Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alex C wrote:
So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.

How is this "common sense"?

Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.

If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.

 d-usa wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.

How is this "common sense"?

Or does it only apply to SALE of a firearm, and gifting is exempt?

Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.

Considering that the exact purpose of the order is to provide a concrete definition, from people more qualified to come up with it, that is probably very likely.

Complaining that "the order to come up with a new definition doesn't have the new definition already in it" just seem extra silly, even for OT standards.

But, it's already defined, as found in:
https://www.atf.gov/file/55456/download

…a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. A dealer can be “engaged in the business” without taking title to the firearms that are sold. However, the term does not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms
...

Seems pretty clear to me... right?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Government had no problem issuing technical mandates for technologies that don't exist. Its a good way to eliminate industries you don't like.

Green house gas standards, CAFE standards, coal pollution standards and mandated scrubber technology. Its all about regulating something right out of existence via bureaucracy.

It's also a good way to stimulate development in industries you do like, e.g. aviation, computing, nuclear.

Not if it kills the industry first.

Ah, excuse me, I was under the impression that this order was actually trying to do something.

Apparently there's even less meat to it than I gave it credit for.

 d-usa wrote:
Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.

It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?

 Chongara wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.

How is this "common sense"?

Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.

If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.

I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.

How is this "common sense"?

Or does it only apply to SALE of a firearm, and gifting is exempt?

Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.

Considering that the exact purpose of the order is to provide a concrete definition, from people more qualified to come up with it, that is probably very likely.

Complaining that "the order to come up with a new definition doesn't have the new definition already in it" just seem extra silly, even for OT standards.

But, it's already defined, as found in:
https://www.atf.gov/file/55456/download

…a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. A dealer can be “engaged in the business” without taking title to the firearms that are sold. However, the term does not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms
...

Seems pretty clear to me... right?

"You purchased and sold 73 guns last year and made quite a profit, why didn't you run any background checks."
"I just have a big collection and I'm always trying to trade with other collectors and buy new guns and sell old ones as I'm tweaking my collection."

Almost like "occasional" isn't a very clear thing at all and can be interpreted very broadly in either direction. Kind of like people are already doing pretending that Obama is going to require you to run a background check if you give a gun to your son.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.

It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?

Don't think crew served weapons, think the new Army handgun (about to begin the acquisition process now).

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.

How is this "common sense"?

Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.

If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.

I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.

Your state doesn't require inclusion of purchase price for calculating the tax at the DMV and a notary public seal?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.

It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?

With a good enough system you could register the bio-metrics of everyone out to everyone within certain organizational level their own position. That is Bob's wounded by the weapon isn't locked to bob, it's locked to bob and the say the top 100 people bob's most likely to be fighting with. The "100" number can obviously move based on practical demands and what the technology of capable of.

The benefit is obvious: The enemy can't use any equipment they capture from you.

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.

How is this "common sense"?

Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.

If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.

I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.

Cpt'n... shirly you should've checked to see if the reciepiants also has insurance. 'Cuz, god forgive if they were to get into an accident or use it to commit a crime... it could haunt you.

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.

It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?

With a good enough system you could register the bio-metrics of everyone out to everyone within certain organizational level their own position. That is Bob's wounded by the weapon isn't locked to bob, it's locked to bob and the say the top 100 people bob's most likely to be fighting with. The "100" number can obviously move based on practical demands and what the technology of capable of.

The benefit is obvious: The enemy can't use any equipment they capture from you.

Just imagine ISIS with a bunch of useless fear that they squired from Iraq.

Although truthfully, I would imagine that military application (if it were to happen) would probably utilize RFID technology over biometric technology.

 CptJake wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.

It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?

Don't think crew served weapons, think the new Army handgun (about to begin the acquisition process now).

True but most troops don't get issued a handgun and making sidearms locked to one user is a needless hassle for logistics. Is there some big problem with soldiers using other soldiers' sidearms to commit crimes or something going on? I don't see what problem that solves it just makes logistics harder because now you'll have to change the biometrics every time the pistol gets issued to someone else.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.

How is this "common sense"?

Or does it only apply to SALE of a firearm, and gifting is exempt?

Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.

Considering that the exact purpose of the order is to provide a concrete definition, from people more qualified to come up with it, that is probably very likely.

Complaining that "the order to come up with a new definition doesn't have the new definition already in it" just seem extra silly, even for OT standards.

