Articles, Blog

The No Machine Guns Act – The Legal Brief!

Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show
where we CRUSH the various legal myths and misinformation surrounding various areas of
the gun world. I’m your host Adam Kraut and today we’re
going to continue the history of major federal gun legislation with the Firearms Owner Protection
Act of 1986 or FOPA. In 1986 Congress once again tackled federal
firearms regulation, in part due to the widespread allegations of abuse of power from ATF relating
to not only licensees but also individuals. Wait ATF abusing its authority? Shocking I know right? It’s not like that’s been a constant theme
since well the beginning. The Firearms Owners Protection Act had some
very good provisions in it and some very bad ones. I’m sure there are some of you out there
yelling at your phones but Adam it had the fucking Hughes amendment in it. Yea, it did have the Hughes Amendment, which
for those of you who don’t know, banned the possession or transfer by a person of
machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Of course, we can’t forget to exclude the
government overlords from such restrictions so of course government agencies (law enforcement,
etc. get a pass). Remember the person is defined in 18 USC 921
as any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock
company. Yea, we have to define the term person again
and it’s different than the definition in the NFA. A trust is not a person for purposes of the
GCA, which is why Joshua Prince’s idea of submitting a Form 1 for a machine gun using
a trust as an applicant was a possibility. And this is why machine guns are outrageously
expensive. As the last transferable machine guns were
made in May of 1986 you run into the economic principle of supply and demand. For example, you have a limited pool and everyone
wants fucking machine gun so the price goes up. FOPA also expanded who is a prohibited person. You may remember from last time that the Gun
Control Act of 1968 prohibited those under indictment or convicted of a crime punishable
by more than one year imprisonment, fugitives from justice, unlawful users of marijuana
or other narcotics, and those who had been adjudicated mentally defective or committed
to a mental institution from buying, transporting or possessing firearms and ammunition. If you didn’t catch that last episode, you
should probably go do that. FOPA added illegal aliens, aliens admitted
to the US under a nonimmigrant visa, individuals discharged from the armed forces under dishonorable
conditions, and people who were stupid enough to have renounced their citizenship to the
list of those who could not purchase, possess or transfer firearms and ammunition. In other words, the list of prohibited persons
expanded. If you look at the ATF Firearms Transaction
Record, commonly known as the 4473, you’ll see all of these are the questions you answer
in question 11. Also, for reference, contrary to popular belief
you do not have to be a united states citizen to purchase a gun. You can be a permanent resident and there
is an exception to the nonimmigrant visa provision which requires you to have a valid hunting
license. With regard to licensees, FOPA required the
report of multiple sales of firearms, the turning over of records to the out of business
center when a licensee closed down, and allowed licensees to conduct business at temporary
approved locations other than the location specified on the license like a gun show. So what was good in FOPA? Well, it permitted the Government to only
revoke a Federal Firearms License or FFL if it could show that the licensee willfully
violated the GCA. That’s a whole other can of worms we’ll
address another day. It also required the government to obtain
a warrant to examine the records, firearms and ammunition of licensees, save for a one
year annual warrantless inspection. Remember, prior to this, ATF was constantly
harassing licensees and they didn’t need a warrant to do so. One of the biggest things, in my opinion,
was that FOPA repealed the restrictions on ammunition being shipped to your door. Remember, the GCA in its original form prevented
that. It also changed the requirements for legalized
government theft or forfeiture, however you want to refer to it as. It now required that a firearm be “involved
in or used” (instead of “involved in or used or intended to be used”) in a knowing violation
of the Gun Control Act. It also Directs the court to award attorney
fees to the prevailing party (other than the United States) in such forfeiture actions. Meaning that if you had to fight the forfeiture
of your firearms and you won, the government was picking up the tab (which gets expensive
very quickly). FOPA also put into law that no federal registry
was to be established other than the NFRTR which I talked about in the NFA episode. Additionally, it amended the rulemaking authority
of the Secretary to provide that no regulation may require: (1) the transfer of records required
under this Act to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any
State; (2) the establishment of any system of registration of firearms, firearm owners,
or firearm transactions and (3) established a 90-day public comment period for proposed
regulations. In short, no legal federal registration of
firearms, firearm owners, firearm transactions and for a new regulation to be valid it must
be open to comment for 90 days. The act also permits the interstate transportation
of unloaded firearms by any person not prohibited by Federal law regardless of any State law
or regulation. In other words, it grants safe passage through
states whose laws may be stricter than the state you are from. The key thing to note is that in order for
FOPA to apply, the firearm must be legal in the end destination. Overall, FOPA was a mixed bag. We lost out on machine guns (boooo) and the
list of prohibited persons was expanded, BUT we did gain the advantage of less harassment
of licensees, no legal federal registry other than the NFRTR, ammo being able to be shipped
to you and safe passage through communist russia or New York or New Jerseystan or any
of those places that hate freedom. Hopefully that gives you a broad overview
of the history of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 and how it modified the Gun Control
Act. If you guys liked this episode, you know what
to do, hit that like button and share it around with your friends to help spread the knowledge. Have a question you want answered on this
show, let me know in the comments below. Don’t forget to like The Gun Collective
on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Full 30, Snap Chat and wherever else you can catch
us on social media.

