Wage Why would anyone press for
a $15 minimum wage? If higher wages are better, and officials of some sort
can dictate the size of people's pay, a team of experts has concluded that
the minimum wage should be at least $50 an hour. Just think of the advances
if everyone had that much money to spend! The trickle up economy would
flourish. How did who pick $15, and should that person be reprimanded, or
punished? People could get new cars, bigger homes, spend like crazy,
everything would be better. Say no to $15 an hour. Say yes to $50 an hour.
What could go wrong if government dictates wages? $50 or
Slo Mo Bullets
Go Slow motion gunfire and interesting
targets, including making peanut butter and jelly with a
sidearm: http://www.chonday.com/Videos/sowmoghy2 Note
the brief pentagonal flare from the muzzle in one scene caused by the
lands and grooves of the barrel
CORRECTION: Alan Korwin
and Justice Antonin Scalia met at a Federalist Society reception in
Phoenix last year, not a Goldwater Institute event, as incorrectly reported
in a prior Page Nine report. Apologies to both fine
DIRECTORY OF ALAN'S WORK FOR: THE DAILY
I've finally gotten
around to posting a list of my work for The Daily Caller and
Townhall.com. It's some of my best material (the editors tell
me). Just the list and descriptions make a good quick read. http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm
My catalog of myths
the so-called progressives use to block progress is
Of all the preposterous nonsense
anti-gun-rights people have concocted, “invisible” x-ray-proof
guns may be the most bizarre. They did this when the superb Glock
safe-action pistol was introduced, and became the choice of police
departments worldwide. Easily spotted at airport checkpoints, their fears
were baseless, but they once again interfered with reality. The claim that
self defense is uncommon, because it never appears on nightly news is just
a measure of bias in news rooms, that won't show the millions of annual
defensive gun uses. http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/korwin-the-undetectable-gun-myth-if-self-defense-was-common-news-would-report-it-to-you-myth/
believe the media narrative you’d think the NRA is more powerful than
the top 50 real power lobbies, like banks, drug makers, import-export,
telecom, computers, railroads, automakers, retail, lawyers and the rest.
It's not even just the NRA, it’s the 100 million gun owners who cling
to their guns and rights. As far as phony gun buy-back schemes, criminals
don't turn in their guns for $100 grocery cards, and the schemes are
virtually illegal straw purchases, using out-of-state money and ought to be
List Price $14.95 each, your wholesale
$10.95 each, minimum order is 12
ORDER TWO COPIES -- WE PAY
Only $29.90 Complete! Save $5!
A Kenyan American, a Cuban American
and a Canadian American all tried out for the presidency of the United
States. The Kenyan American said, "I'm eligible because the Founding
Fathers believed a person with an African dad would make a fine president,
would have no divided loyalty, and wouldn't even have to prove he was born
here in the U.S. until well after he got into office." He said they put
that logic right into the Constitution in Article II.
American said, "I'm eligible because both my parents come from a brutal
communist dictatorship that aimed nuclear bombs at the United States, but
because they escaped in time to have me born in Florida, the Founding
Fathers believed I would have no split allegiances of any kind, and I would
be a perfect candidate for the presidency and the nuclear launch codes." He
dropped out of the race when too few people voted for him in the primaries.
Cuban law claims him as a citizen, as they do for everyone with even one
Cuban parent, but Americans like to ignore that, because it would make
things difficult with such a hostile enemy.
The Canadian American,
who is also a Cuban American thanks to his Cuban refugee dad, giving him
triple citizenship, said, "I'm a Harvard law grad, and I can tell you for
certain the Founders would believe I'm eligible because I renounced my
Canadian citizenship last year. I can also tell you it is a 'settled matter
of law' that being born in a foreign country like I was doesn't matter,
because I have at least one American parent, my mom, and that's how the
Founders planned to protect the presidency, right there in Article II.
Paternity didn't matter to them, despite what the British thought." The
British thought nationality came from your father, not your mother. Other
countries thought it was land based, or both.
But then John Jay
spoke up. He became our first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Back
in 1787 he said we have to prevent any chance that the commander in chief
and the presidency "be given to, nor devolve on" foreigners, in a letter to
George Washington, and Washington had written back to agree. [I have those
letters posted here.]
