firearm refusal

EPD

This is the firsr time for me to post on Boards
I got my refusal notice for my 357 revolver what am I suppose to do with it now
The gun shops don’t want to take it in, do I hand it into the Guards and if so what
will happen to it, will it be destroyed or will it be stored.
Has anyone got the answer?
EPD.:mad::mad::mad:

LB6

Sorry to hear your news. If you go to this web-site:-

http://www.nasrpc.ie/

You will see that they are looking for scans of all the refusals - I'm sure they should be able to advise you further.

rrpc

Surrender of a firearm and/or ammunition is covered by section 6 of the firearms act:

(d) if the person does not, within three months after the delivery of the
firearm and ammunition (if any) to the Superintendent, arrange for its or
their disposal in accordance with the provisions of this Act, inform the
Superintendent of the arrangements and carry out the arrangements, the
Superintendent may send to the person by post to his last known address a
notice informing him that unless arrangements of the kind aforesaid are
made, communicated to the Superintendent and carried out within one
month after the date on which the notice is sent, the firearm and
ammunition (if any) will be sold or destroyed,

So yes, they can sell or destroy it. Get it into a dealers as fast as possible. As soon as you are refused you have a firearm without a certificate.

foxshooter243

EPD wrote: »

This is the firsr time for me to post on Boards
I got my refusal notice for my 357 revolver what am I suppose to do with it now
The gun shops don’t want to take it in, do I hand it into the Guards and if so what
will happen to it, will it be destroyed or will it be stored.
Has anyone got the answer?
EPD.:mad::mad::mad:

I would be trying a northern dealer at this stage for a sale:)

Hill Man

If your original License was issued after 19th November 2008 you might have difficulty getting it reissued. If you had the license before 19th November you might have a problem with your target club. None of the clubs were authorised under the new legislation. The majority of clubs have upgraded their premises and will soon be authorised. I would suggest that you leave your revolver in a gun dealers, find out exactly why you have been refused and re apply. If you are a fit person to have a firearm, if you can establish a good reason for requiring the firearm and are a member of an authorised club you might get your revolver license.

Good Luck

rrpc

Hill Man wrote: »

If your original License was issued after 19th November 2008 you might have difficulty getting it reissued. If you had the license before 19th November you might have a problem with your target club. None of the clubs were authorised under the new legislation. The majority of clubs have upgraded their premises and will soon be authorised. I would suggest that you leave your revolver in a gun dealers, find out exactly why you have been refused and re apply. If you are a fit person to have a firearm, if you can establish a good reason for requiring the firearm and are a member of an authorised club you might get your revolver license.

Good Luck

He has already been refused, it's irrelevant at this stage as to whether he has a pre 19/11 licence or not (except in the case he wishes to appeal the refusal).

Clubs can and are being authorised. Ranges will not be certified until the Ranges SI is commenced (sometime in the first quarter of 2010). This does not stop a club being authorised and having a pulse ID for their members to use on their applications.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

He has already been refused, it's irrelevant at this stage as to whether he has a pre 19/11 licence or not (except in the case he wishes to appeal the refusal).

I don't think that's quite right rrpc - the Misc.Provisions Act says:

3D.—(1) As and from the date of commencement of this section, no application for a firearm certificate in respect of a short firearm shall be considered by an issuing person other than for—
...
(c) a short firearm for which the applicant for the firearm certificate held a firearm certificate on or before 19 November 2008.

By my reading of that, if Person A had a certificate for Pistol B before Nov19 2008, and subsequently was refused that cert, put the pistol in storage for a decade and then came back and wanted to re-apply, there's nothing in there that says they couldn't.

It'd only be if it was anyone other than Person A was applying to licence anything other than Pistol B, that that section would prohibit it.

happyjack

EPD wrote: »

This is the firsr time for me to post on Boards
I got my refusal notice for my 357 revolver what am I suppose to do with it now
The gun shops don’t want to take it in, do I hand it into the Guards and if so what
will happen to it, will it be destroyed or will it be stored.
Has anyone got the answer?
EPD.:mad::mad::mad:

I got two refusals also. i'm appealing through my local district court. Might I ask why you bought the revolver, what did you use it for?

The reason I ask is that why you needed it would reflect on any chance of appealing his refusal.

