Convicted felons owning guns
- Thread starter SalchaketJoe
- Start date
- Status
You are mistaken, or maybe you don't recall the case in question. This involved a situation where a permit was denied due to the "penalty of greater than 1 year" clause in the state in which he resides. So that's an easy fix - retain a lawyer and expunge the record. This route eliminates much of the apologetics we're seeing in this discussion.
Anyway, the state in which I live has a review board available for those who seek redress and if other states don't that's not my problem. That's the problem for those state residents. How many are we talking here? Seems like we're pretty long on appeals to emotion and very short on actual stats. Restoration of rights is a big issue these days not because of 2nd Amendment concerns but because of loss of voting rights. I suggest that activists with an interest in relaxing firearm ownership restrictions should make common cause with the voting rights people.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Sorry, that's simply not correct.
An example is California. They have a very long list of misdemeanors that they will not allow to be removed.
It's just not as easy as you think.
Here's a California law firm's website explaining some of it.
http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/topic-summaries/530-summary-restoration-of-firearm-rights.html
Sure am glad I'm not a man with felony record from 30 years ago thats been working and providing for a family and have to ponder the decision of getting a firearm to protect my familly and risk loosing freedom again.
Times are changing qwick in this economy. Lawlessness and crime is off the chain and getting worse literally by the day. Can you imagine being without your firearm now?These thugs around here and in Atlanta where I work will kill you for the watch you are wearing.
Its not safe for non of us nowadays especially if you don't have gun rights...
Times are changing qwick in this economy. Lawlessness and crime is off the chain and getting worse literally by the day. Can you imagine being without your firearm now?These thugs around here and in Atlanta where I work will kill you for the watch you are wearing.
Its not safe for non of us nowadays especially if you don't have gun rights...
Sorry about California, "you guys always get screwed", and most of us make valid points, but this is one of those threads that will go on forever. There is no way the Govt is going to suddenly promote more people having guns. So giving guns to felons is never going to happen. There isn't the money to start a new department to oversee all past and present felons to decide who gets theirs back, think about how much that would cost, keeping track of it would be crazy Everyone would need to be checked and monitored,and the legal implications would be mind numbing. It would take a different political and economic climate to even think about such a thing. You would have past victims suing people all over the place,including the govt, and whoever was responsible for giving back the gun rights, and one or two repeat offenders and the whole thing would get scrapped again, so this is just an exercise in futility. And who gets to decide how many arrests are too many, if someone is on parole? do they get one also. How about probation, house arrest? It will never happen. It would only cause more problems than there already are.
Did you read the site that you linked to? The guy lays out multiple routes to success, including having a felony reduced to a misdemeanor. Like I said, if you're in the situation of our California speedster, you get an attorney and you get to work. When I said "easy fix" that meant relative to appeal to a clemency board. There are a number of people here yammering about "rights gone forever!" and those are clumsy polemics.
And some people here seem to believe that criminals have some kind of secret clubhouse the rest of us don't know about. Oh really? So if you're a law-abiding citizen, you have to shop at a gun store, but if you're a convicted criminal, you get a special membership card to Felonious Freddie's House of Black Market Firearms? To hear some people talk about it, once you're on parole, you are swimming in a world of $10 Glocks. Oh really? I don't think so.
But if that is indeed the case, as some here avow, then the punk convicted felon who is in fear of his life and desperately needs a firearm can just run out to the warehouse of blackmarket blunderbusses and load up with all the weapons he wants. You guys can't have it both ways. For the vast majority of Americans who go to work and pay their taxes, avoiding felony convictions doesn't seem to be all that difficult.
HL Mencken, in his epic Chrestomathy, has a number of essays on crime and punishment, and he noted back in the 40s that the prisons were filled with the unlucky. He made the case that most of us have done something or other at some point that could have landed any of us in the hoosgow. But you know what? I've found that in most cases DAs are pretty good about ignoring the obvious one-offs and they tend to prosecute people who show signs of being chronic, repeat offenders.
Indeed, we all know about the prominent exceptions to this rule because those cases tend to attract a lot of attention due to their rarity. Getting caught in the justice system is a hassle and it's always expensive, and those who've lost their rights are free to petition for their restoration. If that is an agrievement, it's a small one.