That's why the Committee of Eleven, the group appointed by the
Constitutional Convention to do a lot of the editing of the Constitution
while it was being drafted, wrote Article II to require only a "natural
born Citizen" could hold the office of president and commander in chief of
our military forces. They changed Alexander Hamilton's weaker
skeptics asked, "How did those old dead white guys even know what a
'natural born Citizen' was, or that it was the correct phrase? They might
have used a term like that, in that critical spot, and just guessed at its
meaning! They didn't even define it in the document itself!"
which a frustrated uninvited ombudsman blurted out, "Only brain-dead idiots
or followers of network "news" could believe such poppycock! They didn't go
defining ANY of the terms in the Constitution. They knew EXACTLY what their
words meant. Those white men were inspired geniuses. The definition of that
exact term was written down at that time for Pete's sake."
reference book Ben Franklin brought to the Convention, Law of
Nations, that phrase is precisely described, and it means just what you
would expect if the Framers were trying to guarantee a 100% American
president free from foreign entanglements, like Jay and Washington
discussed in writing.
Nations says, in Section 212: "Natural born citizens, are those
born in the country, of parents who are citizens." That's it. A three-part
requirement. Two citizen parents at the time of birth (jus sanguinis
in Latin, "of the blood"), on U.S. soil (jus soli in Latin, "of the
No Kenyan Americans. No Cuban Canadian Americans who
renounce foreign citizenship the year before they run for office. Sorry
folks, some people are not eligible. That was the Founding Fathers' plan.
How foreign is too foreign? Any.
Ben Franklin wrote a long letter
back to Charles Dumas in 1775, who provided their copies of Law of
Nations by Emer de Vattel (Ben had gotten three), to thank him and tell
him, "...the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently
to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, has
been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now
sitting..." He also mentioned, among many other items, they were working
hard to make saltpeter, desperately needed to manufacture gunpowder. The
letter is in the National Archives.
The Convention used "natural
born Citizen" in only one place and to this day has only one use in our
entire body of law -- as a restriction on who can be president and
commander in chief. Every other official requirement in law uses the plain
word "citizen," a condition that can be achieved in numerous ways,
including after birth, and appears constantly in law. Natural born
citizenship can only occur at the moment of birth.
A Kenyan American, a Cuban American
and a Canadian Cuban American were sitting in a bar, having read this short
essay and asked themselves, "So, what do we do now?" The Canadian Cuban
American said, "I'm eligible for the U.S. Supreme Court, and since I'm a
Harvard law grad, even though that's not a requirement, I think I'll go for
that." The Cuban American said, "I'm a U.S. Senator, and even though I
rarely vote there and too few people voted for me, I'll try to stay there."
And the Kenyan American said, "I may have a problem, I'm going to seek
legal advice from an undisclosed location." And everyone lived ever after,
for a while.
2- Background checks for presidential
The lamestream media told you: The
lamestream media told you:
There's another presidential debate
tonight, live at seven, don't miss it! There's a presidential caucus...
polling coming... talking heads... this candidate hates that one... look at
the wives... we don't objectify women... did you hear what that guy said
today... blah, blah, blather, blather.
Ombudsman notes however that: The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however
In light of recent revelations about political candidates at
every level, the "news" media has continued to refuse to insist on
background checks for people running for political office.
point out that from the president on down, these people will have to handle
top secret documents and information. The public should know before they
vote if the people they're electing can pass a security clearance.
Otherwise, the elections are fraudulent -- the people aren't qualified to
do what they're being elected to do.
Another top issue is the
eligibility question hanging over the man who was born in a foreign country
to a Cuban father. Three other hopefuls also had direct foreign upbringing
that probably disqualified them under the Article II instructions in the
Article II requires a person to be a "natural
born Citizen" to be eligible to become president, defined at the time of
the Founding as having two citizen parents and being born on U.S.
Background checks have become increasingly popular in
American life. Even routine jobs for corporations, health care, education,
transportation and many government positions require background checks,
along with more traditional functions, like eligibility for various firearm
permits and grade-school teaching. Security clearance background checks for
elected office is a concept whose time has come.