100 thoughts on “The No Machine Guns Act – The Legal Brief!

  1. Everyone, we need to pressure the NRA so they can push Congress to repeal the Hughes Amendment!!!! We need to do it even if we have a liberal president, eventually we'll get a gun friendly president and by that time, the NRA will have heard our voice and know we are serious!

  2. The Hughes Amendment is a slow-motion gun ban. As the limited pool of "available" machine guns is attrited through theft, irreparable breakage, seizure, etc., it will become smaller and smaller until there are NO machine guns available for civilian ownership. As such, it should be overturned, but it's a hell of a case to build unless you can actually find Supreme Court with an understanding of (and respect for) the Constitution.

  3. Thanks, great Video!

    I wish you went a little deeper into the part about transporting your firearm through hostile states. Maybe you can touch on it in the future?

  4. Have you done a show in the recently debacle of recategorization of wetted nitrocellulose? If you have, I don't see the video.

  5. Adam, you should have also mentioned how Charlie Rangle managed to illicitly pass the Hughes amendment by recording a (false) YEA vote on an oral majority vote that was overwhelmingly a NAY response, then proceeding to close the floor prior to anyone having the chance to call for a recorded vote on teh topic of the FOPA.

  6. Hi Adam, great work and Chanel.. I have a question regarding 80% weapons. Can we legally carry a 80% build hand gun.? This of curse having a CCW permit. Thanks for all reply..

  7. so the recent gunpacolypse laws that passed in CA included one law that will prevent the residents from purchasing ammo from outside of CA will violate our privilege protected by FOPA? any lawyers onto this?

  8. If I bought a CCA Micro Roni Glock pistol to Carbine chassis, but NEVER use the Glock in it, am I still liable to register the glock as an SBR? Would I be arrested for using the carbine chassis in a mandatory emergency (hurricane Matthew)? Even my local 2A lawyer could not answer this for me…

  9. Sucks, because the Hughes was dropped on the floor to vote, but CHUCKIE RANGEL gaveled it into existence…illegally! Then again…who can afford a machine gun's eating habits these days??

  10. Correct me if I'm wrong but I was told the feds are doing an end run around the NFRTR by allowing a private company to build a database accessible to the feds on demand. Great show btw.

  11. Then why is the state of new york still arresting people at the airport for having handguns in their luggage when they are removed from their flights and given their luggage when they intend to continue their travel but not have possession of their handguns.

  12. I've recently rejoined the NRA for obvious reasons. Is there going to be any push to remove Suppressors from the Title II list of NFA firearms? These are just noise pollution control devices. Speaking of NFA, any chance of rolling back the undesirable parts of FOPA? At least one prohibited person category is flat out stupid. The Hughes Amendment is a poison pill. Machine guns will still be expensive, especially if the NFA continues to exist. Then there is the Form-4 processing time. Way. To. Long. Also, what's the deal with having to ask permission to pay a $200 tax? The list of prohibited persons is the same and the ATF knows which states allow what.

    The short version is, the NRA seems to be fighting a holding action rather than attempting to restore 2nd Amendment rights.

