allow it to continually expand until its original justification becomes unrecognizable. We recently reported on one such attempt by the Chair of the Federal “Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.”

The Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment itself, are expressions of the belief that ultimate authority rests with the people and that the government can only go so far in pursuing its objectives. While we all have a duty to obey the laws, the government likewise must respect and adhere to those constitutional limits to maintain the trust, goodwill, and support of the American people.

Win for 2A – GOA files and beats back ATF on gun sale reporting

Recognizing that this new ATF request was not just an “information collection request,” but rather a vast expansion of reporting requirements, Gun Owners of America, Inc. and Gun Owners Foundation filed comments with ATF opposing the request. Our comments protested this latest ATF power grab, using back channels to steal authority. The GOA/GOF comments explained that Congress also had prohibited ATF from creating a national database of gun owners — exactly the type of national gun registry that these regulations would have allowed ATF to develop. We argued that ATF cannot do indirectly what it is barred from doing directly — demanding information about many, if not most, sales of rifles in the country.

Only two days after GOA and GOF filed comments exposing ATF’s strategy, ATF backed down, submitting to the Federal Register an amended notice (that was published in the June 23 Federal Register) limiting the reporting requirement to the FFLs in the four border states (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas), and limiting the reporting to multiple sales only if made to the same buyer in the five-day period.

Even though the American people won this battle, the war against the Second Amendment goes on. The public has another 30 days to file comments opposing the ATF rule and should do so. Congress has never granted ATF the authority to require FFLs to file reports of multiple rifle sales, and the collection of information on rifle sales which ATF began in 2010 should end.

See more:http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/atf_backs_down_on_gun_sale_reports.html

CIA Operation “Zero Footprint”

The Real Motive For The Obama Administration’s Recent Arrest.    Qatar, Benghazi and the connection to Ahmed Abu Khattala

After the attack on Benghazi and the connection to supplying arms to Libyan rebels by the Admin, many started putting the pieces together as to why Ambassador Stevens was there in the first place. A review by a retired CIA friend pointed out that there is always more to the story and said, “Thanks for sharing this. Actually, they are not presenting all of the facts on the gang of 8. There is a class that some in the clandestine service at CIA have to take if they work with any type of lawmakers and its called ‘sharing secrets with lawmakers’ sounds corny but that’s what its really called. And you are taught how to wiggle your way around “legally” to make things like this happen and how to make them ‘legal’. its the nasty side of covert action that came into existence when lawyers got involved. The way they do it is the minimum that a covert operation and action has to be authorized is 4 votes and signatures from the gang of 8. So not all 8 have to be present during meetings. The 4 ruling was created in the event of an emergency that 4 could get the actions executed.

The end result has been a political tool for all presidents and bush was very successful at it and we used the gang of 4 ruling for extraordinary rendition and CIA’s RDI program all the time. It was so successful, Nancy Pelosi constantly cried that she was not in the know and that CIA had been doing things behind her back. It even garnered national press back in the day when it was occurring so frequently for the renditions of high value targets and detainees. Later, we presented 40 posterboard sized documents of her signature which was automatically done up if the gang of 8 signed off on an action. She was furious but legally there was nothing she could do. We did it and got away with it for 8 years under bush and it looks like they are doing the same thing under Obama. Which is not surprising!”

2A supporters dumping Microsoft 365, One Drive, Outlook, and more!

Thank you to writer, Steve Johnson for evaluating all policies and giving us a heads up on the Microsoft products which I will be cancelling as of this moment!

Since 2009 Microsoft’s Code of Conduct has been applied to more and more of their online service. If a service is covered by this Code of Conduct, users of it are prohibited from using it in  “any way that promotes or facilitates the sale of ammunition and firearms” (See bullet point #13).

Almost all of Microsoft’s online services are by now covered under this “Code of Conduct”. These services include Windows Live, Office 365, Microsoft Sharepoint, Bing.com, Outlook.com, Windows OneDrive, Exchange Online, MSN and a number of other services.

The only major Microsoft services this does not apply to is, at the time of this blog post, Skype, Microsoft Azure and XBox Live. I expect Skype will eventually fall under the Code of Conduct.

Windows OneDrive, formally known as Microsoft SkyDrive, is built into Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8 for Phones and Windows 8 for Tablets. If you work in the gun industry you should avoid these products. You could wake up one morning to find your account terminated and all your emails, contacts, calendar etc. deleted.