But, it's already defined, as found in:
https://www.atf.gov/file/55456/download

…a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. A dealer can be “engaged in the business” without taking title to the firearms that are sold. However, the term does not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms
...

Seems pretty clear to me... right?

"You purchased and sold 73 guns last year and made quite a profit, why didn't you run any background checks."
"I just have a big collection and I'm always trying to trade with other collectors and buy new guns and sell old ones as I'm tweaking my collection."

Almost like "occasional" isn't a very clear thing at all and can be interpreted very broadly in either direction. Kind of like people are already doing pretending that Obama is going to require you to run a background check if you give a gun to your son.

It is clear.

In your scenario, is he selling those guns with "the principal objective of livelihood and profit"?

 d-usa wrote:
Almost like "occasional" isn't a very clear thing at all and can be interpreted very broadly in either direction. Kind of like people are already doing pretending that Obama is going to require you to run a background check if you give a gun to your son.

I was asking for clarification on if that was the case or not. As a gun owner who may or may not want to sell/trade/gift a gun at some point in the future, I'm trying to stay informed of what all this exactly means for me, but apparently this whole thing is work in progress so we don't know yet.

 d-usa wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.

It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?

With a good enough system you could register the bio-metrics of everyone out to everyone within certain organizational level their own position. That is Bob's wounded by the weapon isn't locked to bob, it's locked to bob and the say the top 100 people bob's most likely to be fighting with. The "100" number can obviously move based on practical demands and what the technology of capable of.

The benefit is obvious: The enemy can't use any equipment they capture from you.

Just imagine ISIS with a bunch of useless fear that they squired from Iraq.

Although truthfully, I would imagine that military application (if it were to happen) would probably utilize RFID technology over biometric technology.

I think you're right about that. My point was less "Biometrics are perfect for military application" and more "The example you're putting forward is a very poorly and narrowly considered case. It's like you haven't thought through what the steps in actually implementing such a thing would be and have deiced to run with the worst version you can think of off the top of your head so you can laugh it off".

he made $5,00 last year, but says he is just a collector buying and selling. He just finds cheap deals for his collections and knows how to liquidate items he no longer needs for his collection at a premium. Can't a private collector make a profit selling and buying guns?

All guns should be banned except for millitary use.

The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.

How is this "common sense"?

Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.

If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.

I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.

Your state doesn't require inclusion of purchase price for calculating the tax at the DMV and a notary public seal?

You're partially correct (and I'm old and forgetful) Looking back, I did provide a bill of sale I typed and printed, leaving the $$$ blank in one case of selling. In one case the buyer had a generic bill of sale and we put in the odometer reading and my name/address. Never needed a notary. The two we gave away I honestly do not recall doing a bill of sale. Maybe the recipients made one up, frankly I never asked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
All guns should be banned except for millitary use.

The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.

Consider me a major threat.

OgreChubbs wrote:
All guns should be banned except for millitary use.

The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.

No.

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.

It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?

With a good enough system you could register the bio-metrics of everyone out to everyone within certain organizational level their own position. That is Bob's wounded by the weapon isn't locked to bob, it's locked to bob and the say the top 100 people bob's most likely to be fighting with. The "100" number can obviously move based on practical demands and what the technology of capable of.

The benefit is obvious: The enemy can't use any equipment they capture from you.

The amount of gear captured from our troops in combat is negligible.The gear they captured in Iraq was abandoned in warehouses when we pulled the troops out. Unissued rifles wouldn't be set up with biometric or RFID locks yet. Considering the people we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have gunsmiths forging guns from scratch I don't think the locks we put on them would be an insurmountable obstacle.

OgreChubbs wrote:
All guns should be banned except for millitary use.

The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.

This line of thought is off topic and will be reported.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering it has military and law enforcement applications as well it would be a justified use of taxpayer money.

It doesn't make sense for military use. You don't need to personalize every issued weapon with a biometric lock and it would be counter productive in combat. Oh no, Bob's wounded now nobody can fire the 240/M14/etc because it's locked to his biometrics. How is that useful? What problem does that solve?

Don't think crew served weapons, think the new Army handgun (about to begin the acquisition process now).

True but most troops don't get issued a handgun and making sidearms locked to one user is a needless hassle for logistics. Is there some big problem with soldiers using other soldiers' sidearms to commit crimes or something going on? I don't see what problem that solves it just makes logistics harder because now you'll have to change the biometrics every time the pistol gets issued to someone else.