Looks Like a Cell Phone
Two More States Get Constitutional
The lamestream media told you: The
lamestream media told you:
A man has invented a gun that looks
like a cell phone. When closed, it appears more-or-less to be a phone, but
it unfolds into a two-shot .380 caliber pistol. It is still in development,
but he already has thousands of
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes
however that: The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
matter of law, a gun that doesn't look like a gun, is an "Any Other Weapon"
or AOW, specially regulated by BATFE, and it is treated like a machine gun
or silencer. You can get them, but a $200 tax stamp is required, and it has
to be registered and tracked. The inventor either knows this already, or
will find out right quick, and it will put a kink in the plan. But still,
it's a clever idea, and I hear he's working on a six-shot version. News
reports are gushing about the device without noting this tiny little
wrinkle. Some take a wow-how-cool perspective, while others think
OMG-people-will-be-secretly-armed, as if they haven't noticed all 50 states
have discreet carry laws, and 10 now have Constitutional Carry (Idaho and
West Virginia just enacted it).
Idaho overcame a ton of outside
spending by anti-rights New York billionaire bigot Michael Bloomberg to
defeat this right of the public to keep and bear arms. West Virginia
overrode a governor's veto to pass the important freedom legislation.
Despite hoplophobic fear of "BITS" (blood in the streets) it has never
happened anywhere permit laws or Constitutional Carry has been enacted. http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarryIndex.htm.
the cell-phone gun that doesn't exist yet got a lot of news coverage,
Constitutional Carry, a major advance of the public's fundamental freedoms,
got little, for reasons that were unclear at press time.
mind a wallet gun -- a small pistol that fits in a leather pocket wallet,
is an AOW and illegal without federal papers, if it can be fired from
within the wallet without the gun visible. The feds consider it a violation
to even own a trigger-hole wallet and a gun that fits it that can fire that
way, even if you don't have them together. Sort of like owning the
unassembled parts of a machine gun.
The lamestream media told
you: The lamestream media told you:
"... before the nomination
of Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit, was even formally announced, there was a series of
back-and-forth edits to his description as “a judicial
moderate” and “a strong liberal” on
"One of us (Michael Giles) has collected data that
might permit us to answer this question...
Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that: The Uninvited Ombudsman notes
The Washington Post, a widely recognized
propaganda arm of the political left, has inaccurately labeled Barack
Hussein Obama's choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S.
Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a moderate. This come as no surprise to
Because the term is an adjective, "an opinion," run where
news and reporting is supposed to appear, the paper cannot be accused of
lying. The judge's voting record however makes it impossible to fairly use
the word "moderate." Arguing with the Post, from past experience, is
an exercise in futility.
When the D.C. Circuit Court overturned
the ban on keeping a gun at home in Washington, D.C., he voted to overturn
that. In a long string of National Labor Relations Board cases, he voted
consistently against people and businesses and in favor labor
A constant flow of reports from the left portray judge
Merrick as a moderate. Reports from the right, recounting his voting
record, reveal him to be a left-wing ideologue, surprising no one in Barack
Hussein Obama's selection.
The only fly in the ointment is that,
if this man isn't put in place and Hillary wins the election, she may
nominate Mr. Hussein-Obama for the position, the worst possible choice in
terms of survival of The American Way.
Despite bluster that they will not act on the nomination, foolhearty
Republicans have one again tasted shoeleather. We shall
time today to review the Caetano v. Massachusetts case, the
eight-to-zero U.S. Supreme Court decision, its 112th gun case, that affirms
the right of self defense, the right to carry a stun gun, the tremendous
put down of the Massachusetts high court for outrageous behavior, and the
High Court's misuse of the per curiam mechanism. Stay tuned, I plan
to get to it.
Only $14.95 +S&H
Get two copies with free
shipping! Save $5!
One for you, one for a friend or a gift.
List Price $14.95 each, your wholesale cost at 40%
minimum order is 12 ($107.64)
Changes include: air guns, aliens, rights
restoration, school grounds, one-gun monthly repeal, out-of-state
purchases, gun shows, reciprocity abuses by government, car-carry
exceptions, carry without permits, drinking while armed, fingerprinting,
change of address, carry at worship, special cities, glove boxes, sawed
offs, preemption, ranges, common law, National Forests, hunting, land
owners and more... what?