Arkansas Paul
Member
Sorry this is a little late. It's been a while since I've been able to log on. Mid-terms and all that.
But you're right Tex. It is about "Clear and present danger".
What baffles my mind is that you don't feel that giving criminals guns is a "clear and present danger" to those around them. I don't look at taking someone's right to bear arms away as a punishment. I'm for it for the safety of the people around them. And I know that it doesn't take all of the danger away. I know that criminals can get guns illegally. If stripping every criminal in the world of their rights saves one innocent life, then do it. They shouldn't have done the crime.
But you're right Tex. It is about "Clear and present danger".
What baffles my mind is that you don't feel that giving criminals guns is a "clear and present danger" to those around them. I don't look at taking someone's right to bear arms away as a punishment. I'm for it for the safety of the people around them. And I know that it doesn't take all of the danger away. I know that criminals can get guns illegally. If stripping every criminal in the world of their rights saves one innocent life, then do it. They shouldn't have done the crime.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Back to that. That's the problem, the definition of "criminal" is so expansive that nearly anything can fit into it.
Would you be afraid for President Andrew Johnson to own a firearm? Under today's laws he would be a registered sex offender in most states for having a 16 year old girlfriend while he was 18. They were later married.
He was in need of being disarmed for the safety of those around him? Really?
This is the problem. The blanket definition "criminal" is simply too broad to use as a litmus test of whether someone should own a firearm or whether or not that person is dangerous to society.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
shockwave said:
Doesn't really matter what you think, what matters is reality.
80% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners then resold illegally.
18% of guns used in crimes were purchased legally and either used by the purchaser or were a straw purchase.
2% of guns used in crimes were purchased at a gun show.
So you may not believe there is a Freddie's House of Illegal Guns, but that doesn't change the fact that it's out there. If it wasn't, 80% of guns used in crimes wouldn't COME from there.
floridaboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 334
I'm sure that the ages of folks here vary widely. Me, I'm 52. If you do the math, I grew up in the 70's. Probably many of you did too. Did you smoke pot in high school? Have sex with your girlfriend? Do you even remember some of the things you might have done in college? My guess is that a large percentage of people here have committed crimes in our younger days that are considered felonies today. Should you be denied your rights, or is it o.k because YOU didn't get caught?
Guns are not hard to find without going to a gunstore. I had a parking lot attendant several years ago trying to sell me a NIB Glock for about half of retail. In his words I didn't have to worry about it being reported stolen because it came straight out of the manufacturers warehouse. I declined & went on about my business.
If someone wants a gun they will find a way to get it. This law just means that the guy that has a felony conviction but gets a shotgun or pistol to protect his family can go to prison. The ones that are serious about committing crimes it will not stop.
The biggest difference between those of us convicted of felonies & those of us not is just a matter of who got caught.
If someone wants a gun they will find a way to get it. This law just means that the guy that has a felony conviction but gets a shotgun or pistol to protect his family can go to prison. The ones that are serious about committing crimes it will not stop.
The biggest difference between those of us convicted of felonies & those of us not is just a matter of who got caught.
That's only a problem if your activist mentality is such that you want all criminals to have firearms. At present, this is a states' rights matter, with each state deciding at what level of criminality warrants revocation of firearm ownership rights. Some determine this at the felony level, others raise certain misdemeanors to that level.
This leads to two separate paths. It will be easier for the misdemeanor criminal to regain firearm ownership than the felon. So as you untwine these matters, we can achieve a granularity of analysis to decide what is reasonable or not, but the silly "you can lose all rights for jaywallking!" or whatever arguments are not worth consideration. Ultimately, this is a loser issue because Brady people will come here and see advocacy for felons to obtain firearms and they'll have a field day with that. This matter is worth dropping because it fails the reasonable test.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Huh? That's not even remotely close to right. It's Federal law.
Any crime, felony or misdemeanor, with a potential MAXIMUM sentence of 366 days or longer makes a prohibited person. 18 USC 922(g)
I easily get what your sayin...its so blatantly obvious ...why can't common sense win here? Why is it all such a mess? Why can't a man ever be free again even after they serve their time even years after the fact?
Its because of only one reason ; a politician worried about his next election. A series of over reaching knee jerk reactions to the evening news. People just eat it up.
