Jump to content


Photo

Benson vs Chicago


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
55 replies to this topic

#1 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 27 September 2010 - 09:47 AM

I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.
Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#2 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,659 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 27 September 2010 - 10:16 AM

I believe that to make a firearm inoperable you would have to do something to it so that when you press the trigger it does not go bang or even "click".
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#3 Nomad

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 10

Posted 27 September 2010 - 11:08 AM

I agree with Drylok. With a pulled magazine, many guns can still fire with a round in the chamber, so that definitely is not inoperable. It would also be too easy to simply insert the magazine.

To make a gun temporarily inoperable and comply with Crookago, you probably would have to either field strip it or install a lock that would prevent the trigger from functioning. In a pistol, you could rack the slide back and then put a cable lock through the action and magazine well, which should effectively make it temporarily inoperable.

I love these gun laws because no criminal will ever bother to render their gun temporarily inoperable.

To protect yourself from the armed and dangerous, you have to be armed and dangerous yourself.


#4 Beezil

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,264 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 08

Posted 27 September 2010 - 12:18 PM

what if the gun in question is locked in a safe?

is it "inoperable"? since it is "locked"

#5 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,229 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 27 September 2010 - 12:59 PM

what if the gun in question is locked in a safe?

is it "inoperable"? since it is "locked"


Yes, in a safe or locked cabinet meets the ordinance. You can have it locked and loaded in a safe as well, if that is how you roll.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#6 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 27 September 2010 - 01:50 PM

My home is set up in such a way that I need 2 weapons.

I suppose I would leave the operational pistol in my upstairs bedroom, and put a second pistol in my finished basement, with a combination cable lock. If I hear something while downstairs, I will be awake, watching TV or something, 99% of the time.

Not being half asleep should improve my chances of removing the cable in an expeditious fashion.
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#7 lieut89

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 27 September 2010 - 02:10 PM

My home is set up in such a way that I need 2 weapons.

I suppose I would leave the operational pistol in my upstairs bedroom, and put a second pistol in my finished basement, with a combination cable lock. If I hear something while downstairs, I will be awake, watching TV or something, 99% of the time.

Not being half asleep should improve my chances of removing the cable in an expeditious fashion.


You would still be caught up with breaking the Chicago law, as the gun that you left upstairs would be operational as would the one that you made operational in the time of need.

A simply ridiculous requirement.

#8 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,229 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 27 September 2010 - 02:11 PM


My home is set up in such a way that I need 2 weapons.

I suppose I would leave the operational pistol in my upstairs bedroom, and put a second pistol in my finished basement, with a combination cable lock. If I hear something while downstairs, I will be awake, watching TV or something, 99% of the time.

Not being half asleep should improve my chances of removing the cable in an expeditious fashion.


You would still be caught up with breaking the Chicago law, as the gun that you left upstairs would be operational as would the one that you made operational in the time of need.

A simply ridiculous requirement.


Techically, but I doubt you'd see any charges brought. I wonder if Hale DeMar law would kick in...

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#9 lieut89

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 27 September 2010 - 02:45 PM



My home is set up in such a way that I need 2 weapons.

I suppose I would leave the operational pistol in my upstairs bedroom, and put a second pistol in my finished basement, with a combination cable lock. If I hear something while downstairs, I will be awake, watching TV or something, 99% of the time.

Not being half asleep should improve my chances of removing the cable in an expeditious fashion.


You would still be caught up with breaking the Chicago law, as the gun that you left upstairs would be operational as would the one that you made operational in the time of need.

A simply ridiculous requirement.


Techically, but I doubt you'd see any charges brought. I wonder if Hale DeMar law would kick in...


Agreed, but that is just another reason why the requirement is ridiculous. Another unnecessary law on the books.

#10 ilphil

    Ornery Skeptic

  • Members
  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 05

Posted 27 September 2010 - 03:43 PM


My home is set up in such a way that I need 2 weapons.

I suppose I would leave the operational pistol in my upstairs bedroom, and put a second pistol in my finished basement, with a combination cable lock. If I hear something while downstairs, I will be awake, watching TV or something, 99% of the time.

Not being half asleep should improve my chances of removing the cable in an expeditious fashion.


You would still be caught up with breaking the Chicago law, as the gun that you left upstairs would be operational as would the one that you made operational in the time of need.

A simply ridiculous requirement.



