Second Amendment: Unlocked And Loaded

Andrew Cohen: High Court Ruling On D.C. Gun Ban Marks Just A Beginning To Litigation

(CBS)  Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

---

Stripped of all its legalese and deep bows to shaky precedent (the drafters of the Second Amendment being no less cowardly about ratifying mealy-mouthed laws than their modern-day counterparts), the Supreme Court’s big gun ruling Thursday pretty much tracks popular sentiment. In this sense, if perhaps no other, the ruling on its face, and perhaps for today only, is far less controversial than most people expected it would be.

A majority of Americans strongly believe that they have a right to possess a gun in their home for individual self-defense. Presto! Justice Antonin Scalia and the four other most conservative members of the Court have just granted them their long-hoped-for wish. But a majority of Americans also strongly believe that there should be sensible restrictions upon the use of guns in our society. Voila! The Court’s majority also recognized the validity of certain reasonable limitations upon the right to bear arms. Everyone’s happy, right? Wrong.

Wrong -- because the Court’s recognition of an individual Second Amendment right necessarily leaves open central questions about how far that right goes when it butts up against government regulation (state and federal both). In true Supreme Court fashion, the Justices weren’t willing to answer those questions in the abstract. That’s why Thursday’s gateway ruling marks just a beginning, not nearly an end, to Second Amendment litigation. Indeed, just a few hours after the Justices handed down their decision, the National Rifle Association was promising a nationwide campaign to go after gun regulations.

We now will see dozens of challenges to existing gun laws, all designed to challenge the outer boundaries of the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling. And we quite likely will soon see another Supreme Court ruling on the topic. It’s inevitable. Some gun laws will be upheld - no judge in America is going to allow guns in schools or allow felons to buy AK-47s. And some gun laws, especially those in major cities where gun violence is worst, will fail. In some cases, local legislators now will try to change their laws proactively to fortify them against the challenges to come.

Think of the Heller ruling as a pivot then between all that has come before - Second Amendment jurisprudence without an announced individual right to bear arms - and all that is to come - Second Amendment law with that right recognized. The dozens of lawsuits now to come are going to fill out the vast empty space of this new field. In fact, the rush to court now by the NRA will be akin to the Oklahoma land rush. Fire up the wagons! Stake your claims! Locate those individuals in Chicago or in San Francisco who feel they’ve been wronged!

This brave new world of gun law is precisely what the Court’s majority had in mind when it selected this case, among the many Second Amendment cases that routinely had come before it, for review. It was a set-up from the beginning. One of the most stringent handgun bans in America naturally created one of the easiest targets for the first-ever formal recognition of an individual right to bear arms. The expanse of the District of Columbia’s ban was a figurative door through which the Court’s narrow majority was able to squeeze through. And, perhaps just as surely, the language of Justice Scalia’s majority decision also created one of the most striking role-reversals in modern court history.

This time, for a change, it was the Court’s liberal wing accusing the Court’s conservative majority of "judicial policy-making." This time it was the Left accusing the Right of taking away legislative prerogatives (in the form of gun laws). This time it was Stevens and Ginsburg and Company accusing Roberts and Alito and Company of imposing their own personal views, and faulty legal logic, to generate an outcome they wished. The "ends justify the means" is the stinky trout usually thrown from right to left. This time, it came from left to right - proof that neither side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

And neither side has a monopoly on sonorous and ultimately unpersuasive citations to legal history. Both Justice Scalia’s majority decision, and Justice John Paul Stevens long and strong dissent, devoted a great deal of time and space to divining the intent of the gasbag pols (oops, I meant to write "Founding Fathers" there) who drafted the Second Amendment, replete with its comma splice and its atrocious grammar and its references to "militias" and to "people" and gun rights not being "infringed." And the bottom line from this review? Surprise, surprise, it’s a toss-up.

Thursday’s landmark ruling may officially declare for legal and political purposes what the Second Amendment means but that declaration is much more about style than substance. The truly tragic fact is that, despite this massive litigation, with its thousands of pages of legal briefs submitted by every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane in the legal world, no one is closer to knowing for sure whether the craftsmen of the Second Amendment truly intended for it to include an individual gun right or not. Five smart judges say yes. Four smart judges say no. Millions of regular Americans say yes. Millions of other regular Americans say no.