So there is a “federal law” that automatically denies felons their RKBA for life unless they can get their rights restored. There are approximately 12 to 13 million felons - so the already overburdened legal system will have no problem dealing with a tenth that of that number. And we know the systems are objective and fair and equitable - why in some states all you have to do is get the governor to go along with a pardon - oops they aren't doing that this year. I know lets just reform the process in almost all fifty states and then spend millions and millions of dollars in tax money to set up and fully fund the systems so that felons can avail themselves of the process. Just like the federal process for restoration of the RKBA that they haven't funded for years.
Or maybe instead we could just get rid of a stupid federal law that is of no demonstrable benefit. It was 1968 - remember part of that gun control package that gun control advocates pushed and that now evidently some gun owners support.
"There are a number of people here yammering about "rights gone forever!" and those are clumsy polemics."
No, for many people in many states it is a fact. Tell me how many of the 12 or 13 million people who have been convicted of felonies will ever get their rights back in their lifetime? I'll give you a clue - for the vast majority - never - even those that do right.
"And some people here seem to believe that criminals have some kind of secret clubhouse the rest of us don't know about. Oh really? So if you're a law-abiding citizen, you have to shop at a gun store, but if you're a convicted criminal, you get a special membership card to Felonious Freddie's House of Black Market Firearms? To hear some people talk about it, once you're on parole, you are swimming in a world of $10 Glocks. Oh really? I don't think so."
Uh yes, some of us who live in the real world are aware of the underground economy in drugs and weapons. Where can you legally buy Heroin - think its hard to get - not hardly. As far as the cost - not much different than the retail world - usually cost less than it would wholesale for a new gun. ( I worked with felons for twenty plus years and have an FFL and have a brother who has been a police officer for 17 years, so I do know).
"But if that is indeed the case, as some here avow, then the punk convicted felon who is in fear of his life and desperately needs a firearm can just run out to the warehouse of blackmarket blunderbusses and load up with all the weapons he wants. You guys can't have it both ways."
Oh, here we go - the "punk felon" no stereotype there. Sure a felon who was trying to turn his life around could go back and illegally get a gun - but ya see they don't want to break the law, that kind of defeats the purpose of those seriously trying to turn their lives around, you know what supposedly we all want to see - becoming a productive and law-abiding citizen. They would like to be able to legally defend their life and their families - your solution of well just go break the law doesn't seem like a very useful solution.
“For the vast majority of Americans who go to work and pay their taxes, avoiding felony convictions doesn't seem to be all that difficult."
So lets just write off the 12 to 13 million that did have a problem at some time in their lives - they’re all just second class trash?
"HL Mencken, in his epic Chrestomathy, has a number of essays on crime and punishment, and he noted back in the 40s that the prisons were filled with the unlucky. He made the case that most of us have done something or other at some point that could have landed any of us in the hoosgow. But you know what? I've found that in most cases DAs are pretty good about ignoring the obvious one-offs and they tend to prosecute people who show signs of being chronic, repeat offenders."
Depends a lot on where you live - live in a smaller city or town and prosecutors are much less forgiving. Live in a big city and you can get away with a lot before they bust your chops - cause they let the small fry go and go after the bigger fish. But so what - that has nothing to do with whether or not a felon should automatically lose their RKBA.
" Indeed, we all know about the prominent exceptions to this rule because those cases tend to attract a lot of attention due to their rarity. Getting caught in the justice system is a hassle and it's always expensive, and those who've lost their rights are free to petition for their restoration. If that is an agrievement, it's a small one."
Says you - but then I forgot its not your problem so you don't care - and its a minor inconvenience (so if you lost your RKBA it would just be a minor inconvenience to you) so it doesn't matter because even if the vast majority of felons who do the right thing will never get their rights back its no skin off your nose. Because after all it is more important to have an federal gun control law that doesn't have any real or measurable effect except to effectively deny people their rights for the rest of their lives. And which, by setting up the precedent and basis, gave birth to the Lautenberg amendment that does the same thing for a misdemeanor. You do you realize that the arguments you make in support of this law are the same that the Brady Campaign makes for the Lautenberg law?