Windows Live powers a number of Microsoft services including Microsoft’s cloud email and cloud Office suite. Windows Live, Outlook.com and Exchange Online power many large institutions including colleges and high schools. Don’t use any Microsoft-hosted email systems to buy or sell guns, unless you are willing to risk getting kicked out of college (especially if you have signed documents agreeing to abide by Microsofts Terms of Use)

If you use Microsoft Office in your gun business, make sure you do not use the Office 365 service to share business-related files.

Here at TFB the only Microsoft service we use is Skype. If Microsoft bans gun-related business over Skype, we will most likely switch to Google Hangouts.

It is sad to think that the Gun Club @ Microsoft was once a relatively large club. Point and Click no more

– See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/16/breaking-microsoft-bans-use-services-promoting-guns/

ATTACK ON VETS: $19.5 million tax payer dollars to pay STATES for expanded NICS?

This amendment would add an additional $19.5 million to pay states to turn in more names to the federal gun-ban (NICS) list. The vote was on a Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Peter King (R-NY) amendment to H.R. 4660, the Commerce-Justice-Science funding bill.  Both Representatives hold an “F” rating with Gun Owners of America.

Already, more than 175,000 law-abiding veterans have lost their Second Amendment rights this way.  And, in states like New York, this money will pay to strip Americans of their constitutional rights, merely because they consult a psychiatrist and are prescribed a therapeutic drug.

SO…essentially, we this would discourage people who need mental health help to avoid seeking that treatment, thereby making the people they are afraid of most…even worse!  And if you have ever been prescribed an anti-depressant or therapeutic drug on a list of “psychiatric” medications, you will also be reported to the ever so popular, NICS list.  

HERE’S YOUR LIST OF THE GOOD GUYS……. Go to www.gunowners.org and sign up for these alerts and easy to send emails to your representatives. 

Below are the U.S. House Members who voted NO on the Thompson-King amendment.

A NO vote is the pro-gun position.  


Aderholt (AL-4)

Amash (MI-3)

Bachmann (MN-6)

Barr (KY-6)

Barrow (GA-12)

Barton (TX-6)

Bentivolio (MI-11)

Bilirakis (FL-12)

Bishop (UT-1)

Black (TN-6)

Blackburn (TN-7)

Boustany (LA-3)

Brady (TX-8)

Bridenstine (OK-1)

Brooks (AL-5)

Broun (GA-10)

Burgess (TX-26)

Byrne (AL-1)

Calvert (CA-42)

Carter (TX-31)

Cassidy (LA-6)

Chabot (OH-1)

Coble (NC-6)

Cole (OK-4)

Collins (GA-9)

Collins (NY-27)

Conaway (TX-11)

Cook (CA-8)

Cotton (AR-4)

Crawford (AR-1)

Culberson (TX-7)

Daines (MT-al)

DeSantis (FL-6)

DesJarlais (TN-4)

Duncan (SC-3)

Duncan (TN-2)

Ellmers (NC-2)

Farenthold (TX-27)

Fincher (TN-8)

Fleischmann (TN-3)

Fleming (LA-4)

Flores (TX-17)

Forbes (VA-4)

Foxx (NC-5)

Franks (AZ-8)

Gardner (CO-4)

Garrett (NJ-5)

Gingrey (GA-11)

Gohmert (TX-1)

Gosar (AZ-4)

Granger (TX-12)

Graves (GA-14)

Graves (MO-6)

Griffin (AR-2)

Griffith (VA-9)

Guthrie (KY-2)

Hall (TX-4)

Harper (MS-3)

Harris (MD-1)

Hensarling (TX-5)

Holding (NC-13)

Hudson (NC-8)

Huelskamp (KS-1)

Huizenga (MI-2)

Hultgren (IL-14)

Hunter (CA-50)

Jenkins (KS-2)

Johnson (OH-6)

Johnson, Sam (TX-3)

Jordan (OH-4)

King (IA-4)

Kingston (GA-1)

Kline (MN-2)

Labrador (ID-1)

LaMalfa (CA-1)

Lamborn (CO-5)

Latta (OH-5)

Long (MO-7)

Lucas (OK-3)

Lummis (WY-al)

Marchant (TX-24)

Massie (KY-4)

McAllister (LA-5)

McCarthy (CA-23)

McCaul (TX-10)

McClintock (CA-4)

McHenry (NC-10)

Meadows (NC-11)

Messer (IN-6)

Mica (FL-7)

Miller (FL-1))

Miller (MI-10)

Mullin (OK-2)

Neugebauer (TX-19)

Nugent (FL-11)

Nunes (CA-22)

Nunnelee (MS-1)

Olson (TX-22)

Pearce (NM-2)

Perry (PA-4)

Peterson (MN-7)

Petri (WI-6)

Pittenger (NC-9)

Poe (TX-2)

Pompeo (KS-4)

Posey (FL-8)

Price (GA-6)

Rahall (WV-3)

Roby (AL-2)

Roe (TN-1)

Rogers (AL-3)

Rohrabacher (CA-48)

Rokita (IN-4)

Rooney (FL-17)

Salmon (AZ-5)

Sanford (SC-1)

Scalise (LA-1)

Schweikert (AZ-6)

Scott, Austin (GA-8)

Sessions (TX-32)

Shimkus (IL-15)

Simpson (ID-2)

Smith (MO-8)

Smith (NE-3)

Smith (TX-21)

Southerland (FL-2)

Stewart (UT-2)

Stockman (TX-36)

Stutzman (IN-3)

Terry (NE-2)

Thornberry (TX-13)

Tipton (CO-3)

Walberg (MI-7)

Walorski (IN-2)

Weber (TX-14)

Webster (FL-10)

Wenstrup (OH-2)

Westmoreland (GA-3)

Williams (TX-25)

Wilson (SC-2)

Wittman (VA-1)

Womack (AR-3)

Yoder (KS-3)

Yoho (FL-3)

Young (AK-al)

It’s Official: Russian-made 7N6 5.45×39 Ammunition = BANNED

April 7, 2014



On March 5, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) received a  request from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) to conduct a test, examination and classification of Russian-made 7N6 5.45×39 ammunition for purposes of determining whether it is considered  “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the Gun Control Act (GCA), as amended. Since 1986, the GCA has prohibited the importation of armor piercing ammunition unless it is destined for government use or testing.  The imported ammunition about which CBP was inquiring was not destined for either excepted purpose.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, defines the term “armor piercing ammunition” as:

“(i)      a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

(ii)        a  full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.”  (emphasis added)

When ATF tested the 7N6 samples provided by CBP, they were found to contain a steel core.  ATF’s analysis also concluded that the ammunition could be used in a commercially available handgun, the Fabryka Bronie Radom, Model Onyks 89S, 5.45×39 caliber semi-automatic pistol, which was approved for importation into the United States in November 2011.  Accordingly, the ammunition is “armor piercing” under the section 921(a)(17)(B)(i) and is therefore not importable.  ATF’s determination applies only to the Russian-made 7N6 ammunition analyzed, not to all 5.45×39 ammunition.  Ammunition of that caliber using projectiles without a steel core would have to be independently examined to determine their importability.

TYRANY IN DC! Unregistered ammunition and brass casings cause for jail time?

The District of Columbia has lost its mind and is drunk with power!  http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/23/miller-dc-businessman-faces-two-years-jail-unregis/?page=1

MILLER: D.C. businessman faces two years in jail for unregistered ammunition, brass casing

By Emily Miller

The Washington Times

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Mark Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal record, is facing two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition after D.C. police raided his house looking for guns. Mr. Witaschek has never had a firearm in the city, but he is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The trial starts on Nov. 4.

The police banged on the front door of Mr. Witaschek’s Georgetown home at 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, to execute a search warrant for “firearms and ammunition … gun cleaning equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts.”

SEE RELATED: MILLER: D.C. businessman faces two years in jail for unregistered ammunition, brass casing

Mr. Witaschek’s 14-year-old daughter let inside some 30 armed officers in full tactical gear.

D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with the police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.

Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witaschek’s estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.

After entering the house, the police immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads of Mr. Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed.

In recalling what followed, Mr. Witaschek became visibly emotional in describing how the police treated him, Ms. Harris and the four children in the house.

His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the police arrived. “They used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked,” said his father. “The police put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening.”

SEE RELATED: MILLER: D.C. police help get firearms to National Cathedral for event to promote gun control

Police spokesman Gwendolyn Crump would not provide further information on the events in this case.

The police shut down the streets for blocks and spent more than two hours going over every inch of his house. “They tossed the place,” said Mr. Witaschek. He provided photos that he took of his home after the raid to document the damage, which he estimated at $10,000.

The police found no guns in the house, but did write on the warrant that four items were discovered: “One live round of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition,” which was an inoperable shell that misfired during a hunt years earlier. Mr. Witaschek had kept it as a souvenir. “One handgun holster” was found, which is perfectly legal.