I’m not complaining about this, mind you. There are plenty of other examples in the Constitution and Bill of Rights where the 18th Century drafters left to future generations the task of sorting out the details. And this is where we find ourselves today. Thanks to a single vote on the Supreme Court, the details of the Second Amendment’s individual gun right now are about to be sorted out, over a period of years, in cases from coast to coast and in between. We know what the gun control landscape looks like on the eve of this new chapter; what it looks like at the end is anyone’s guess.

[samthetvcat]

Big picture is still essentially the same - everybody''s always read into 2A an individual right to bear arms, and everybody recognizes that 10A gives States the right/obligation to police to ensure public welfare/safety. So the Court is always trying to maximize gun freedom for responsible individuals and minimize gun harm from criminals on society.

My take is that the big referendum of this holding is on whether gun control is actually working to curb gun violence. Like despite having one of the toughest laws in the country, doesn''t DC also have one of the highest crime rates? Is there consensus and definitive proof that gun control works? Based on Justice Kennedy''s record of being thorough in his role of swing voter, I''m assuming there isn''t.

So this is probably the way this ruling will go down - people are going to watch how not having a ban on handguns affects crime, and if nothing changes this holding will start pushing the envelope. If it''s shown that violent crime skyrockets as a direct result of this repeal, this holding''s going to get chipped away really fast to just the edge of being overruled.

Like I think the ''wait-and-see'' that really matters will be urban crime casualties, not how courts in the short-term interpret the holding. The Constitution''s too vague to be applied in a vacuum . . .

[seafang]

"
Pro-gunners ignore everything to the left of the second comma; anti-gunners hate what is to the right of it. Since there are NO state militias (unless you count the National Guard, and they issue weapons), this law is obsolete. These so-called "originalist judges" who claim to want to be true to the intent and letter of the Constitution can''''t argue honsetly with the language of the 2nd Amendment.
If we want individual rights to own guns for personal protection, hunting, hobby or even fetishistic reasons (which the 2nd Amendment does not address in any way) then pass a law clearly stating those rights. To hell with this bickering, and with the NRA.
Posted by bobgee_1999 at 05:27 PM : Jun 26, 2008"
Well bobgee_1999, I suggest you buy an english grammar book.
The sum total complete meaning of the second amendment using the usual rules of English grammar is: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That other stuff you whine about is simply one of the possible reasons the framers offered for their belief that THE PEOPLE (not the states or feds) have a right to keep and bear arms.

[seafang]

" The Constitution''''s too vague to be applied in a vacuum . "

There''s nothing vague at all about the Constitution and the second amendment least of all.

What if the second amendment said this: " The sun rising in the east being necessary for a warm day at the beach in a free State; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The meaning is EXACTLY THE SAME as what the framers wrote. I just offered a different reason for why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And noticed it says "infringed" whereas the first amendment says "abridged". They''re trying to tell you to keep your damned hands off people''s rights to defend themselves. The reason the framers cited doesn''t in any way restrict the right to keep and bear arms, for the very same people who are guaranteed the rights of the first amendment.

[fredcs25]

Well yes the framers of our constitution did know that firearm ownership was a right for each citizen.All any fool has to do is read their other writings and personal letters to see what they thought about the right to own firearms.Only in modern times have a few liberal democrats questioned the rights of the people.The reason the Supreme Court has not said anything about the second amendment in 200 years is not because they did not understand or did not know the meaning of the 2nd amendment it is because they DID know the meaning and assumed everyone else did also.The people of the United States possess the right to own firearms for personal protection and defense.Now the Supreme Court has made that clear to all.

[sti_edge40]

Justice John Paul Stevens is wrong. The Second Amendment was written to protect THE PEOPLE from a tyrannical government. There was no National Guard or organized militia when the amendment was written. All able-bodied men made up the militia. Judge Souter was a not too surprising disappointment and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted predictably. Automatic weapons will not flood the streets. They are expensive and relatively hard to purchase. Destructive devices will still be illegal. Anyone who was ineligible to buy a gun because of a criminal or mental health record is still ineligible. The surprise is that four of the justices don%u2019t understand the Federalist papers where the intent of the Second Amendment is clearly stated well enough to make a proper ruling. These are the kind of justice we can expect it Obama becomes President. The constitutions of many states which were written in the same era as the Constitution clearly say that the respective states may not infringe on the right of the individual to possess firearms. This is not a ruling about hunting or collecting or fetishes. It is a ruling about the individual%u2019s right of protection from tyranny and the right to self defense. The Constitution protects this right. It does not grant it. The Founders presumed that the right was one from the creator.
I can%u2019t wait for the liberals to try to explain away the drop in violent crime where THE PEOPLE will now be allowed to exercise their right.