Best of luck.

HJ

chem

Even our locals seen this comming:rolleyes:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/uk-ireland/justice-minister-ahern-to-outlaw-all-handguns-14100409.html

EPD

happyjack wrote: »

I got two refusals also. i'm appealing through my local district court. Might I ask why you bought the revolver, what did you use it for?

The reason I ask is that why you needed it would reflect on any chance of appealing his refusal.

Best of luck.

HJ

Hi Happy jack.
First of i would like to thank everyone who has replied to my post so fast.
In answer to your question as to why i bought the revolver and what i used it for, I shoot hand guns when i was a kid back in the 70s before they were taken in by O Mally,and there were released a few years back i jumped at the chance at getting back in to the sport.Personally i prefer revolvers to semi-auto and i found the 357 was a very good target gun
I have used the 357 in many competitions witch ive either won or have placed,I was told that the 357 firearm is Military Style Firearm and is not designed for the purposes witch i have stated,but they had no problem
in granting me my cert for my p22.I haven't been able to get it into a gun shop for storage and i don't like the idea of handing it in to the guards for destruction,and maybe some time down the road its all changed and my revolver is been used to make tin-cans im sure im not the only guy in this situation.
Regards
EPD.

Bananaman

Contact your club - see what they have to say on the matter

Contact NASRPC - they are the NGB for centrefire Pistol Shooting - either directly or through your club - avail of their advice.

Do not be rushed into a decision until you are clear as to what your options ARE - rather than what you have heard.

B'Man

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

I don't think that's quite right rrpc - the Misc.Provisions Act says:

I should have been more specific . For the purposes of what he does now, it's irrelevant if it's a pre or post 19/11 cert. There are two choices: hand it up and let it be destroyed in the fullness of time or put it in storage.

By my reading of that, if Person A had a certificate for Pistol B before Nov19 2008, and subsequently was refused that cert, put the pistol in storage for a decade and then came back and wanted to re-apply, there's nothing in there that says they couldn't.

That's quite possible and why I would advise storage rather than handing up.

Rovi

Are the gun dealers you've been trying to put the gun into storage with, 'Restricted' gun dealers?
Ordinary gun dealers can't take in or otherwise handle Restricted firearms such as yours.

Bear in mind too, that gun dealers are very much down in the doldrums at the moment, what with the changes in legislation practically stopping the trade in firearms for a good part of the year and a huge upsurge in people looking to 'dispose' of firearms they're unwilling to licence under the new regime, to say noting of the general economic downturn.
Gun dealerships aren't charities, and have ongoing costs to cover no matter what is or isn't selling, so at least offer to pay a fee of some sort for the storage of your firearm; that might ease the problem of getting someone to take it in.

Grizzly 45

Charities they mightnt be...But certainly in some cases Robbing Besterds might apply:mad:50 Euros per month for storage is way out.Compared to 50 Euros per YEAR!!!! in Germany,France,the UK and NI.600 Euros per year is almost the equivlent of an eight gun 3 year liscense in the ROI.That sort of cash would get you NI club membership,travel, accomadation and proably a weekend a month shooting in NI.
Or almost a weeks shooting of pistols,accomadation,nosh and better weather in Spain..For TWO!!!And they are surprised then that busisness is bad???It's bad enough [being treated badly] by your own Govt.But when your own are profiteering from it...:mad::mad:

Rovi

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Charities they mightnt be...But certainly in some cases Robbing Besterds might apply:mad:50 Euros per month for storage is way out.

:eek:
That's outrageous!

Are there really dealers out there looking for that sort of money to store a firearm?
(DON'T NAME ANYONE!)

With the current carry on over pistol licences, you'd think it'd be worth a dealer's while to offer storage at a reasonable rate while the court cases get sorted out.

Grizzly 45

Rovi wrote: »

:eek:
That's outrageous!

Are there really dealers out there looking for that sort of money to store a firearm?
(DON'T NAME ANYONE!)

With the current carry on over pistol licences, you'd think it'd be worth a dealer's while to offer storage at a reasonable rate while the court cases get sorted out.

Gospel Truth.I could name THREE dealers[sofar] in the Mid West who are literally profiteering from this.And provide the written proof from one unfortunate enough to have to pay this to one of them!!:mad:

Also,one other point I might as well raise here.Our clubs and ranges.We fork out enough dosh per annum to shoot there.WHEN we have firearms to do so!As we cant shoot on them now since we are in limbo with the run out extensions,which technically makes us unliscensed.Wouldnt it be a nice gesture of the clubs to say.OK you cant shoot at the moment,but until you are legally sorted out we will freeze your membership dues,until you are cleared up legally??That would be a nice gesture too.:(

knockon

I handed my 2 Sig's into a Dealer in Mallow (Mr. P.H.) this morning. €2.50 a week for each pistol which I think is a fair price.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

That would be a nice gesture too.:(

It would be... though the question does come up as to who pays the thousand euro for the Club Authorisation, the upcoming thousand euro for the Range Licence and the thousands more needed on some ranges to bring them up to the Range SI standards, and the few hundred euro you might need in some clubs to bring in attendance tracking systems if they go down that route like Courtlough, Fermoy and Midlands did.

Not to mention ongoing costs like heating and electricity bills and the like.

Not saying that some club fees aren't a bit OTT, but there are real costs for clubs and there's been more than a few new outlays demanded of some of late...

Grizzly 45

Sparks,the clubs already HAVE our money..Annual membership...??? Already paid in advance for somthing we cant use.So the costs arguement wont wash.The money is already in the clubs pocket.All I am saying is;if I cant use the facilities thru no fault of my own,should a club keep charging members or using their monies as if they were there using the facilities.It's not out of choice that we are not using the facilities,we cant by law!!It cant be that much of a problem to freeze somones paid membership,until they appear again with the right documentation to legally allow them to shoot??

Grizzly 45

knockon wrote: »

I handed my 2 Sig's into a Dealer in Mallow (Mr. P.H.) this morning. €2.50 a week for each pistol which I think is a fair price.

260 euros per annum????? Better than most around ,but INMHO it should be a flat fee of 80 euros per year across the boards.Anyone charging over that is a profiteer!!!:(

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It cant be that much of a problem to freeze somones paid membership,until they appear again with the right documentation to legally allow them to shoot??

You'd think. Then you'd check the Clubs SI and note that they are legally required to charge an annual fee. And if they're getting work done to the range to pass the Range Licence inspections, and having to pay for the Club Authorisation, well, I could see how some clubs could run into problems. I'm not saying there aren't clubs out there who're taking the mickey with this, just that you shouldn't tar every club with the same brush because the law's happily dumping on them as well as the "ordinary shooters" (and I put that in quotes, because we don't have clubs run by "special shooters", just shooters who didn't step out of the way fast enough last time someone looked for volunteers).

Grizzly 45

Sparks,you are not reading me here...I'm not saying the clubs cant or shouldnt charge or whatever or not do any work.They can do this as they already have the money to do so from the annual membership fees.

What I am saying is; Simply say.OK Grizz,until your situation is cleared up on wether you have a handgun/rifle/shotgun liscense or not.We will suspend your membership on this date,until you are all nice and legal again,and come back with the paperwork.You used up four months of your membership this year,and we will CREDIT you the eight you have paid for when you come back...
Not too much a problem I wouldnt think..

Sparks

Okay, with you now Grizzly. I thought you meant that they'd let you continue to come down, use club rifles and so forth, but not charge you membership fees (which would be daft). Mind you, I don't know if the Clubs SI would let them do that - they might have to say "you have 4 months credit, but you're not a member of the club again until you get your licence".

Grizzly 45

That would be fine too Sparks.Anything just to show that there isnt a just for profit attitude out there from those who should be with us,not making coinage on misery.

happyjack

Theres an appeal to the Supreme court coming up in January, about a month away and if the NARGC win the case we all get our pistols back, so hang on in there. Until then I'd advice appealing through your district court his refusal, otherwise after 30 days your out in the cold, ask for a long date till after the new case law comes in. Fair play to you for entering comps and using the gun, I was refused a renewal on my Colt Python and CZ 85b,
Python is a real classic, really liked using that gun in WA1500ppc, off a bench at 25 yards I could get 5 rounds into an inch using wad-cutters, and the guns 28 years old, belonged to a RUC detective for years as his carry home target gun. I like revolvers myself, I offered to have one chamber blocked up in order to get my renewal but he still refused. I wish you luck, it must be tuff thinking of losing your pistol shooting a second time round.