You don't have The Virginia Gun
Owner's Guide? Why take the risk. Get yours today. Get a gift for a
friend. If it saves one life...
Get two copies with free shipping! Save
2- Antonin Scalia's Greatest
A Defining Moment in
The lamestream media told you: The
lamestream media told you:
Barack Hussein Obama has decided to
skip the funeral of recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,
whose dedication to the Constitution and the rule of law does not closely
match Mr. Hussein-Obama's, according to leading
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however
that: The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
District of Columbia vs. Heller case, considered by the firearms
community to be among Justice Scalia's finest pieces of work, is being made
available in annotated form and on special terms by Bloomfield Press, the
nation's largest publisher and distributor of gun law books.
book, The Heller Case, Gun Rights
Affirmed! here: http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm
became an instant classic, spelling out in plain English what SCOTUS
Justice Scalia had written in crisp, compelling legalese, having been
assigned the case by Chief Justice John Roberts. It confirmed that the
Second Amendment is an individual right of American people, despite
fabrications and concoctions invented by leftists to deny the right people
had exercised for more than 200 years. The opposition claimed the right was
"collective," and belonged to no person in particular, a false perspective
expressed in the dissent, which the book includes.
In addition to
every word of both the decision ("the holding") and the dissents, the book
highlights hundreds of important quotations in the texts and features plain
English summaries of every aspect of the case, plus explanations of how the
case came to be, who the various players are, and how the Court works.
"News" media typically exhibit an abysmally low understanding of such
things, misleading the public, you included, unfortunately.
reflected in the fact that in America we have gun stores, we have always
had gun stores, and you don't need to join a state militia to walk in and
buy as many firearms and as much ammunition as you like.
Lobbyist John Snyder, Dick Heller, and Alan
Korwin wait for the proceedings to begin at the Heller
case, downstairs at the U.S. Supreme Court. You can tell how cold it
was, we were bundled up.
The Heller Case, Gun Rights Affirmed!
is a joy to read and a tribute to the memory of one of the finest
legal minds to ever grace the Supreme Court bench. If you have never
actually read a High Court decision, this is the place to start. It is an
education, an exhilaration and rollicking good fun all at the same
Justice Scalia and Alan Korwin had a word about their
books, author to author, on May 12, 2015, at a Federalist Society
reception in Phoenix. He had graciously agreed to sign my book,
Supreme Court Gun Cases, at his book signing for Reading
Law, which I'm working my way
Read Scalia's actual
Supreme Court decision that saved your right to keep and bear
Our guarantee: It is better than TV, Will not rot
description of the time leading up to the hearing
and anticipation as the famous people gather
The speculation by
the pundits and reporters before and after
listed and analyzed as the case played out
Commentary by people
who were present and involved
The thrill as the word "Affirmed"
flashed around the word
The Stevens dissent, and the Breyer
dissent, to end gun rights
The brilliant Antonin Scalia text that
saved our right to arms
With crystal clear explanations and
Statements by more than two dozen top experts including some of the enemies of firearms
Bob Levy, Alan Gura, Don Kates, Clayton
Cramer, Eugene Volokh Daniel Schmutter, David Hardy, Glenn Reynolds,
Robert Cottrol Bruce Eimer, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Michael Anthony, Sandy
Froman Nick Dranias, Frederick Bieber, Richard Stevens, Chuck
Michel Craig Cantoni, Pro-Rights Groups -- NRA, SAF, NSSF, GOA, JPFO,
TFC The Anti-Rights Camp -- Brady, VPC, ABA, ACLU, Legislators,
And if that isn't enough: The Heller case had the
3rd highest number of amicus briefs ever filed on a case (67)
and they are all summarized in here, along with summaries of the 96
Supreme Court gun cases that came before this seminal gun
Get His Greatest Hit--
The case that saved the
AVAILABLE AT A DISCOUNT—
by Alan Korwin and David B. Kopel
$19.95 +S&H (a $5 savings!)
Two copies only $30, save
Keep one and give one away!