  13. Actually when I was an FFL/SOT for nine years the BATF only came for an inspection only twice in 9 years, that's not bad

  14. hay I really like this show but could yall keep the cussing off please my kid like some to watch these with me and I don't want her hearing all that and it its not the best for u running for the nra but love the show

  15. With republicans controlling the house, senate, and presidency, what do you think the chances are of the hughes amendment being repealed? Or atleast an amnesty period

  16. I think you should have to go through all this same type of bullshit to own and operate a vehicle that goes over 70 MPH.
    Vehicles, especially operated by the complete morons of today's society are much more dangerous if you ask me.
    But, don't ask me… just look up how many people have died on American roads this year alone.
    Same thing goes for Cigarettes and alcohol, we all obviously know about the dangers of cigarettes. But do people really realize and understand the dangers of alcohol. Yes I'm talking shit about your precious alcohol everyone go cry me a fucking river. How many people have died from Alcohol related incidents in America over the past decade compared to guns.
    Hell, if you ask me motor vehicles, cigarettes and alcohol are extremely more dangerous and obviously way way way easier to get then firearms.
    It's perfectly fine to smoke as many number of cigarettes as humanly possible in one day and everyday, which would obviously give you cancer. but God forbid I "illegally" obtain a silencer…
    All this bullshit about SBR's, Silencers, magazine capacities and so on is ridiculous.
    If someone wants to cause harm they're going to regardless of what's available to them and what's not.
    shit if you really think about it and compare it, and Godforbid this happens, but if you really wanted to do some damage fuck a gun. Some crazy fuck could just go fill up his pick up with alcohol and gas and propane and all other perfectly legal shit from his local Walmart and drive that shit into a gas pump at 100mph or steal a tanker truck and do the same thing or something like that and do wayyyyy more damage than some kid that's physco and steals his dad's pistol and kills 5 classmates. not saying that's not bad because duh dumbass it obviously is but you get my point. (hopefully)
    the shit they are trying to do to our constitutional rights are complete bullshit and do next to nothing when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of the wrong people. If you can't wake up and realize what's happening for what it really is then damn maybe you do deserve to get tossed into a FEMA camp with your sheeple ass lol.

    or hey fuck it, move to Chicago where they already have all these strict gun laws and shit. I've seen on the news it's real nice there lmfao!

  17. Ty very much for explaining this. A while back I was going to New Hampshire and was trying to take my handgun legally with me and the Maryland state police told me that I couldn't transport it through their state in any way shape or form.

    I see now that they lied to me. Just one more reason I will never set foot in that state again.

  18. So I'm definitely loving this show buuuuuuuuuttt I live in California so every time you have a subject I'm more confused because it seems like the laws don't apply the same here. Am I wrong? I watched you vid on the difference between a pistol and a handgun and I'm lost lol.

  19. First of all, I am a diehard gun enthusiast. But some things do go beyond reason. Other than those who already own machine guns made before 1968, I do not believe there should ever be any more fully automatic weapons to be owned or used by anyone in the U.S., and that most certainly includes the police. Fully automatic weapons are for the military only. The last thing we need to do is flood the country with machine guns. It would be catastrophic. Why not just let everyone own nuclear weapons? I believe we should keep the federal gun laws we already have, but make every single state follow those laws, including CA, MA, NY, etc. As for NFA guns, I don't really have a problem with suppressors, SBRs and SBSs. But I think we should be careful about asking for too much, if we get too greedy, we might lose what we already have. Federal firearms laws are not really all that bad. I live in AZ, which has no state gun laws at all. They use federal laws. We have Constitutional Carry here, no permit required. We can buy fully featured ARs (I have 3) and high capacity magazines (I have a box full of 40 round AR magazines)