The issue is the Army will be procuring a gak ton of pistols. And the Fed LEAs do as well. What you may see is the Feds/DoD adding availability to include the tech into the requirements process, and will end up increasing the cost of the procurement and basically subsidizing the cost of the tech.

Once the tech is readily available, expect states (see the NJ smart gun law as an example) and the ATF to start looking at mandating new manufacture guns include the tech...

OgreChubbs wrote:
All guns should be banned except for millitary use.

The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.

The bait is real!

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.

How is this "common sense"?

Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.

If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.

I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.

Your state doesn't require inclusion of purchase price for calculating the tax at the DMV and a notary public seal?

You're partially correct (and I'm old and forgetful) Looking back, I did provide a bill of sale I typed and printed, leaving the $$$ blank in one case of selling. In one case the buyer had a generic bill of sale and we put in the odometer reading and my name/address. Never needed a notary. The two we gave away I honestly do not recall doing a bill of sale. Maybe the recipients made one up, frankly I never asked.
.

I forgot about the odometer thing as well.

 d-usa wrote:
he made $5,00 last year, but says he is just a collector buying and selling. He just finds cheap deals for his collections and knows how to liquidate items he no longer needs for his collection at a premium. Can't a private collector make a profit selling and buying guns?

If he's a serious collector he probably already has his Curio & Relic 03 FFL.

 d-usa wrote:
he made $5,00 last year, but says he is just a collector buying and selling. He just finds cheap deals for his collections and knows how to liquidate items he no longer needs for his collection at a premium. Can't a private collector make a profit selling and buying guns?

Yup.

Just as long as the profit isn't his "principal objective of livelihood and profit".

OgreChubbs wrote:
All guns should be banned except for millitary use.

The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.

I need a gun to protect myself from home invaders, muggers and rabid dogs.
If the school let me, I would own a gun and have it on campus, especially after the mugging and robbery of an entire dorm building here.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
So as far as I can tell the President is proposing that because a guy decides to give his son and daughter each their own .22 for Christmas, the ATF could define him as "a dealer" and throw fines and/or jail time at him.

How is this "common sense"?

Hopefully further, more concrete definition is provided soon. Preferably from people more qualified to speak about it, and who have a greater understanding of it, than our President.

If I want to give somebody a car or house I have to make sure the requisite paperwork is transferred and declared properly. If I mess up there are any number of situations that could lead to fines or the property winding up in some kind of inconvenient legal limbo. You can always hire a licensed 3rd party familiar with the law and proper filings to handle these kind of transfers for you if you're not confident in your ability to follow procedure correctly or simply want to play it safe. Imagine it would be much the same with transfer of guns under more stringent sale regulation. Don't feel confident you can properly handle the transfer? Hire a licensed professional like you would for the dang house, and the house can't even shoot bullets at people. The car at least could run them over I guess.

I've given away 2 cars and sold others. In each case the 'paperwork' was signing the back of the title and handing it over. The only other thing was taking off the license plates.

Your state doesn't require inclusion of purchase price for calculating the tax at the DMV and a notary public seal?

You're partially correct (and I'm old and forgetful) Looking back, I did provide a bill of sale I typed and printed, leaving the $$$ blank in one case of selling. In one case the buyer had a generic bill of sale and we put in the odometer reading and my name/address. Never needed a notary. The two we gave away I honestly do not recall doing a bill of sale. Maybe the recipients made one up, frankly I never asked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
All guns should be banned except for millitary use.

The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.

Consider me a major threat.

You got promoted from captain to major, congrats!

 Alex C wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
All guns should be banned except for millitary use.

The public only needs hunting rifles. The fact people have a weapon to kill people and for no other reason in a social setting shows a lack of respect for human life and makes you a threat.

The bait is real!

No bait my opnion on it. Why have a item you never intend to use? When dealing with a device which only purpose is to end a human life and was created to end human life easly. Guns where made to kill and autos where made for millitary to kill mass groups easly. Having a weapon that is designed to kill humans in a social group is a threat.

It is like someone collecting active bombs and saying I have a right to collect them I want to be safe and I wont use them. One mental break and... Ya. With the culture becoming more he hurt my feelings i can use extreme force it is becoming a bigger problem.