WHOLESALE DISCOUNTS! List Price
$24.95 each -- on sale now for $19.95
Your wholesale cost is now $11.97 each (was $14.96)
Minimum order is 6, for only $71.82 (was $89.82) YOU SAVE $77.88 ON A HALF DOZEN
Stop crooks and
crazies. Leave innocent people alone. Halt “universal”
Gun owners, rights activists, gun makers, even
our much-maligned lobbyists have no desire to see criminals, muslim jihadis
and crazies walk into stores and buy guns -- despite terrified ravings to
the contrary from progressives and the “news” media. Only
unhinged individuals would even suggest such lunatic-fringe
Yet the way the FBI/NICS background check system is set up
to stop bad guys it creates unconstitutional infringements on privacy and
dangerous federal power grabs that threatens our liberty. That's why it
earns such fierce resistance. Fix that and we'd all get along better,
New demands from left-wing partisans for so-called
“universal” background checks, which would be even worse, would
put the entire universe of legal gun owners' identities into federal
agents' hands. That's tyrannical and gun owners want it stopped. Can
background checks be done and still maintain a privacy wall between honest
retail gun sales and madmen seeking arms? Yes.
background checks work like good old fashioned Wanted Posters, but with
digital accuracy and efficiency, and should replace the dangerous left-wing
“universal” gun-owner registration scheme.
your neighborhood gun dealers sending millions of names of innocent people
every month to the FBI, the FBI should simply send the list of prohibited
people to the dealers, where they can be checked locally.
The BIDS Alternative The
system, designed and described 15 years ago by Brian Puckett and Russ
Howard, is elegant -- and far cheaper than what we have now. It eliminates
the odious gun-registration scheme that has always been central to the NICS
master plan, which generates most (but not all) of the resistance.
(Government infringement of our rights is a complex topic for another
time). The Blind Identification System (BIDS), designed to replace NICS, is
described in detail and linked on the home page at GunLaws.com (BIDS v. NICS).
FBI has little interest in the BIDS system for unilateral checks
because it represents a huge reduction in their power. BIDS would cost 90%
less because the Justice Dept. wouldn't need the expensive army of FBI
staffers who do the checking. Our firearm stores would simply do it when
they make sales.
The FBI claims they have to check the NCIC and
III criminal databases, but the NICS Index of prohibited people is the
mainstay of the system. The tiny percentage of difficult cases and
unresolved dispositions can be handled by a skeleton FBI crew. No
bureaucracy wants to see its staff -- and its budget -- shrink, even if
freedom grows as a result. Bureaucratic stonewalling would be a serious
problem to overcome, and there are some technology issues as with anything
of this size, but it can be done and is worth the fight.
millions of innocent names don't go to Big Brother each month. That way,
like wanted posters, it leaves decent people alone. Bad guys are
identified. Innocent people are not. The federal government doesn't get to
register every innocent American gun owner.
The great obstacle in
the radical left-wing infringement plan, which Americans rightfully resent
and reject is eliminated. Progressives would stop stopping progress at
last. The party of obstruction -- the democrats -- would be exposed for
their true motives:
They don't want BIDS because it doesn't gather
everyone's names, which is their main (though publicly unstated) goal. If
crime reduction was really their goal, they would be doing something about
it even under NICS. They staunchly refuse. Everyone whose rights they deny
(without trial or due process by the way) are just put on the street after
denials, with their money, looking to buy a gun. How many get one? They
don't know. Or care, if evidence is the gauge.
The left wing's
real problem is that unilateral checks would show that
“universal” checks are a scam. Progressives, leftists,
liberals, democratic socialists -- whatever these gun-fearful folks call
themselves these days -- don't really want to stop crime with
“universal” checks. They want your names.
The Emanuel Doctrine Crime and the muslim jihad
builds political capital and incentive to go after privately held guns
under the Emanuel Doctrine -- never let a crisis go to waste. As
soon as a criminal or jihadi (they're different) explodes, leftists stand
ready, prepared to immediately dance in the blood of the victims (a phrase
created by Neal Knox), and attack our rights. Lefties need those crimes, to
fuel their fires.