  20. We need president Trump to keep his promise on the second amendment. I INVITE ANYONE TO COPY AND PASTE THIS ON DIFFERENT VIDEOS, AS WILL I.
    I'm all for individual states to create and enforce their own independent laws and statutes, but we absolutely need to establish a federal system that limits how states can limit the second amendment based on their twisted (and most importantly incorrect) interpretation of it.
    1) The second amendment was established so that an average citizen as an individual or a group had means to protect her/himself from not only the common thug, but any establishment or government (from within or abroad) that would seek to destroy our freedoms, liberties, lives, and wellbeing.
    2) You can only fairly protect yourself with equal or greater force. A terrorist with an ak-47 and a 30-45 round magazine should be met and fought with equal firepower. That is only fair, and that is what our founding fathers intended. There needs to be a federal law that prohibits the prohibition or limitation of the following:
    A) Carrying of a firearm, openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded wherever you can legally be physically (besides government buildings but excluding active law enforcement).
    B) Magazine capacities. It literally takes one second or less to reload a modern sporting rifle.
    C) Semi-automatic weapons or their features.
    D) The ability to buy, sell, use or transfer ANY reasonable type of small arms ammunition without ANY state or federal intervention (including armor piercing and steel/carbide/tungsten core ammunition).
    It's important to realize that someone who intends to break the law will not hesitate to break more laws that inhibit his/her intentions. A mass shooter living in a state with a maximum magazine capacity of 10 and CHL requirements for concealing a handgun won't hesitate to source a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds from anywhere necessary and conceal said weapon with illegal magazine (illegally with no CHL) so that he may carry on with his intention to kill (also illegal).
    If president Trump addresses these things, then the constitution will be secured and protected for many generations to come. We the people need to step up to the plate and push our ideals when our leaders and representatives fail to do so.

  21. I believe it was the House of Representatives that the recorded vote the bill did not pass and it is said that the vocal vote it did not pass but Rangel set it did. What am I missing and why hasn't the NRA gone after this? It is ridiculous that an MP5 that LEO can buy for $1000 cost me $21,000

  22. Quick question.  If an NFA is not an individual can someone make a second sere or lightening link and have it put in their NFA?

  23. Thank God Trump won! Hillary said she wanted to "set a new standard" for all guns, in other words, limit the supply so prices sky rocketed. We dodged a bullet!

  24. Considering the idea of absolute freedom adopted by our nation and carried out until 1934 when the first gun control legislation was put in place. The idea of a person be governed to the extent they consent to be governed and at any time for any reason the person can then withdraw that consent is one that not everyone can completely understand. A lot of people say it seems that the idea is just said by people who wanted to live in a world without rules. This is not the case as the rules set in your own lives were to be your own morality as most people either have a religion or a moral backbone that simply tells them committing heinous crimes is morally wrong so they do not do them even though they actually possess the free will to do it. Thus the idea is a sound one as almost every normal person in the world unanimously agree it is morally wrong to kill, steal, rape etc etc. The country adopted the death penalty for people who broke natural law (basically stop someone from enjoying their life through criminal activities) It is sad to say and a lot of people who have been outspoken against the death penalty will not agree that it is necessary but it simply is. They will argue that the system has been used to execute innocent people and this is true but the problem is they approach the issue at the wrong angle. Instead of being mad with others who disagree be mad at the judges, lawyers etc etc who failed to do their job correctly and hold them accountable for actions that cost a life for simply not caring enough to do their chosen profession correctly. We place cops under this scrutiny why not the people who decide the fate of a person. Demand they simply do their job to the fullest they can. We all know of people who simply do not deserve to draw air (Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer etc etc).

    Now back to the idea of absolute freedom. The simple truth is that the death penalty was adopted by our country and utilized for people who would break natural laws and was really only reserved for murderers sorry but I do not feel a murderer's life is worth saving simply because they did not care enough about their own life not to do the morally wrong thing knowing full well the possible consequence why should I care? So if a person refrains from breaking the basic natural laws then that person is in no way shape or form looking to do another harm or to infringe on another person as they are simply reserving their right to their own happiness. A person is the only one in the world who possess the power and authority to regulate their own rights as was intended by our founders. They basically said as long as you can at like a human being and not infringe upon another person your own beliefs then you are free to do so. Period. You do not have to ask permission in America from your government to do anything you want this defeats the purpose of our Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

    Our Declaration was intended to declare we were capable of living our own lives without governmental influence of any kind and said we no longer adhere to the monarchy and government of the British Empire. Then they created the bill of rights what they believed were inalienable rights that simply could not be governed as they simply did not belong to anyone else but the person who was exercising the right and were not granted by any mortal man in government as that government did not create you so they do not hold the power of a God and authority to remove or limit rights. They even went as far as to include an undeniable word as to what they meant in the 2nd Amendment. Infringe literally means to act so as to limit or undermine. There is no room for debate in the word or no room for interpretation of what was meant. It says that in no way can a man made government enact any law on the 2nd as to do so would be out of line with the Constitution and therefore be a treasonous act. They worded it in a way that a politician would need to ask each and every individual if they would like to be governed by them and have their gun rights limited.