[jmagarotz]

And just what part of "Right of the People" and "Shall Not be Infringed" don''t you understand. Do you want some cheese to go with that whine? Honestly, I don''t know how some of you libs can still spew your BS "all over that issue", it''s no wonder most people refuse to listen to your sniveling. Crawl back into your hole and gripe to the bats. Sheesh!!

***? Thanks for throwing BS all over THAT issue. The 2nd Amen is vague, and YOU are the vacuum.

Posted by ubrew12 at 06:34 PM : Jun 26, 2008

[detroiter81]

gun control laws are strictly un-american. And the Intellectual moron who wrote this article obviously doesn''t know *** about legal writing or they would not have critiqued the grammar of the Founding fathers who wrote them most genius legal documents the world has ever known.

here are some quotes from jefferson on the matter of gun control..oh yeah and freeman means NOT A SLAVE..

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1500.htm

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

[detroiter81]

gun control laws are strictly un-american. And the Intellectual moron who wrote this article obviously doesn''t know *** about legal writing or they would not have critiqued the grammar of the Founding fathers who wrote them most genius legal documents the world has ever known.

here are some quotes from jefferson on the matter of gun control..oh yeah and freeman means NOT A SLAVE..

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1500.htm

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

[ferrotus]

The definition of "militia" at the time of the formation of our Constitution was: All able bodied-men. The "militia" specifically excludes anyone on active duty in military service and the National Guard. Also, all state, county and local police are excluded. The military services, N.G. and the various police services are armed at the direction of the governmental agency for whom they work.

[detroiter81]

gun control laws are strictly un-american. And the Intellectual moron who wrote this article obviously doesn''t know *** about legal writing or they would not have critiqued the grammar of the Founding fathers who wrote them most genius legal documents the world has ever known.

here are some quotes from jefferson on the matter of gun control..oh yeah and freeman means NOT A SLAVE..

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1500.htm

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." -Thomas Jefferson to , 1803. ME 10:365

[detroiter81]

gun control laws are strictly un-american. And the Intellectual moron who wrote this article obviously doesn''t know *** about legal writing or they would not have critiqued the grammar of the Founding fathers who wrote them most genius legal documents the world has ever known.

here are some quotes from jefferson on the matter of gun control..oh yeah and freeman means NOT A SLAVE..

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1500.htm

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." -Thomas Jefferson to , 1803. ME 10:365

[detroiter81]

AND I agree with the other guy who says the right to bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" that seems to me to be pretty clear. I dont believe the government has the right to even take the right away from criminals.

The constitution doesn''t say the right shall not be infringed unless you ever did anything wrong or illegal in your life.

[detroiter81]

AND I agree with the other guy who says the right to bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" that seems to me to be pretty clear. I dont believe the government has the right to even take the right away from criminals.

The constitution doesn''t say the right shall be infringed if you ever did anything wrong or illegal in your entire life.

[freeman212]

The founding fathers had just fought a revolution. Of course the right to bear arms was intended for the individual, that''s why it was the 2nd amendment, bested only by the right of free speech our 1st amendment.The first ten amendments are called the bill of rights. What is the obsession with trying to give away or take the freedoms only we Americans have? Wasn''t it Ben Franklin that said "those that sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" There are many nations that are run by brutal regimes, dictators, theocracy etc. If you don''t like it here, we let you leave, that too is another freedom you enjoy. Or as my mother a LEGAL immigrant once said "they don''t shoot you in the back trying to get out of America. Apparently we don''t even have a fence" Anyone remember the Berlin wall? This isn''t about crime or gun control its about people control. Thank you Supreme Court for having the courage to say what we the people have known all along.

[rowdywicca]

Neither federal, county or city government should have the right to take away a Constitutional right! Period!

If you let them take away one right using their political correctness bull *****, and their fear mongering, the next thing you know...we won''t be able to post opinions here! Or travel from state to state without a permit. They''ll be waltzing in your house with a search warrant and seizing it to quarter troops. Or your right to assemble, and petition.