I'm sure if you asked nicely the bad guy would give you a minute to dash upstairs to grab the 1st gun. (He says tongue firmly in cheek)

#11 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,510 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 27 September 2010 - 04:06 PM

JACK

If you haven't read the Heller V DC ruling by Justice Scalia, you should. Below is a little excerpt from his written opinion. The bolding is mine. And yes, some of the Chicago laws are blatantly unconstitutional to say the least.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.

KINGS FCCL INSTRUCTION, INC.

Larry Kaitschuck

Cell: 815-739-9616

E-Mail: clubkchuck@sbcglobal.net


NRA Member
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Professional Firefighter / Paramedic

#12 Nomad

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 10

Posted 27 September 2010 - 04:12 PM

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.


Geezus. Why isn't Daley behind bars then? Why haven't the feds seized his a**? OMG.

To protect yourself from the armed and dangerous, you have to be armed and dangerous yourself.


#13 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 27 September 2010 - 04:14 PM

I thought I remembered something about locks in Heller!
Thanks for posting this.

Should a DA seek to press charges, good luck making them stick, on this point.

JACK

If you haven't read the Heller V DC ruling by Justice Scalia, you should. Below is a little excerpt from his written opinion. The bolding is mine. And yes, some of the Chicago laws are blatantly unconstitutional to say the least.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.


Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#14 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,342 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 27 September 2010 - 05:26 PM


3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.


Geezus. Why isn't Daley behind bars then? Why haven't the feds seized his a**? OMG.


Daley is not in prison because, if he has been involved in illegal activities, he is far smarter than, say, our last two Governors and many other elected officials from both parties. It is not yet a crime to pass a City Ordinance which is unconstitutional or unenforceable... It's just a big waste of time and resources.

Paraphrasing the City Attorney, they wrote the new ordinance based on what the Supreme Court said they could do. The Supreme court said a handgun in the home is permissible. Anybody knows that "a" is just another way of saying one. Yeah... Right.
Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#15 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,873 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 27 September 2010 - 05:45 PM


3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.


Geezus. Why isn't Daley behind bars then? Why haven't the feds seized his a**? OMG.


EXACTLY!! Why is it....when these arrogant politicians stick their middle finger up at the law....that they're not prosecuted??

We see what happens when gangsters aren't prosecuted for gun crimes....we have rampant shootings going on unpunished.

And so, what do you suppose happens when arrogant politicians flaunt their immunity from prosecution? We get TYRANNY! That's what you get!

Arrest Daley!! (It may happen soon anyway. That's just wishful thinking, though.)
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes,
but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda,
they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." — Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

#16 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,932 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 28 September 2010 - 12:24 PM

I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.
Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?

It seems to me since it says "every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable..." that a couple could each have an operable firearm, if the wife goes out and buys a firearm why can't she have it operable, and her husband have the one he bought operable? They each possess a firearm they should each be able to have it operable.

I am not a lawyer. I am a judge, but only an election judge. This is my common sense opinion which may not hold up in a Chicago court. If you are seeking legal advice go to an attorney.
Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Remember the 1991 Luby Cafeteria Massacre of the Unarmed (Kileen, Texas before Texas Concealed Carry) Do we need 23 people to die in a similar incident before we're allowed effective self defense?

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)

#17 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,229 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 28 September 2010 - 12:25 PM


I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.
Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?

It seems to me since it says "every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable..." that a couple could each have an operable firearm, if the wife goes out and buys a firearm why can't she have it operable, and her husband have the one he bought operable? They each possess a firearm they should each be able to have it operable.


They tried to get one only but settled on one per person per household.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#18 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,932 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 28 September 2010 - 12:29 PM

I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.
Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?

It seems to me since it says "every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable..." that a couple could each have an operable firearm, if the wife goes out and buys a firearm why can't she have it operable, and her husband have the one he bought operable? They each possess a firearm they should each be able to have it operable.

Woops, I double posted just after Federal Farmer.
Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Remember the 1991 Luby Cafeteria Massacre of the Unarmed (Kileen, Texas before Texas Concealed Carry) Do we need 23 people to die in a similar incident before we're allowed effective self defense?

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)

#19 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,408 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 28 September 2010 - 12:32 PM


3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.


Geezus. Why isn't Daley behind bars then? Why haven't the feds seized his a**? OMG.

What about that time he suggested he stick an AK up the reporters butt? Never heard anything else. Of course, if Joe Schmoe says the same thing directly to Dick, they face all sorts o' sh!t
...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#20 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 28 September 2010 - 12:33 PM

They tried to get one only but settled on one per person per household.