    The idea was to have a person only act to limit themselves in regards to what they felt themselves personally was morally correct. If a person deemed guns unsafe and that they simply did not want one then they have the right to not own one this is why America never adopted mandatory gun ownership even though they knew it was what was necessary to gain independence as it would negate the whole idea. But that limitation stops at your front door as you do not possess the power to treat differently others based on your beliefs or force your beliefs through legislation upon another person. This would be slavery as you are acting to limit another person based on your own interpretation of what you feel your rights should be. This is why the Bill of Rights is not considered actual law as it was believed natural law superseded man made laws and the Bill of Rights is a list of natural laws. Any law that causes a person to limit themselves is an infringement if the law is meant to limit a natural law. The 2nd was considered a natural law as it was believed that you would need a weapon to secure your natural rights and there was to be no limitation as to what gun you decided to do it with as the right to live is the highest of all natural laws. No law placed on the 2nd has ever been in line with the constitution as it explicitly says there can be no limitation or undermining of the right. The belief is that if a government who would look to enslave its population would do so without limitation then your gun rights said it was to be exercised with no limitation. A person not owning a gun in their home is only limiting themselves to the extent they consent to limit themselves. But in this nation a person can decide they need an entire arsenal of AR-15's and AK-47 with full auto and a couple of BAR machine guns for good measure and you cannot tell them they have to adhere to a government acting as your master with fictional power he/she told you he/she has as this simply promotes slavery in a nation never intended for its government to hold any power. Absolutely none. Zero, nada. That power was shifted to the people and served quite well until a few politicians with bad ideas got into a position we all imagined had power beyond any God.

    Only you can interpret and exercise your rights and the government cannot and still be in the right idea of what the country was founded on. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. also had this idea and it cost him his life because some people were not able to understand he had the same right to be happy and live his life without any influence from the government. It just so happened to be he was facing oppression in a nation that strictly outlawed it as it served to simply treat a group of people like they had no rights. He wanted equality for black people but in the same breath he wanted all the other races to have the same rights as well equally. He wasn't singling out black people as a superior race he simply believed all mankind was equal regardless of how they looked or what they believed. But a lot of ignorant people saw it as a power play for the black community to become superior to everyone else. This is NOT what he taught he was simply smarter than the people still looking to oppress the black community. But this idea of absolute freedom would effectively make everyone equal and make everyone not be under the constraints of a government acting as a false idol. He was a great man and speaker and very very very intelligent this is very obvious as even some of the black community let his message get lost in interpretation.

    So yeah there is no short answer as to why gun control laws are an infringement but they simply are. The only way they would not be is if the laws just acknowledged one very true thing and said "If you are a violent offender then you cannot own yada yada" as that person gave up their freedom when they chose to act to limit another from their pursuit of happiness. The acknowledgment and punishment of criminals is what the laws should pertain to. Not people who have done nothing wrong and are then punished for the actions of another person as we all agree and all know it is morally incorrect to punish someone for the crimes of another.

    For anyone who reads this an is about to argue with me. Do me the courtesy of researching everything mentioned before shooting your mouth off as I took the time to research it and actually read about it and I am not gonna sit and listen to a person who is too ignorant to educate themselves before opening their mouths because so and so said it was right and they blindly followed.

  25. I remember seeing an M-60,yes THE belt-fed M-60,  for sale at a gun show in 1988-89 for $5,000, if only I had known!!!

  26. You guys should go through a discussion of the seminal legal opinions of SCOTUS, and show how their decisions have gone increasing crazy, showing no regard for their constitutional limits or care to be rational.

  27. So what is your legal brief and who will rule in your favor? NRA cannot get it done, like they want to. Here is the problem if the NRA somehow get laws changed then who will want to be a member and pay dues to the NRA. Kind of a catch 22 is it not. We need the bad guys so the NRA can keep making Money What would ADAM do?