I understand why Jefferson said that the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance since so many are willing to throw it away for the illusion of safety. Seems I also remember the definition of a free society was one that would rather a hundred guilty go free than one innocent man be wrongly punished and the definition of a totalitarian government was one in which it was preferable that a hundred innocent men be punished rather than one guilty man go free. Seems that automatically taking away a man or woman’s rights for the rest of their life after they have served their time is such a law - better all are denied and those "exceptions" well as you said too bad. The rubric of pursuing a restoration process is just that - often arbitrary - often unavailable - often impossible for some of limited means - and practically unavailable and not a reality for most given the numbers. The proof of that is the fact is given the current system and law - the vast majority of individuals convicted of felony will “never have their rights restored” even when they play by all the rules and become good citizens.
Sorry but that is wrong. And worrying about what gun banners might make of standing up for what is right is also wrong.
Or maybe instead we could just get rid of a stupid federal law that is of no demonstrable benefit. It was 1968 - remember part of that gun control package that gun control advocates pushed and that now evidently some gun owners support.
"There are a number of people here yammering about "rights gone forever!" and those are clumsy polemics."
No, for many people in many states it is a fact. Tell me how many of the 12 or 13 million people who have been convicted of felonies will ever get their rights back in their lifetime? I'll give you a clue - for the vast majority - never - even those that do right.
"And some people here seem to believe that criminals have some kind of secret clubhouse the rest of us don't know about. Oh really? So if you're a law-abiding citizen, you have to shop at a gun store, but if you're a convicted criminal, you get a special membership card to Felonious Freddie's House of Black Market Firearms? To hear some people talk about it, once you're on parole, you are swimming in a world of $10 Glocks. Oh really? I don't think so."
Uh yes, some of us who live in the real world are aware of the underground economy in drugs and weapons. Where can you legally buy Heroin - think its hard to get - not hardly. As far as the cost - not much different than the retail world - usually cost less than it would wholesale for a new gun. ( I worked with felons for twenty plus years and have an FFL and have a brother who has been a police officer for 17 years, so I do know).
"But if that is indeed the case, as some here avow, then the punk convicted felon who is in fear of his life and desperately needs a firearm can just run out to the warehouse of blackmarket blunderbusses and load up with all the weapons he wants. You guys can't have it both ways."
Oh, here we go - the "punk felon" no stereotype there. Sure a felon who was trying to turn his life around could go back and illegally get a gun - but ya see they don't want to break the law, that kind of defeats the purpose of those seriously trying to turn their lives around, you know what supposedly we all want to see - becoming a productive and law-abiding citizen. They would like to be able to legally defend their life and their families - your solution of well just go break the law doesn't seem like a very useful solution.
“For the vast majority of Americans who go to work and pay their taxes, avoiding felony convictions doesn't seem to be all that difficult."
So lets just write off the 12 to 13 million that did have a problem at some time in their lives - they’re all just second class trash?
"HL Mencken, in his epic Chrestomathy, has a number of essays on crime and punishment, and he noted back in the 40s that the prisons were filled with the unlucky. He made the case that most of us have done something or other at some point that could have landed any of us in the hoosgow. But you know what? I've found that in most cases DAs are pretty good about ignoring the obvious one-offs and they tend to prosecute people who show signs of being chronic, repeat offenders."
Depends a lot on where you live - live in a smaller city or town and prosecutors are much less forgiving. Live in a big city and you can get away with a lot before they bust your chops - cause they let the small fry go and go after the bigger fish. But so what - that has nothing to do with whether or not a felon should automatically lose their RKBA.
" Indeed, we all know about the prominent exceptions to this rule because those cases tend to attract a lot of attention due to their rarity. Getting caught in the justice system is a hassle and it's always expensive, and those who've lost their rights are free to petition for their restoration. If that is an agrievement, it's a small one."
Says you - but then I forgot its not your problem so you don't care - and its a minor inconvenience (so if you lost your RKBA it would just be a minor inconvenience to you) so it doesn't matter because even if the vast majority of felons who do the right thing will never get their rights back its no skin off your nose. Because after all it is more important to have an federal gun control law that doesn't have any real or measurable effect except to effectively deny people their rights for the rest of their lives. And which, by setting up the precedent and basis, gave birth to the Lautenberg amendment that does the same thing for a misdemeanor. You do you realize that the arguments you make in support of this law are the same that the Brady Campaign makes for the Lautenberg law?