Get real people! Don''t let the politcally correct, or socialist correct, or progressives feed you the bull krap about what they think your rights should be!

[rowdywicca]

Oops...edit...without a search warrant!

[patriot12436]

detroiter81
Are you a gang banger or convicted felon ?

[patriot12436]

ubrew12
It only seems vague to those who are illeterate.

[patriot12436]

I bet the cops in D.C. are kept busy fior a while now that citizens can legally protect themselves.

[arnldmartin]

Of course they mean individuals to have the right.It was just the individuals who threw the British out.

[benighse]

The Second Amendment decision by the United States Supreme Court should be accepted AS A START for U.S. Citizens'' self-defense protection rights in their homes.

But don''t get too giddy just yet. The devil is still in the details. Once you get beyond the headline that freedom-loving Americans can own and possess guns in self-defense "...to protect hearth and home...," you need to read the fine print. This opinion opens up all manner of "...gun licensing and registration laws..." which can be REQUIRED to exercise this god-given common-law constitutional right at the Federal, State and local levels.

GOVERNMENT REGISTRATION OF ALL THE GUNS IN YOUR HOME IS THE FIRST STEP ON THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF TYRANNY AND DOMINATION. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT GUNS YOU HAVE AND WHERE YOU HAVE THEM, THEY ALSO KNOW WHERE TO FIND THEM AND WHO TO TAKE THEM FROM.

We should all be concerned that the "RIGHT" that was finally declared by the United States Supreme Court is not stripped away by laws and ordinances that some other Court may assert are not an "INFRINGEMENT" when WE THE PEOPLE know better.

Stand firm to protect your rights. Be vigilant to challenge all who would take those rights away. Live free and prosper.

[fedup_w_pols-2009]

Those of us that own guns usually own more than one because we CAN. Plus we enjoy shooting as a past time that is 100''s of years old. Besides when the shat hits the fan there will be a lot of sudden anti gun converts looking for a GUN to protect themselves. to bad so sad those of us that bought a few and know how to use them will survive and you defenseless lemmings will be slaughtered. Then we will only have pro gun people around and that should end this non-debate forever. Without guns you would not have the freedom to even gripe about how much you hate guns, how ironic is that. In the end those with the guns will enforce the laws as they see fit. You round up the 4 judges that obviously can''t understand basic english and get protection from them. Your sticks and steak knives will be sorely short of the task of disarming the general public of their rights to own guns. Expect a high turnover for the gun collections department and no need for a retirement plan.

[gkc99]

"the drafters of the Second Amendment being no less cowardly about ratifying mealy-mouthed laws than their modern-day counterparts)"


Nothing mealy mouthed about the Second Amendment, or the many state constitution sections based on the Second Amendment--there is an individual right there, conferred not by the Constitution (although the Constitution affirms it), but conferred as one of mankind''s natural rights, the right of self defense.

"Survival is the first law."

Plus, shooting is fun.

[coppertales]

Reading all of this liberal blather makes my head hurt. I believe I will go buy another gun and have a nice relaxing weekend at the range...

[letxa]

"First-ever formal recognition of an individual right to bear arms?" Does the author of this article even have a remote idea of what he or she is talking about? It sure doesn''t seem like it.

The 150-page opinion handed down by the court cited many references from the history of the second amendment, similar clauses in state constitutions of the time, and much case law from that point forward to support what most Americans already know: We have the right to keep and bear arms as individuals. No other reading of the second amendment makes sense and the opinion of the court explains why that is in a *very* detailed fashioned.

I understand some people (liberals) just hate guns and think we should confiscate them. However, that is not what our Constitution says.

I don''t own a gun but I''m 100% in favor of the second amendment and I''m happy the court has finally ruled definitively on the topic. Now the liberals can either shut up or start promoting a Constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment. And good luck with THAT!

[mr_totten]

ALL OF THE MURDERERS IN THE US, WHO USED A GUN IN THEIR CRIME WERE "LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS" FIRST!

Posted by MarkS7177
... ... ...

I think you are not well. I am sad for you.

I hope you get better.

[wooleywews]

Hi, is that you Rev. Wright?

ALL OF THE MURDERERS IN THE US, WHO USED A GUN IN THEIR CRIME WERE "LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS" FIRST!