We can see this clearly because they find and
release every murderer, escapee, fugitive, felon, sex offender, rapist,
arsonist, armed robber, illegal alien, muslim jihadi, spousal abuser and
other prohibited person they spot through their cherished NICS
But they do gather a huge list of innocent people buying
guns, more than one million every month, and they desperately want that.
That's been the goal of the billions they've spent on this thing all along.
BIDS forces recognition of that.
Although they never admitted this
publicly either, insiders understood that a primary motivation of
government support for the Brady bill was not to implement background
checks for gun purchases. It was to secure the quarter-billion dollars in
funding the Justice Dept. hadn't been able to obtain to build a computer
capable of checking out every American from a single FBI location. Without
the shouting about guns, the money would never have been
A computer that size and scope doesn't fit on a
desktop. It sits on a sprawling FBI campus in Clarksburg, W. Va., a sleepy
little town two hours south of Pittsburgh. It's a crown jewel in the
government's arsenal of population control tools. It needs a staff to run
FBI NICS DATA CENTER IN CLARKSBURG,
If we switch over to unilateral checks,
your gun-ownership information stays safer and more private, the way the
Founding Fathers envisioned uninfringed gun ownership. Our Founders would
freak out if they saw you waiting in a store for some federal agent back
east to “allow” you to buy a firearm.
All the FBI has
to do is maintain the prohibited-people list -- still a big and important
job -- and keep the dealers informed. The FBI becomes our servants, not our
masters. The list can be encoded, encrypted, password protected, updated,
even hour-by-hour if they wish.
No, they're not interested in a
unilateral background check, because that would only stop every
criminal in America. That doesn't serve their purpose. They want their
“universal” system, to collect the universe of gun owners in
America -- you.
Sure, they claim they delete the records, and
statute is clear in requiring it, (18 USC §922(t), but they won't
allow a public audit (they claim a government audit keeps them honest).
Trust, but don't verify? In direct personal interviews they make assurances
that they strictly comply with the law. Look at their campus -- how would
you audit that?
Besides, when designed in the 1990s, their system
reportedly checked records of foreign agencies to be thorough, which made
sense. According to reliable sources back then, that included Canadian
authorities, Israeli Mossad, Scotland Yard, and more (they currently deny
this). Those agencies are under no requirement to erase anything, so
records of those inquiries would reside there. The public, even Congress,
has little way to provide assurances it doesn't.
We trust our
national network of licensed firearms dealers (50,000 stores, 130,000
licensed dealers) to sell guns and ammunition day in and day out. Surely we
can trust them with the names of hardened criminals who can't buy guns,
right? Any misuse of the information is a serious crime, you lose your
business license and face prison. No checking out your daughter's
Is the government afraid this will save money? (It
will.) Is the problem it will be more efficient? (It is.) Do they fear
losing all those jobs they created with their “universal”
system collecting your name every time you shop? (They do.) Is it a
privacy problem for the public-record list of hardened criminals (they will
raise that red herring, mark my words).
It's time to expose the
boondoggle. It's time to stop even the impression that the FBI is
recording the names of every gun buyer, as they knowingly gather the
data daily. It's time for the money-saving, highly efficient, vast
improvement of unilateral background checks, the BIDS system, and
stop progressives from standing in the way of progress and keeping America
South Carolina Guide for 2016! Now in
Get my 12th book,
After You Shoot: Your gun's hot. The perp's not. Now what?http://www.gunlaws.com/AYS.htm,
virtually as important, so you don't end up in more trouble than the
After You Shoot:
Your gun's hot. The perp's not. Now
Get (or give!) Alan Korwin’s
best-selling national titles, and save money too.
$112.75 if purchased separately -- but
only $69.95 for the set -- Save $42.80!
The groundbreaking After You Shoot
(so you don’t help convict yourself), Gun Laws of
America (the unabridged guide to every federal gun law), The
Heller Case (the lawsuit that saved the 2nd Amendment), Supreme
Court Gun Cases (on CD), Bomb Jokes at Airports
(help save free speech), plus 100 Guns Save Lives heart stickers,
his latest, designed to bring your gunless friends on board -- Your
First Gun: Should You Buy One and Join 60 Million Safely Armed American
Homes? A smokin’ deal!
Just enough humor and irony
to keep this lighthearted.
know why Alan has such a