I understand why Jefferson said that the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance since so many are willing to throw it away for the illusion of safety. Seems I also remember the definition of a free society was one that would rather a hundred guilty go free than one innocent man be wrongly punished and the definition of a totalitarian government was one in which it was preferable that a hundred innocent men be punished rather than one guilty man go free. Seems that automatically taking away a man or woman’s rights for the rest of their life after they have served their time is such a law - better all are denied and those "exceptions" well as you said too bad. The rubric of pursuing a restoration process is just that - often arbitrary - often unavailable - often impossible for some of limited means - and practically unavailable and not a reality for most given the numbers. The proof of that is the fact is given the current system and law - the vast majority of individuals convicted of felony will “never have their rights restored” even when they play by all the rules and become good citizens.
Sorry but that is wrong. And worrying about what gun banners might make of standing up for what is right is also wrong.
Last edited:
Officers'Wife
Member
There is no place in the law for common sense.
It's not automatic. It comes with conviction in accordance with due process. And the loss of gun rights has, for over 40 years, has been part of the price one pays for the conviction, in addition to serving time and all the other disabilities that come with a felony conviction. Other disabilities that come with a felony conviction will include things like not being able to get certain jobs or not being able to qualify to practice some professions. A lot of undesirable baggage comes with a felony conviction and always has -- just some more reasons not to mess up your life that way.mack said:
It can be tough to overcome the all the baggage that comes with a felony conviction. But it's a great truth of life that when someone messes up and breaches a trust or loses credibility, it's a lot harder for them to regain it. And I'm not convinced that's a bad thing.
You think some things are crimes that ought not be? You think some things are felonies that ought not be? Well talk to your friends, neighbors and political organizations; get a grass roots movement going. Do something. We live in a political world, and if you can get enough people to go along with you, things can change. But if you can't convince enough people to make a change, maybe you're missing something.
What do you propose to do with them? Give them jobs in banks or daycare centers? They will struggle. They will need to find ways to overcome the baggage that came with their transgressions. A few will succeed, and those that do will have earned their success.mack said:
Officers'Wife
Member
In that case, are felons convicted before 1968 not prohibited?
That's going to be up to a court if someone wants to ask that question. It would be an interesting argument: is the disability applied to prior convictions expost facto?Officers'Wife said:
Of course it doesn't matter what you or I might think, since that wouldn't affect anything in real life. Maybe some day someone will put the question to a court so we can have an idea of what the answer might be.
Arkansas Paul
Member
I'm not 100% close minded. Just about 90%. 
I do agree that catagories of violent and non-violent should be considered.
I do agree that catagories of violent and non-violent should be considered."It's not automatic. It comes with conviction in accordance with due process. And the loss of gun rights has, for over 40 years, has been part of the price one pays for the conviction, in addition to serving time and all the other disabilities that come with a felony conviction. Other disabilities that come with a felony conviction will include things like not being able to get certain jobs or not being able to qualify to practice some professions. A lot of undesirable baggage comes with a felony conviction and always has -- just some more reasons not to mess up your life that way."
Yes, so lets make it tougher for no practical reason? For the majority of the life of our republic there was no such law for almost two hundred years - how did we survive? The majority of disabilites that come with a felony conviction are of more recent vintage. It has been for the most part only in recent decades that we have decided to create a new class of basically permanent second class citizens. Yes, lets give felons fewer reasons and incentives to want to turn around their lives.
"You think some things are crimes that ought not be? You think some things are felonies that ought not be? Well talk to your friends, neighbors and political organizations; get a grass roots movement going. Do something. We live in a political world, and if you can get enough people to go along with you, things can change. But if you can't convince enough people to make a change, maybe you're missing something."
I don't have a problem with a term of punishment for a serious crime, in some cases life in prison or even the death penalty. Yes there definitely are some crimes that shouldn't be felonies (most people actually agree with that) which makes the application of the federal ban even more idiotic. But leaving that totally aside I find your assertion that because a majority doesn't hold to an opinion it is necessarily wrong to be totally repugnant and wrong headed. So a majority thought slavery was okay, a majority thought the Japanese should be rounded up and put in internment camps, and the majority thought "all felons" upon serving their time should be second class citizens. So if most people oppose freedom of speech or the RKBA then I must be wrong. As far as due process - no it is a blanket ban without respect to any individuals crime or potential threat - it is not a specific issue actively considered in a trial or in sentencing - juries and judges do not decide if it should apply or not - it is an automatic add on - an effective lifetime ban the merits of which and the application of which is not ejudicated in any specific case.