  28. The Hughes Amendment is the reason why the NRA sucks shit. When I found out the NRA did nothing after the fact, I decided to no longer be apart of them because they want compromise with liberals, there should be none!

  29. Quick question. So if the government or state can not make a legal registry, does that mean the assault weapon registry in California is illegal?

  30. If the states are allowed to do as they please than this is no protection except from the feds. How can the feds protect the gun owners from the state abuses.

  31. The FOPA safe passage provision has been routinely violated in Non-Free States such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland. How are they able to successfully ignore this provision of FOPA?

  32. Have you ever noticed how all these so called public protection laws do the opposite? Let's go back to prohibition, a public protection act trying to regulate moral behavior, out of that we got government agencies that were just legalized bullies. and then we got the NFA because some criminals (who not only had guns they stole from the US armories and law enforcement they did murder (wonder if a little thing like gun regulation would deter them if they were willing to do murder, and other major crimes) In all of this the major players got guns from the government and the government makes it about taking non criminal guns from law abiding citizens Most of the incidents that trigger new gun legislation would not have been prevented by the law proposed. Personally it seems that the government is the root of the problem, they create a problem then they make laws to "fix" it, when if we took the toys away from them and made them live within the same rules they have imposed on us maybe we would have a bit safer world.

  33. We have gun rights but other countries have rocket propelled grenades I want RPG rights since semi auto is just as good as full auto we should focus our attention to getting RPG and Frag grenades

  34. I clicked on this video b/c the tease screen said, "Reagan Signed WHAT?!"

    Would love to see your commentary on CA Gov. Ronald Reagan's signing of the Mulford Act in 1967. (The Mulford Act outlawed the carrying of loaded firearms without a carry permit in the state of California.)

    You can then call THAT video, "Reagan Signed WHAT?!"

  35. if I'm not mistaken machine gun ownership has been severely restricted since the 1920's. except for FFL individuals. the Reagan administration just blew smoke and banned the importation of so called assault weapons which at the time were simi-auto. But, this is the first time I've heard these laws explained properly. Thank you!

  36. Vote me into power, I'll create the Bronze Cop Amendment. Where the bans from 1986 and 1968 will be repealed and can only be reinstated if the government is destroyed.

  37. This is why I don't like Reagan… conservative my ass, guns are the most important issue when it comes to American conservatism

  38. How can they create laws that infringe a right? They have no authority to enforce these laws but they do it anyway.

  39. Fuck you and when i mean you i mean the gun community i love guns but i see almost no one even mentioning that the 1986 act should be repeal. Maybe ian from military arms channels or iraqveteran888 but always a side note you should be disgusted you should start trying to regain rights not be on the defensive about losing them. The war is not won by staying sit waiting to overrun.

  40. I gotta tell you guys I'm really appalled. No full auto gun channel as been able to help me get rid of the Hughes Amendment. Most of them don't even respond, 1 of them had a really rude, snarky response and 2 of them wanted to help but just didn't think they could or that there was any hope.

    I need some people to get on board with me.

  41. Sure hope you have changed your stance on running for NRA Board of Directors. I realize this video is dated but in today's political climate and the NRA'S stance on bump stocks they are not protectors or guardians of the 2nd Amendment. After detailed and careful research , it's obvious that the NRA has done more to hurt the 2nd Amendment than help it. They protect the gun industry , not gun owners. Trump has enacted more gun control than Obama did on 8 years.

  42. That is exactly why I don't do common things, they think they are winning through scams and attacks on land. They think they own it as crooked ethnic pepple leaders of community committed cops, doctors, and politicians role models/their punks from community gangs.

  43. What a horrible "compromise" this was, giving up an entire class of weapons in exchange for mail order ammo and some other bread crumbs. I know, next time lets give up, oh I don't know, pick an entire category of firearm, like all shotguns in exchange for some more bread crumbs like being able to put vertical fore grips on pistols! Sounds awesome right?

  44. Here's a link on funding a documentary on ending the Hughes Amendment:

    If the Hughes Amendment is repealed we'll be able to own one of these weapons!

  45. Adam the NRA is an excellent organization but a very conservative organization and you need a haircut a shave and suit and tie you just don’t seem to be the type unless they are trying to reach out to the hippies!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *