| Author | Post |
|---|
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 633 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:36 am |
|
Interceptor_Knight wrote: The NRA has invested significant dollars into WI ranges over the past few years. High Power shooting is still going strong in WI.
Apparently, the WI State representatives are already listening to the NRA. If we want credibility and wider public support, then we need to work with organizations like WI-FORCE (formerly the Wisconsin Rifle and Pistol Association WRPA) who are linked directly with thousands of WI shooters via the ranges. Having the official backing of recognized groups will increase credibility.
Work WITH WI-FORCE? Are you serious?
WI-FORCE did NOT contact there members urging them to contact the legislature or the AG on behalf of "open carry" when Para (Jesus) was detained. In addition, they stood idlely by when Krause was detained. The have sent there members any information (I can find) about open carry. They have not come out in DIRECT support of "open carry."
Where is WI-FORCE, when Yates got detained in Madison for walking down State Street.
I spoke DIRECTLY to the BOD of WI-FORCE about these issues in 2008. Their response was basically, "we do what the NRA attorney tells us to do."
NOPE, WI-FORCE is another of those "jump on the coat tails," type organizations.
I want a LEADER, not a follower. Both the WGO and WI-FORCE are followers, not leaders.
It was "we the people" NOT the NRA, WI-FORCE, or the WGO who brought our RTKBA to the forefront.
Have they (WI-FORCE) done good things with the ranges and the shooting sports, sure they have, but have they done anything to promote our personal freedoms and right to carry, not that I can find. Please provide FACTUAL evidence of where WI-FORCE has been a leader regarding "open carry," and I might change my position.
|
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:28 pm |
|
bnhcomputing wrote:
Work WITH WI-FORCE? Are you serious?
The have sent there members any information (I can find) about open carry. They have not come out in DIRECT support of "open carry."
I spoke DIRECTLY to the BOD of WI-FORCE about these issues in 2008. Their response was basically, "we do what the NRA attorney tells us to do."
I want a LEADER, not a follower. Both the WGO and WI-FORCE are followers, not leaders.
It was "we the people" NOT the NRA, WI-FORCE, or the WGO who brought our RTKBA to the forefront.
Have they (WI-FORCE) done good things with the ranges and the shooting sports, sure they have, but have they done anything to promote our personal freedoms and right to carry, not that I can find. Please provide FACTUAL evidence of where WI-FORCE has been a leader regarding "open carry," and I might change my position.
Very serious, and you should be serious about working with these organizations if you want things to happen in WI.
I said work with, not work under. An organization which can work with the existing network of groups without insulting and alienating them will be more successful. The whole catching more with honey than vinegar thing....
Their core mission is to promote the ranges and the shooting events. By working with these organizations and listening to their concerns, we can get their support when we need it. Every organization needs followers. Even if these groups are "only" followers who will support us, then we will have power in numbers. A huge victory would be to use them as a forum to communicate and educate the thousands of range members throughout the state.
Why would they be a "leader" regarding Open Carry? Why would you expect them to be? Open carry is already legal.
What I can tell you is that I have spoken personally with the current WI-FORCE President and he was at our rifle club meeting when I proposed Open Carry language at our board meeting which was passed. We may now Open Carry at the range. Previously, due to the safety rules in place, you could not have a loaded weapon away from the firing line. I was also able to lift some of the NFA prohibitions which were previously in place. This is a slow process and we must put a heavy focus on education before we can expect action.
bnhcomputing wrote: WI-FORCE did NOT contact there members urging them to contact the legislature or the AG on behalf of "open carry" when Para (Jesus) was detained. In addition, they stood idlely by when Krause was detained.
Where is WI-FORCE, when Yates got detained in Madison for walking down State Street.
It is simply an unreasonable expectation to look for direct involvement from every shooting group in the state. They do not have a structure or the resources to do so. They can lend support to an umbrella organization would such an organization exist. The NRA is such a nation wide organization. These shooting groups endorse the NRA and the NRA helps them. What we need is a WI based organization which is in the position to work with both the NRA and the local groups in order to get things done more efficiently. Every year that the fracture in WI gun groups continues is another year that WAVE and others grows unchecked in power and resources to fight us.
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:35 pm by Interceptor_Knight
|
davegran
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:43 pm |
|
J.Gleason wrote: Received a phone call today from Jordan Austin. He stated he may have over reacted to my email and he believes these are good talking points to come to the table with.
He said he will do his best to include the proposal we sent when it comes to drafting this Bill. He also said he still thinks training will be necessary.
Let's see what happens. I don't think we should all just wait and do nothing, we could be waiting for nothing.
Just my opinion, but, "do his best" is a long way from, "will include the proposal".
Sounds like the lobster reaching out of the pot and trying to turn down the heat.... 
Dave
|
Nutczak
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 02:52 pm |
|
J.Gleason wrote: He said he will do his best to include the proposal we sent when it comes to drafting this Bill.
Don't take this the wrong way, But when I hear a sentence like the one I quoted above, I figure someone is just saying a tactful "NO" to avoid conflict.
Tell the people what they think they wanna hear to keep them quiet.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 05:39 pm |
|
Well, I have a tendency to agree with you on that one. I should have stated he said he will do his best to get all of the talking points of our proposal included in the new Bill.
I guess I got tired of arguing with everyone here about why we should only accept what every other organization wants and suck it up.
It is becoming more and more apparent that this is what many of the members here want. Yet they speak of a grass roots movement. That is not grass roots that is being a compromising follower and nothing more.
These other organizations that do nothing to speak up in favor of our issues do not deserve to be recognized by our organization.
Whether you believe it or not OCDO is highly recognized, maybe even more so then WIFORCE.
I don't mind working together with anyone, but I won't compromise my rights for anyone either, all in the name of making friends.
If an organization claims to be Pro Gun then they should be Pro Gun all the way and not just in the ways that serves their own purposes. It is very much like the arguments we have had on here about respecting All Rights, Just like we are expected to respect All Rights, these so called Pro Gun Groups should respect All Gun Rights.
I think Guys like Gene German and Corey Graf are nothing more than Antis posing as Pros. They will both say they stand for no compromise yet they are willing to compromise everything all for the sake of a small card that says CCW Permit, with training.
They are also two individuals who like to pose as leaders in huge organizations, when in fact those organizations have very low membership, even lower then OCDO.
Maybe it is they who should learn to work with US!
ETA: Not to mention that according to this NRA guy, neither German or Graf get much respect from Madison.
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 05:43 pm by J.Gleason
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 05:52 pm |
|
We have fine interior lines of communication, like shouting from foxhole to foxhole. Vindictive Charlie knows that our leadership is gone or gone over and is trying to spoof us, spook us into rash action.
Listen, chatter and contribute but take action only when you hear a proposal with which you agree. If you hear an 'order', consider from whom it came and that he may be VC.
"Hey, Edouard! Edouard, vous êtes un singe de reddition!" And your training counselor wears stay-behinds.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 06:01 pm |
|
Master Doug Huffman wrote: If you hear an 'order', consider from whom it came and that he may be VC. I am an Oathkeeper.  There are some orders I will refuse to follow.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:55 pm |
|
Just wanted to pass on that I have received about 10 of these emails so far,
RE: Fire Arms Carry Bill From: Sen.Grothman (Sen.Grothman@legis.wisconsin.gov) Sent: Thu 11/05/09 6:40 PM To: James Gleason (j.gleason@hotmail.com)
Thank you for forwarding this information to our office. - Senator Grothman's Office
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:55 pm by J.Gleason
|
comp45acp
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 20th, 2006 |
| Location: | Watertown, WI |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:20 pm |
|
J.Gleason wrote:
Well, I have a tendency to agree with you on that one. I should have stated he said he will do his best to get all of the talking points of our proposal included in the new Bill.
I guess I got tired of arguing with everyone here about why we should only accept what every other organization wants and suck it up.
It is becoming more and more apparent that this is what many of the members here want. Yet they speak of a grass roots movement. That is not grass roots that is being a compromising follower and nothing more.
These other organizations that do nothing to speak up in favor of our issues do not deserve to be recognized by our organization.
Whether you believe it or not OCDO is highly recognized, maybe even more so then WIFORCE.
I don't mind working together with anyone, but I won't compromise my rights for anyone either, all in the name of making friends.
If an organization claims to be Pro Gun then they should be Pro Gun all the way and not just in the ways that serves their own purposes. It is very much like the arguments we have had on here about respecting All Rights, Just like we are expected to respect All Rights, these so called Pro Gun Groups should respect All Gun Rights.
I think Guys like Gene German and Corey Graf are nothing more than Antis posing as Pros. They will both say they stand for no compromise yet they are willing to compromise everything all for the sake of a small card that says CCW Permit, with training.
They are also two individuals who like to pose as leaders in huge organizations, when in fact those organizations have very low membership, even lower then OCDO.
Maybe it is they who should learn to work with US!
ETA: Not to mention that according to this NRA guy, neither German or Graf get much respect from Madison.
J. Gleason-your posts are becoming more over the top, ridiculous and almost laughable by the day. Gene German an "Anti" ? The man is a firearms instructor who carries a gun every day of his life, what are you smoking? You continue in your attempt to put down anyone who doesn't agree with your view of carry in Wisconsin by maligning a man who has done as much for Liberty in this state as anyone and far more than most. As far as his respect in Madison you have no idea whatever what you are talking about. Gene has testified before committees, spent a great deal of time at the capitol with various legislators and conducted the one and only permit to carry class ever conducted in the capitol building itself. It was well attended by state senators and representatives as well as many of their aides. I know, I was there! Also in this class in the capitol building was Phil Brinkman from the Wisconsin State Journal (who wrote a balanced article on the experience) and representatives from the Milwaukee Police Dept. who stated they were very impressed by the presentation. Gene was also very instrumental in getting the carry law passed in his home state of Minnesota, not once but twice! (the first law was overturned by a court decision after being in effect for a couple years-they re-passed the law in I believe less than 90 days.)
Oh, for you and (now self proclaimed) Master Doug-Gene has done all of this ( and much more) for free, totally at his own expense, which is considerable driving down from Minneapolis.
And your contributions beyond a poorly constructed, ill-advised and misspelled email to the state legislature are??
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:30 pm |
|
Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah Blah
Compromise45allforacarrypermit sounds like the teacher from the Charlie Brown cartoons.
Your obvious advocacy of mandated training is cause for your lack of credibility here.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 04:07 pm by J.Gleason
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:32 pm |
|
comp45acp wrote: Gene was also very instrumental in getting the carry law passed in his home state of Minnesota Says you and Gene German.
Maybe Gene should just go home and screw things up in his own state.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 04:11 pm by J.Gleason
|
Lammie
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sun Feb 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 680 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 02:16 pm |
|
What part of the right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment of the federal constitution and Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution don't some of you understand. Those documents make no mention of open carry or concealed carry. They merely say "right to keep and bear arms". The Wisconsin Supreme Court says that right is not unfettered and subject to reasonable regulation. It says that regulation of the manner of carry is reasonable as long as manner of carry is not regulated to the point that the rights are eviscerated. The Court makes those statements only for the purpose of protecting the long lived and useless concealed carry prohibition statute. The Court itself is as confused on the breadth of the second amendment and Article I section 25 as anyone. It says in Hamdan that the concealed weapon prohibition statute is a strict liability statute, it applies even to those activities contained in Article I section 25. Yet, the Court goes on to declare that under certain conditions of security, statute 941.23 is, in fact, unconstitutional. So, not only does the WSSC say that Article I section 25 is fettered it says it is conditional. That of course can't be.
How does all this confusion get resolved? It gets resolved by insisting that the state legislature revisit all the legacy firearm restrictions and asses their validity under the umbrella of Article I section 25. That will not be an easy task. The subject is very volatile and most politicians will do anything they can to avoid it. As daunting as the task seems it is not impossible. With a show of force from a collective group of gun right advocates, letters to media personal, letters to politicians, demonstrations, power of the voting booth and encouragement to those wrongly charged to fight the charge and provide them financial support to do so, we can send a loud and clear message to the political pundits that constitutional amendments trump state statutes and that their first obligation, as sworn under oath, is to protect and preserve the constitutions containing those amendments.
Some people are so dismayed by the slow and painful task of insisting that the legislature do the job right that they would prefer to dangle a carrot in front of it, a carrot camouflaged as a "carry law", a carrot which treats the symptoms of the problem and not the cause. The cause of which is the infringement of legacy statues on Article I section 25. Currently there are two “carrots” being bantered around the forum. One has been drafted by Gene German and the other by Hubert (bnhcomputing). Both proposals have supporters. My observations are; the authors of the proposals are well meaning in their own right but both proposals contain issues I am concerned with.
Gene German’s plan starts out confusing. He refers to ss941.23 as the open carry law. Ss941.23 is the concealed weapon prohibition statute. He proposes that open carry will continue as is with all it’s current restrictions in place. Those that would fulfill the requirements and obtain a carry permit would be allowed unrestricted carry. In my opinion such a condition would be unconstitutional. The WSSC ruled that the manner of carry could be regulated and still abide by Article I section 25. The Court did not rule that the rights conveyed by Article I section 25 are conditional based on the manner of carry. If statute 941.23 were to be struck down Article I section 25 would apply to all manners of carry be it concealed or visible. It is the legislature that determined to restrict the manner of carry not the constitution.
German then says that a permit shall be granted to any eligible applicant to carry or possess firearms either openly or concealed. His plan is supposed to be about carry of firearms not possession. His statement is written in such a way that with a single stroke of a pen the legislature can impose all the restrictions and criteria he proposes on both open carry and concealed carry. The criteria would include mandatory training requirements as well as mandatory background checks. The criteria would also allow a registration data base available to law enforcement for it’s official use. That of course is exactly what a registration system is all about. German’s plan would also make us pay for our right to carry. The initial cost would be $25 and valid for 5 years. Additionally, a renewal cost of $10 would be required every 5 years. What he fails to include is the cost of training and certification. The costs vary but generally range from $150 to $200. The renewal and re-certification cost are usually somewhat less $75 to $150, a cost that will reoccur every 5 years. The renewal requirements are especially bothersome to me. Except for financial gain to firearm instructors it serves little useful purpose. If his plan prevails then a permit should be treated as is a hunter certification, lifetime, with revocation to be determined by the courts.
The first response I expect to hear from Gene and his minions is that I miss the intent of his plan altogether. Not so. I understand that his intent is to have a dual carry condition in Wisconsin, one which recognizes a constitutional right to carry visible firearms, albeit with certain restrictions and one which would allow a privileged exception to those restrictions and allow concealed carry providing certain requirements and criteria is met.
As written, the plan is not explicit in the difference between rights and privilege. It is written in such a way that it opens the door to the legislature to invoke all the requirements of the privilege on to our fundamental rights. Our legislature is well known for its propensity to attempt to design a horse and end up with a camel. That has never been as evident as it was with the ill-fated Personal Protection Act. In order to garner enough votes for passage it would be all too easy for the legislature to apply the criteria of German’s plan to all manners of carry.
The points bnhcomputing proposes are more palatable although it also has specifics I am uneasy with.
The plan needs a preamble.
The right of an emancipated minor or adult to posses a firearm is already established by state law.
The duty to not retreat from a confrontation will be addressed by the castle doctrine law that will in all likelihood be passed next legislative session.
Item 2 is not required. It has already been ruled that a person’s rental domicile is his personal residence and subject only to those firearm restrictions as apply to an owned residence.
Item 5 amounts to a form of registration, whether voluntary or not. The word voluntary can very easily be omitted by any bill drafted by the liberal minded Legislative Reference Bureau.
The strongest point in bnhcomputing’s plan is the reference to a reciprocity permit. The sorting out of rights and privilege of firearm carry is a Wisconsin situation. A situation that can be resolved on its own merits. The problem becomes inter-state when we travel. Most other states require that a non resident planning to conceal carry in that state must have a valid conceal carry permit from their resident state. Wisconsin has no such permit available to it’s residents. Therefore bnhcomputing’s plan has merit in that it provides a process by which, for a nominal processing fee, or by application, a Wisconsin resident can obtain a permit that will allow other states to grant reciprocity. I totally agree with that approach. I would add that the plan should include nationwide reciprocity, a valid cc permit from any state would be granted reciprocity in Wisconsin.
There is a caveat to the plan. Some states require that evidence of training and certification must be shown before reciprocity will be granted. The proof of a state issued permit is by itself not sufficient. In those cases if a person wishes to carry in those particular states and elects to undergo training and certification for the privilege to conceal carry in those states, then that is a personal decision. I also prefer to refer to his plan as a reciprocity validation or reciprocity permit. The phrase carry permit has too many personal meanings and insinuations. We don’t need a new “carry law”. We already have two, the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution.
Previously I had voiced my opinion that I favored an approach similar to Gene German’s. One that would recognize and unrestricted right to carry visible firearms but would provide a privilege to carry a concealed firearm. After reading many member opinions and further review I now realize that is a cop out situation that treats the symptoms of our problem and not the cause. The adoption of Article I section 25 to our state constitution changed the playing field of Wisconsin’s firearm laws. The WSSC said so in no uncertain terms in Hamdan. The Court said that the amendment created a considerable dilemma for law enforcement and the court system. It went on to implore the legislature to fix the problem. Words from the highest court in the state that the legislature has chose to ignore. Our approach should be to aggress ably remind the legislature of that direction and it’s oath of office and demand that it respond. Respond by reviewing the enforceability and constitutionality of the legacy firearm restrictions now that Article I section 25 rules.
There are some that will say “It can’t be done”. ”They’ll never do it”. “It’ll never work unless we give them this”. “It will never happen here”. Those are all words of defeat. Defeat before the fight has even started. I don’t have time for those kinds of words.
In regards to the NRA’s involvement:
There is no question that the NRA has been instrumental in preserving our firearm rights. Without the NRA we would have gone by the way of England, Canada and Australia years ago. For that we owe it a debt of gratitude. My question is, “Who died and made it boss”. We welcome its assistance and influence but it is we Wisconsinites that should call the shots in regards to our state firearm rights.
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:30 pm |
|
Thank you Lammie and well said.
I propose that you synthesize the material that you reviewed and criticized into our OCDO-Wisconsin Plan so that we may see who salutes it and acknowledges your primacy, and who insists on leading us astray, as you illuminated.
|
ilbob
Activist Member
| Joined: | Tue May 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:54 pm |
|
The bottom line is this. You are not going to go from OC limited to the point of near uselessness to VT style carry in one jump. If it was going to happen, the courts would have abided by the WI state constitution and thrown out the anti-carry laws when they had their chance.
You can posture about it, but it ain't going to happen.
Get what you can now and work to improve what you have along the way.
I think chances are very good you can get some kind of CC law passed soon. Probably one that is better than what was passed by the legislature, vetoed, and came within an eyelash of having the veto overturned.
Politicians are not stupid. They know the legal landscape WRT the RTKBA has changed and they are going to have to deal with it. Better to do it on their own rather than having the SCOTUS do it.
Last edited on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:55 pm by ilbob
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 04:04 pm |
|
My eyes are tearing up... Thank you Lammie, you said it much better then I did.
|
J.Gleason
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 04:10 pm |
|
ilbob wrote: The bottom line is this. You are not going to go from OC limited to the point of near uselessness to VT style carry in one jump. If it was going to happen, the courts would have abided by the WI state constitution and thrown out the anti-carry laws when they had their chance.
You can posture about it, but it ain't going to happen.
Get what you can now and work to improve what you have along the way.
I think chances are very good you can get some kind of CC law passed soon. Probably one that is better than what was passed by the legislature, vetoed, and came within an eyelash of having the veto overturned.
Politicians are not stupid. They know the legal landscape WRT the RTKBA has changed and they are going to have to deal with it. Better to do it on their own rather than having the SCOTUS do it.
Defeat, Defeat, Defeat,
Compromise, Compromise, Compromise
Reminds me of that old TV show Fantasy Island, when Tattoo would yell, " Da Plane, Da Plane, Da Plane!"
It is this kind of thinking that has kept Illinois in the dark ages.
|
Nutczak
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 05:55 pm |
|
J.Gleason wrote: ilbob wrote: The bottom line is this. You are not going to go from OC limited to the point of near uselessness to VT style carry in one jump. If it was going to happen, the courts would have abided by the WI state constitution and thrown out the anti-carry laws when they had their chance.
You can posture about it, but it ain't going to happen.
Get what you can now and work to improve what you have along the way.
I think chances are very good you can get some kind of CC law passed soon. Probably one that is better than what was passed by the legislature, vetoed, and came within an eyelash of having the veto overturned.
Politicians are not stupid. They know the legal landscape WRT the RTKBA has changed and they are going to have to deal with it. Better to do it on their own rather than having the SCOTUS do it.
Defeat, Defeat, Defeat,
Compromise, Compromise, Compromise
Reminds me of that old TV show Fantasy Island, when Tattoo would yell, " Da Plane, Da Plane, Da Plane!"
It is this kind of thinking that has kept Illinois in the dark ages.
I can understand why IlBob has that attitude, and I find it sad.
The people of IL are used to being beat down by their legislators who are supposed to represent them.
You ever heard of "Stockholm Syndrome"? It is where people that are held hostage actually fall in love with, and defend their captors for their actions.
I think it is happening in Illinois.
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 06:12 pm |
|
And in Wisconsin.
|
AaronS
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:33 pm |
|
ilbob wrote: The bottom line is this. You are not going to go from OC limited to the point of near uselessness to VT style carry in one jump. If it was going to happen, the courts would have abided by the WI state constitution and thrown out the anti-carry laws when they had their chance.
You can posture about it, but it ain't going to happen.
Get what you can now and work to improve what you have along the way.
I think chances are very good you can get some kind of CC law passed soon. Probably one that is better than what was passed by the legislature, vetoed, and came within an eyelash of having the veto overturned.
Politicians are not stupid. They know the legal landscape WRT the RTKBA has changed and they are going to have to deal with it. Better to do it on their own rather than having the SCOTUS do it.
Nutczak wrote "I can understand why IlBob has that attitude, and I find it sad", I have to agree.
I also have an issue with the idea that we in Wisconsin should just "Get what you can now, and work to improve it later". I will fight for non-permit carry 100%. Why fight for any less? If we do not try, we will never have any chance at all.
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 08:00 pm |
|
I don't know who will admit to listening but SLimbaugh covered statute rescission today, saying that it just doesn't happen.
But our leadah-wannabes know better. SCROOM
"SLimbaugh"? That's the low-cal 'lite' version of the guy that used to feature caller abortions - before he could afford a dissipative lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
|