All the best,

HJ:)

Sparks

happyjack wrote: »

Theres an appeal to the Supreme court coming up in January, about a month away and if the NARGC win the case we all get our pistols back

Er, what case? The NASRPC case in cork can't go direct from District to Supreme courts, the NARGC case that led to the Charleton judgement could be appealed to the Supreme court but it wouldn't do any good (winning a case taken under the law that was there prior to the 2006 CJA is not going to affect a case taken today, two Firearms Acts later), and we've heard nothing about a constitutional challange to the Misc.Bill at all.

Until then I'd advice appealing through your district court his refusal, otherwise after 30 days your out in the cold

He's really not if his licence predates Nov 19 2008; and given the economic times, he may not be able to go through an appeals process right now. But so long as the pistol goes into safe storage, he may be able to get it licenced again, even after being refused now.

raptorman

About a reason to own a firearm of a certain type, shouldn't it be enough to say, "because I like it"
I'd love to have a Colt Python for no other reason than the look and handling of it and to own a premium revolver.

Sparks

raptorman wrote: »

About a reason to own a firearm of a certain type, shouldn't it be enough to say, "because I like it"

Short answer, No.
Look, you might be a sane enough person, who'd only use the thing in a safe way in a safe place and harm noone - but do you really want anyone to get one just because they like it?

I'm all for the minimal amount of regulation, but there needs to be some (even if "some" means somewhere around 2% of what we have now).

It wasn't me!

raptorman wrote: »

About a reason to own a firearm of a certain type, shouldn't it be enough to say, "because I like it"
I'd love to have a Colt Python for no other reason than the look and handling of it and to own a premium revolver.

That's one point of view alright. Doesn't dovetail well with our firearms laws, however. Basically you're looking to have a right to have guns for no reason other than that you want guns, and I couldn't say I'd be particularly in favour of that. Here, you apply to have a particular gun for a particular purpose. If you want a large calibre revolver, then you should be involved in sports which use them. The current laws mean however that you will not get it, one way or another.

raptorman

I think any sane individual should be allowed own whatever type of firearm they wish.
I also think one should have a psychologists exam and pass a firearms course of some kind. I certain level of IQ wouldnt go astray either.

raptorman

It wasn't me! wrote: »

That's one point of view alright. Doesn't dovetail well with our firearms laws, however. Basically you're looking to have a right to have guns for no reason other than that you want guns, and I couldn't say I'd be particularly in favour of that. Here, you apply to have a particular gun for a particular purpose. If you want a large calibre revolver, then you should be involved in sports which use them. The current laws mean however that you will not get it, one way or another.

I started of with a .22 CZ and a few tin cans. Purely for the fun of it. Surely someone can own a handgun because they like shooting it? Doesnt seem unreasonable to me.

raptorman

Some people like cars others clocks, watches, horses etc. Why do guns get the bad brush.
I've said it before on here, some people have an in built fear of guns for some reason. It's like its instinctive.

Bananaman

Justice Charletons original decision to uphold a refusal for a firearms license was based on the fact that the applicant would not be able to keep it safe as he travelled the highways and byeways of Ireland (across the badlands) and that the public or Ireland would feel threatened if the license were to be issued (I believe - don't have it to hand - but I heard Dermo quote it often enough :-) )

Surely, a supreme court challenge to that decision, if won, would outline that
a) The People of Ireland would not feel threatened if the license were issued (and the legislative requirements met)
b) that it would be possible to travel to competitions with said licensed firearm without fear of roving hordes of bandits out in the badlands.

In essence copperfastening what we have said all along, that if a person is of suitable character to seek a license and implements the legislative requirements to 'hold' said firearm, that the 'public safety' should not be a valid reason to refuse. They will, of course, have to prove that they are using it for the reasons stated for requiring it in order to keep it.

Mr. Aherns also used this decision as one of the primary reasons for introducing the draconian legislation we now have.

So I would not discount the case or the value of a positive outcome from it.

People need to be, and seen to be, using their firearms for the reasons we argue are valid to have them - namely regular target practice and/or competition - people seeking to have it simply because they want it only skew the figure and provide too many indefensible positions which makes it difficult to argue for the defensible ones.

B'Man

raptorman

Oh I agree, we have to play with the hand of cards we're dealt, I was just stating my personel opinion.
On the other side though, I think we should have to prove to be of sound mind and charecter to own a gun and pass a competency test.

Sparks

raptorman wrote: »

I think any sane individual should be allowed own whatever type of firearm they wish.
I also think one should have a psychologists exam and pass a firearms course of some kind.

Nice idea, let down by the twin details that (a) a psychologists exam doesn't exist and (b) a firearms course that covers all firearms doesn't exist...

I certain level of IQ wouldnt go astray either.

Oh believe me, you don't want to go there

Sparks

raptorman wrote: »

I started of with a .22 CZ and a few tin cans. Purely for the fun of it. Surely someone can own a handgun because they like shooting it? Doesnt seem unreasonable to me.

Because they like shooting it? Sure. Because they want to own it? Nope.
There's a difference and it only appears to be a subtle nuance. It's actually a Great Big Screaming Thing.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Justice Charletons original decision to uphold a refusal for a firearms license was based on the fact that the applicant would not be able to keep it safe as he travelled the highways and byeways of Ireland (across the badlands) and that the public or Ireland would feel threatened if the license were to be issued (I believe - don't have it to hand - but I heard Dermo quote it often enough :-) )

I think one of us is confusing a more recent District Court judgement in Donegal with Charleton's High Court judgement?

Surely, a supreme court challenge to that decision, if won, would outline that
a) The People of Ireland would not feel threatened if the license were issued (and the legislative requirements met)
b) that it would be possible to travel to competitions with said licensed firearm without fear of roving hordes of bandits out in the badlands.

Depends on the grounds for appeal really.
But frankly, while Charleton's decision is odious and should be consigned to the shredder (and so an SC appeal is a good idea), the outcome won't come to bear on the current DC appeals because the Charleton case was heard in the context of the law pre-2006; we're two Firearms Acts along now, it wouldn't have any real application in our current context.

'public safety' should not be a valid reason to refuse.

Except that there's no way the SC could ever say that because 'public safety' is the foundation stone for all the basic prerequisites for a firearms licence. So if they ruled that 'public safety' wasn't a valid reason, they'd be ruling that the Firearms Acts weren't necessary.

Mr. Aherns also used this decision as one of the primary reasons for introducing the draconian legislation we now have.

And you think that the case being overturned would lead to the Misc.Bill being struck down? Seriously? You think he'd do something that was that damaging to his political career when the dogs on the street can smell the next election coming up?

I think maybe you're making the mistake of assuming that someone who's ignored logic up to this point would suddenly start using it now...

People need to be, and seen to be, using their firearms for the reasons we argue are valid to have them - namely regular target practice and/or competition

Absolutely, completely agree with you on that one. We've had way too much legislation and far too little competition in the last few years

rrpc

McCarron v Kearney was an unusual case in that the applicant believed that once he had applied for a licence and was not ineligible he should get it.

He argues in this judicial review application that once he has decided in good faith to buy a weapon that it must be licensed by the respondent provided he is not a person who is ineligible under the Act to hold a firearm and provided he has been trained to safely use it.

The refusal centred on 'Good reason' and in particular the applicant not having provided sufficient good reason other than effectively being 'entitled'

[ I ] outlined to him that I was not satisfied that he had a good reason for acquiring a .40 Gloc pistol in respect of which the certificate was applied for, s. 4(a) of the Firearms Act, 1925, as amended refers. My reason for this is that I do not believe that the firearm for which the application refers is a suitable weapon for target practice.”

Nowhere in the judgment does it specify what good reason the applicant had provided other than 'target practice'. There may have been submissions in this regard but they are not referred to. It does go on to say:

The applicant says that he is aggrieved by the refusal to allow him to have this high calibre pistol because so many of his shooting friends already have them

The kernel of the judgment was this:

I hold that under the legislation there is a duty on an applicant for a firearm certificate to satisfy a superintendent that he or she has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for. The specific wording under the Act makes it clear that considerations of public safety, the good order of the community and the proliferation of weapons within a particular district, and within the community generally, are all matters which the superintendent of An Garda Síochána can and should take into account

There are some errors in the judgment, one paragraph mentions telescopic sights being considered firearms (the mistake many people here have made with the new form) :eek:, but it was not the best of cases in the first place and I'm not exactly sure where the grounds are for an appeal other than on a point of law such as the use of the uncommenced sections of the 2006 act as grounds.

As to how it may affect future DC appeal, I wouldn't be betting my house. Many of the refusals given lately are far better cases than McCarron v Kearney.

cooperjeff9

Sparks wrote: »

So if they ruled that 'public safety' wasn't a valid reason, they'd be ruling that the Firearms Acts weren't necessary./quote]

The penny finally drops,hooray. No doubt you will now explain WHY the Firearms Acts are necessary:(

Sparks

cooperjeff9 wrote: »

The penny finally drops,hooray. No doubt you will now explain WHY the Firearms Acts are necessary:(

Because there are people in this country whom none of us would trust with anything as dangerous as the remote control for the television, let alone a firearm.

Look, you want a firearm to do something sane with it? And you're going to do it safely? Grand, away you go. And I don't particularly care what kind of firearm it is, so long as you're being safe (it's pretty hard to be safe when shooting rats in a barn with a .50 cal, so stupid suggestions like that are out from the start). But the notion that anyone could just go out and buy any kind of firearm like it was a box of cornflakes is just monumentally stupid. There have to be some controls. We're just not mature enough as a population to do without those controls. We all point to the swiss as examples of how firearms aren't inherently bad things, but we fail to point to the Irish as examples of stupid immature behaviour when we do so; hence the need for some controls.

Mind you, the controls we have are an example of how the Irish Government tends to be an aggregation of little hitlers worried about keeping their ministerial merc's, but that's not an argument to throw the entire Firearms Act idea out as being daft.

Saddlebags

"McCarron v Kearney was an unusual case in that the applicant believed that once he had applied for a licence and was not ineligible he should get it."

This is indeed the case that's before the Supreme Ct in January (deferred from 30/11/09).

My belief is that the only positive affect of this case if won is that those people who had High Ct JR's before 19/11/08 but had not yet got to hearing stage may still be dealt with.
If McCarron wins, then pre existing challanges may go ahead in the High Ct and may then be referred back to the Gardai for review of their original refusals. A lot of if's and may's. A last shot in the dark for a small number of people.

rrpc

cooperjeff9 wrote: »

The penny finally drops,hooray. No doubt you will now explain WHY the Firearms Acts are necessary:(

I think that Judge Charleton put it quite well:

The purpose of licensing is to have control over firearms. It would not be right for this Court to construe the Act in such a way that the controls put in place by the legislature are abdicated in favour of a test of choice as if a firearm is not a lethal weapon and is something other than a most dangerous article. That is what the legislation is there to control. It is not within the legislative scheme to issue a firearm certificates to any individual simply having a genuine desire to hold a particular weapon for sport, no matter what its calibre, the velocity of its projectile or its especial killing potential. Nor do I regard it as right in law, as has been submitted on behalf of the applicant, that a person must first establish a poor safety record in using firearms before a refusal can be made under s. 4. I also reject the proposition that a superintendent is only entitled to refuse a certificate for a gun if an owner has already been shown to be negligent in securing or conveying it.

As Sparks said they're not packets of cornflakes. The problem from our point of view is to differentiate the cornflake eaters from the genuine shooters and have a system that is able to distinguish one from the other.

happyjack

As Sparks said they're not packets of cornflakes. The problem from our point of view is to differentiate the cornflake eaters from the genuine shooters and have a system that is able to distinguish one from the other.

Well said, I'd suggest that if a person wanted a target firearm of some sort, say a centerfire pistol that they should have to join a club and attend 6 shoots in the first year, after that year the club secretary would decide if they felt that person was really interested in target shooting or just looking to use the system to gain a firearms license. When other target shooter got to rub shoulders with the applicant they could see if the person was safe, showed to comps, and really was interested in target shooting. I reckon the gun jewellery brigde would'nt bother going to that much trouble to get a license. It's doing our cause a lot of harm that a lot of restricted firearms owners have no interest in using their guns on approved ranges, if the figures where smaller, say only those truly interested in target shooting maybe the Gardai would'nt have been so scared of issueing licenses. thats my opinion anyway.

HJ:)