Posted by MarkS7177

[stopkidding]

LOl Zgomer, get beat-up much?

[closethippy1]

Interesting how many people on the right romantacize the idea of the "average man" in the same way the Communists and Socialists do with the so-called "proletariat".
Hard-working and honest all of them. With a pure heart absent of any ill intentions.
And yet the reality is almost opposite to all this when you see the number of suicides, family fights, friends turning on friends, lovers turning on each other, road rage, or just rage because you looked at me the wrong way.
This reality is about to get much worse with this Supreme Court decision and, in the end, we will come to a complete circle and go back to a time when everyone was for themselves.
We will in essence devolved from an advanced industrialiazed nation to one resembling the fractured and corrupt societies of third world countries and the warlords that run them.
It''s bad enough to have religious freaks trying to prevent our children from understanding the basics of evolution and biology and in that way dumbing down our country and helping it to implode.
Now we have to worry about most everyone being armed most everywhere risking the further loss of more American minds needed to keep the US part of the advanced nations in the world.
While we keep a lookout on our science curriculum and of each other the rest of the industrialized nations will replace the US in the fields of scientific and social progress this country used to pioneer.
Bye-bye US of A, I hardly knew ye.

[txgrouch2006]

MarkS7177 is still at it
ALL OF THE MURDERERS IN THE US, WHO USED A GUN IN THEIR CRIME WERE "LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS" FIRST!
------------
You never answered my question on the other news item discussion.

PROVE THAT THEY BOUGHT A GUN *BEFORE* THEY COMMITTED THEIR FIRST CRIME.

[txgrouch2006]

closethippy1 wrote
the reality is almost opposite to all this when you see the number of suicides, family fights, friends turning on friends, lovers turning on each other, road rage, or just rage because you looked at me the wrong way.
---------------
It''s sad that a self-proclaimed "closet hippy" has such a negative opinion about other members of society.

Projection. Look it up. It''s you.

The opinion you express about others is YOUR SELF-PORTRAIT.

[closethippy1]

closethippy1 wrote
the reality is almost opposite to all this when you see the number of suicides, family fights, friends turning on friends, lovers turning on each other, road rage, or just rage because you looked at me the wrong way.
---------------
It''''s sad that a self-proclaimed "closet hippy" has such a negative opinion about other members of society.
Projection. Look it up. It''''s you.
The opinion you express about others is YOUR SELF-PORTRAIT.
Posted by txgrouch2006 at 12:46 PM : Jun 28, 2008

The US has over 30,000 people shot by guns, 10,000 of which end up dead year after freaking year after freaking year.
Why don''t you put down the comic books and read something of substance once in a while.

[txgrouch2006]

closethippy1 wrote
Bye-bye US of A, I hardly knew ye.
--------------
Seems like you hardly know much of ANYTHING.

I''ve read something of substance. THE CONSTITUTION, in the context of the history of the events that led up to it. You should try it sometime. You might LEARN something.

[txgrouch2006]

You can fuss and fume all you want. But IT''S THIS SIMPLE.

When the Constitution says "the people," it means "THE PEOPLE," and not "THE GOVERNMENT on behalf of the people." As in "We, the people."

That''s what the Constitution says. If you don''t like it, change it.

IT''S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.

[txgrouch2006]

knowhr whined
Bad decision, really bad.
---------------------
Boo hoo. Now it''s the LEFT WING NUTS'' turn to feel what it''s like to have a Supreme Court decision against your cherished agenda.

[pproctor1]

Though nobody has noticed it yet, the Heller opinion also specifically reaffirms the previous Miller decision. In fact, Scalia goes out of his way to discuss what the supremes really meant in "Miller". This is that militia utility makes possession of certain firearms legal.

This splits the second amendment into two parts, providing two independent constitutional bases for future gun litigation.

E.g., Scalia clearly states that "Heller" does not encompass such military weapons as the M16 or short-barrelled shotguns. However, he strongly hints that these are encompassed under "Miller". Wait until the firearms prohibitionists figure this one out.

[cfin5]

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

- Elbridge Gerry

[privatechaos]

texasgrouch should learn how to read. The first thirteen words of the second amendment were completely ignored in this idiotic decision. The true goal apparently is to increase crime, fear, and punishment to enrich the prison-industrial complex and to set the lower classes at each others'' throats.