“One expended round of .270 caliber ammunition,” which was a spent brass casing. The police uncovered “one box of Knight bullets for reloading.” These are actually not for reloading, but are used in antique-replica, single-shot, muzzle-loading rifles.

This was the second police search of his home. Exactly one month earlier, Mr. Witaschek allowed members of the “Gun Recovery Unit” access to search without a warrant because he thought he had nothing to hide.

After about an hour and a half, the police found one box of Winchester .40 caliber ammunition, one gun-cleaning kit (fully legal) and a Civil War-era Colt antique revolver that Mr. Witaschek kept on his office desk. The police seized the Colt even though antique firearms are legal and do not have to be registered.

Mr. Witaschek is a gun owner and an avid hunter. However, he stores his firearms at the home of his sister, Sylvia Witaschek, in suburban Arlington, Va.

Two weeks after the June raid, D.C. police investigators went to his sister’s house — unaccompanied by Virginia police and without a warrant — and asked to “view” the firearms, according to a police report. She refused. The next day, the D.C. police returned to her house with the Arlington County police and served her with a criminal subpoena.

The Office of Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan signed an affidavit on Aug. 21, 2012, in support of a warrant to arrest Mr. Witaschek. A spokesman for Mr. Nathan would not comment on a pending case.

Mr. Witaschek went to the police station on Aug. 24 at 5:30 a.m. to turn himself in, but was not transferred to central booking until 11:30 a.m., at which time he was told it was too late to be arraigned that day. He spent the night in jail and was released the next day at 10 a.m.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier reserves such harsh tactics for ordinary citizens. When NBC News anchor David Gregory violated the gun-registration law last year by wielding an illegal 30-round magazine on live television, he was not arrested.

Mr. Nathan also gave Mr. Gregory a pass, writing that prosecuting him “would not promote public safety.”

Mr. Nathan, who is unelected, showed no such leniency to Mr. Witaschek. In September 2012, the attorney general offered Mr. Witaschek a deal to plead guilty to one charge of unlawful possession of ammunition with a penalty of a year of probation, a $500 fine and a contribution to a victims’ fund.

Mr. Witaschek turned down the offer. “It’s the principle,” he told me.

To increase the pressure a year later, Mr. Nathan tacked on an additional charge in August of illegal ammunition from the first, warrantless search. Mr. Witaschek chose to accept the risk of prison time by going to trial instead of pleading guilty.

The firearms laws in places such as the District of Columbia, Chicago, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey do nothing to reduce violence, but merely infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding.

However, if these laws are going to be enforced, the police and government must treat everyone equally.

The charges against Mr. Witaschek should be dropped.

Emily Miller is a senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times and author of “Emily Gets Her Gun” (Regnery, 2013).

Friends and Patriots Booked for Rally

Friends and Patriots support GRAA National Rally, May 25th

Check out the Friends and Patriots gathering at the Liberty Bell on May 25th for the GRAA National Rally! Gun Rights Across America is a grassroots organization that is quickly building followers in all 50 states. Get involved when you can and hope to see you in Philadelphia!

Booking Appearances for “SONS OF GUNS” on Discovery Channel

Red Jacket Product Development
Red Jacket Product Development


Patriot Promotions is  booking appearances for Red Jacket Firearms April through December 2015

Bring America’s favorite firearms business to your range, trade show  event or fundraiser.

Saturday dates are filling up quickly.  Call Jill for prices and to reserve your date!

Picture of child with gun in NJ prompts Police intrusion


Police in NJ brought the Dept. of Child and Family Services officers to the home of this NJ man after seeing pictures of his 10 year old son holding an AR. Not only did they push their way into the home to search for any unsecured guns lying about the house (which they did not find) they insisted on making him open his gun safe with threat to take his kid from him if he didn’t! Why did they want to see his guns…to record the serial numbers and see if they are registered. In NJ you don’t have to register your guns, regardless, he got his attorney on the phone and he said DO NOT OPEN THE SAFE to them and even told them so on the phone. Actions by local officials like this will become more and more prevalent as those who think they have power, will abuse it. Its time that all Americans get to know their rights to keep and bear arms and its likely those that do not…well, you get what you ask for. Stupid is as stupid does. Lets enforce those who do stupid things. A Facebook post of a kid with his new hunting rifle, should never prompt such an intrusion!