Only if each person has a FOID/CFP.

My wife does not have one (and won't get it).
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#21 Ol'Coach

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,520 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 28 September 2010 - 12:36 PM



I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.
Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?

It seems to me since it says "every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable..." that a couple could each have an operable firearm, if the wife goes out and buys a firearm why can't she have it operable, and her husband have the one he bought operable? They each possess a firearm they should each be able to have it operable.


They tried to get one only but settled on one per person per household.


Would that mean that an 18 year old living at home could also have one, making a total of 3?
"He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."
...Chinese proverb

#22 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 28 September 2010 - 01:10 PM

Would that mean that an 18 year old living at home could also have one, making a total of 3?

Only if the 18 YO has a CFP:

If more than one person in the home has a valid CFP and registration certificate, each person with a valid CFP and registration certificate is entitled to have one such firearm assembled and operable in the home.
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#23 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,229 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 28 September 2010 - 01:18 PM

[quote name='Ol'Coach' date='28 September 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1285698962' post='229662']
[quote name='Federal Farmer' date='28 September 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1285698327' post='229656']
[quote name='junglebob' date='28 September 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1285698245' post='229655']
[quote name='JackTripper' date='27 September 2010 - 10:47 AM' timestamp='1285602428' post='229534']
I know that there are several lawsuits going on, but is there a specific legal challenge to this:

8-20-040 Firearms kept or maintained in a home.
Subject to section 8-20-050, every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable...... All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.

This is especially ballsy of Chicago, because it was specifically called out in the Heller decision, if I recall correctly.

Also, can someone tell me what a "nonfunctioning state" is? Would a pulled magazine suffice?
[/quote]
It seems to me since it says "every person shall keep no more than one firearm in his home assembled and operable..." that a couple could each have an operable firearm, if the wife goes out and buys a firearm why can't she have it operable, and her husband have the one he bought operable? They each possess a firearm they should each be able to have it operable.
[/quote]

They tried to get one only but settled on one per person per household.
[/quote]

Would that mean that an 18 year old living at home could also have one, making a total of 3?
[/quote]

If, as noted above, the 18 yr old has a FOID and CFP (requires parental permission for under 21... 18yr old out on their own is out of luck)

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#24 Beezil

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,264 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 08

Posted 28 September 2010 - 02:05 PM

btw....


this aspect within the absurd unconstitutional ordinace is being challeged in benson vs. chicago.

can't wait.

#25 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 28 September 2010 - 03:06 PM

btw....


this aspect within the absurd unconstitutional ordinace is being challeged in benson vs. chicago.

can't wait.


Thanks!
This is what my original question actually was. It is the main piece of the ordinance that makes it difficult for me to comply (as a practical matter).
Well that and the 12 round limit :)
I just hate to throw away 3 perfectly good 17 rounders, that come in the box. :frantics:

I will go lookup that case name, now.
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#26 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,229 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 28 September 2010 - 03:51 PM


btw....


this aspect within the absurd unconstitutional ordinace is being challeged in benson vs. chicago.

can't wait.


Thanks!
This is what my original question actually was. It is the main piece of the ordinance that makes it difficult for me to comply (as a practical matter).
Well that and the 12 round limit :)
I just hate to throw away 3 perfectly good 17 rounders, that come in the box. :frantics:

I will go lookup that case name, now.


I'm storing my standard capacity mags outside city limits for now. Gotta store my AK's anyway.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#27 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 964 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 28 September 2010 - 04:15 PM

Benson vs the City of Chicago
http://www.snowflake...o_Complaint.pdf
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#28 2old2play

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 10

Posted 03 November 2010 - 01:00 PM

Does anyone have an update as to the progress or lack thereof of the Benson v Chicago suit? I've searched and found nothing.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. 2nd Amendment US Constitution
But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 1 Timothy 5:8 KJV

#29 darkshadow62988

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • Joined: 16-October 10

Posted 03 November 2010 - 06:04 PM

Looks like there was a time extension until the day before Thanksgiving.

#30 Skorpius

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,363 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 04 November 2010 - 05:47 PM

I do hope the ENTIRE thing just gets thrown out, rather than re-worked, since my main point of contention, the registering of the gun(s) and the needing of a CFP, is not mentioned separately in their arguments.
Posted Image
NRA / ISRA