"What do you propose to do with them? Give them jobs in banks or daycare centers? They will struggle. They will need to find ways to overcome the baggage that came with their transgressions. A few will succeed, and those that do will have earned their success."
Please, how about allowing them once they have served the specific punishment for their crime as imposed by a judge and/or a jury of their peers to have rights again like all their fellow citizens. I am sure, for those that worry, they will still suffer discrimination for their past transgressions and I am sure they will still have to struggle for their success.
And still I see no evidence presented of any rational or measurable benefit from such a gun control measure. I hear no arguments in support of the federal law except the same empty arguments made for the Lautenberg amendment by the Brady Campaign. I hear no rational justification except well they broke the law so who gives a crap. When laws have no rational or just basis - they are bad laws. This is a bad law - saying that's the way its been for forty years or it's popular is a cop out - just like justifying long standing gun bans on the basis of their age or that they are popular is cop out.
Yes, so lets make it tougher for no practical reason? For the majority of the life of our republic there was no such law for almost two hundred years - how did we survive? The majority of disabilites that come with a felony conviction are of more recent vintage. It has been for the most part only in recent decades that we have decided to create a new class of basically permanent second class citizens. Yes, lets give felons fewer reasons and incentives to want to turn around their lives.
"You think some things are crimes that ought not be? You think some things are felonies that ought not be? Well talk to your friends, neighbors and political organizations; get a grass roots movement going. Do something. We live in a political world, and if you can get enough people to go along with you, things can change. But if you can't convince enough people to make a change, maybe you're missing something."
I don't have a problem with a term of punishment for a serious crime, in some cases life in prison or even the death penalty. Yes there definitely are some crimes that shouldn't be felonies (most people actually agree with that) which makes the application of the federal ban even more idiotic. But leaving that totally aside I find your assertion that because a majority doesn't hold to an opinion it is necessarily wrong to be totally repugnant and wrong headed. So a majority thought slavery was okay, a majority thought the Japanese should be rounded up and put in internment camps, and the majority thought "all felons" upon serving their time should be second class citizens. So if most people oppose freedom of speech or the RKBA then I must be wrong. As far as due process - no it is a blanket ban without respect to any individuals crime or potential threat - it is not a specific issue actively considered in a trial or in sentencing - juries and judges do not decide if it should apply or not - it is an automatic add on - an effective lifetime ban the merits of which and the application of which is not ejudicated in any specific case.
"What do you propose to do with them? Give them jobs in banks or daycare centers? They will struggle. They will need to find ways to overcome the baggage that came with their transgressions. A few will succeed, and those that do will have earned their success."
Please, how about allowing them once they have served the specific punishment for their crime as imposed by a judge and/or a jury of their peers to have rights again like all their fellow citizens. I am sure, for those that worry, they will still suffer discrimination for their past transgressions and I am sure they will still have to struggle for their success.
And still I see no evidence presented of any rational or measurable benefit from such a gun control measure. I hear no arguments in support of the federal law except the same empty arguments made for the Lautenberg amendment by the Brady Campaign. I hear no rational justification except well they broke the law so who gives a crap. When laws have no rational or just basis - they are bad laws. This is a bad law - saying that's the way its been for forty years or it's popular is a cop out - just like justifying long standing gun bans on the basis of their age or that they are popular is cop out.
You do not have enough knowledge to participate in this conversation. But thanks for playing.
No. It would be a major expense. Figure a few thousand at minimum. That's what happens when you break laws. The apologists here want there to be zero penalty for breaking laws. They are simply mistaken.
Let's look at DUI. A conviction there usually prohibits firearm ownership. The law in every state I know of says you can't CCW in a bar. The person busted for DUI can't obey the law regarding alcohol and vehicles. Obviously said individual can't be trusted with law regarding CCW and bars.
Run the argument for arson. Embezzlement, rape, murder, ID theft, etc.
Last edited:
- Status
