PDA

View Full Version : Using UOC as "good cause" for a CCW?


Theseus
05-30-2009, 8:18 PM
I was thinking that, even though I may not want one, that once my case is over I apply for a CCW with my local PD and sight the dangers and risks of UOC as the "good cause".

What do you all think of trying this?

CSDGuy
05-30-2009, 8:52 PM
Well, assuming you win... and the "may issue" parts of 12050 haven't been struck down yet... including that as part of your good cause might not be a bad idea. You'd still have to disclose the arrest/trial and dispo though...

ojisan
05-30-2009, 8:59 PM
I was thinking that, even though I may not want one, that once my case is over I apply for a CCW with my local PD and sight the dangers and risks of UOC as the "good cause".

What do you all think of trying this?

I think it would not work but it would sure be funny to see the look on their faces after reading your application's "Good Cause".
I believe you would be categorized as a Smart-***.
:)

dustoff31
05-30-2009, 9:14 PM
I think it would not work but it would sure be funny to see the look on their faces after reading your application's "Good Cause".
I believe you would be categorized as a Smart-***.
:)

You are probably right, but OTOH, may be some value in telling them "Look, I'm going to carry my gun. How would prefer that I carry it?"

pullnshoot25
05-30-2009, 9:32 PM
Interesting...

N6ATF
05-30-2009, 9:53 PM
Hell, might be a better place to use the BS anti-UOC arguments. Say you fear being disarmed before you can load in a criminal attack, criminals will get your gun, etc...

Though considering the law (and The Law), helping law-abiding gun owners defeat criminals is antithetical.

sfpcservice
05-30-2009, 10:32 PM
Maybe something along the lines of "Exercising my right to carry draws unwanted attention... People trying to steal my weapon...etc"

You never know until you try.

nicki
05-31-2009, 9:16 AM
Assuming you win your case, I bet the local LEO's would be only glad to issue a permit, but just in case they don't, tell them your next lawsuit will be to challenge to ban on LOC:43:

Nicki

Alphahookups
05-31-2009, 11:22 AM
Interesting proposition. I have never been a fan of OC because it does little more than make you a target IMO. Based on that theory, you can say you want use your right to protect yourself, but your only avenue of doing so is UOC but don't want to be a target, and that may very well be grounds for good cause...but I don't know if the Sheriff's will see it that way.

N6ATF
05-31-2009, 4:26 PM
:beatdeadhorse5::fud:

OC only makes you a target for false arrest and numerous rights violations. There is much proof of this, and no proof of non-badged criminal targeting.

Alphahookups
05-31-2009, 4:48 PM
:beatdeadhorse5::fud:

OC only makes you a target for false arrest and numerous rights violations. There is much proof of this, and no proof of non-badged criminal targeting.

Proof?..it's called common sense. When people rob a bank, who do they target first? Answer: The security guard. I'm not saying that it can't be a deterrent, but offensive strategy would say to take out threats first, then complete the mission.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but if you could have both...I would take CCW over OC everyday.

bohoki
05-31-2009, 4:55 PM
what an open carrier needs to do is have a friend follow him around and make constant reports to the police of someone with a gun have the oc er just wait for the police and do this all over town for months

maybe they will be so sick of seeing the same person over and over that they will bend

the person calling in man with a gun will not be filing a false report because it is truth backed up by the officers showing up

so if they dont want to be called on all these wild goose chases they should have the person carry in which scared citizens wont keep calling the man

DDT
05-31-2009, 5:10 PM
what an open carrier needs to do is have a friend follow him around and make constant reports to the police of someone with a gun have the oc er just wait for the police and do this all over town for months

maybe they will be so sick of seeing the same person over and over that they will bend

the person calling in man with a gun will not be filing a false report because it is truth backed up by the officers showing up

so if they dont want to be called on all these wild goose chases they should have the person carry in which scared citizens wont keep calling the man

Even if they don't get their CCW it will certainly de-sensitize the locals to open carry. Eventually they'll stop coming to calls unless the "Man with Gun" is actually doing something suspicious.

KylaGWolf
05-31-2009, 5:56 PM
Proof?..it's called common sense. When people rob a bank, who do they target first? Answer: The security guard. I'm not saying that it can't be a deterrent, but offensive strategy would say to take out threats first, then complete the mission.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but if you could have both...I would take CCW over OC everyday.

You are paranoid. As to your comment who is the first person they target when they rob a bank. Usually its the security guard if there is one and then the tellers. I don't think I have ever heard of someone in a bank that was OC and shot and wounded.

I still say to those that claim that OC makes you a target give me cold hard statistical proof otherwise its nothing but smoke. Hell I was involved in a stop on UOC. But I wasn't OCing just everyone I was with was. While yes I would LOVE to have a CCW or the right to LOC right now my only option is UOC.

KylaGWolf
05-31-2009, 5:59 PM
what an open carrier needs to do is have a friend follow him around and make constant reports to the police of someone with a gun have the oc er just wait for the police and do this all over town for months

maybe they will be so sick of seeing the same person over and over that they will bend

the person calling in man with a gun will not be filing a false report because it is truth backed up by the officers showing up

so if they dont want to be called on all these wild goose chases they should have the person carry in which scared citizens wont keep calling the man

While yes the call would be truthful I can almost bet you that they would go after said friend. Sorry after being on the end of a stop for carrying legally I can say I would just prefer they don't even show. Best bet would be to train the dispatchers to ask things such as what is the person doing with the gun. To qualify if there is even a NEED for the police to respond.

Alphahookups
05-31-2009, 6:12 PM
You are paranoid. As to your comment who is the first person they target when they rob a bank. Usually its the security guard if there is one and then the tellers. I don't think I have ever heard of someone in a bank that was OC and shot and wounded.

I still say to those that claim that OC makes you a target give me cold hard statistical proof otherwise its nothing but smoke. Hell I was involved in a stop on UOC. But I wasn't OCing just everyone I was with was. While yes I would LOVE to have a CCW or the right to LOC right now my only option is UOC.

You are missing the point. The reason they target the security guard is because they are the only one that poses a threat. You can bet if they come in and see a person OCing, they will be the next to be targeted. Again, it's common sense.

As for your comments about statistics, there aren't nearly enough cases to prove anything. Less than 1% of people OC, so stats are going to be virtually useless, ON BOTH SIDES.

As for your side, I completely sympathize. I feel the same way...if the only thing I can do is UOC, that's what I'll do...I'm just saying it's safer to CCW when legal vs OC.

N6ATF
05-31-2009, 6:22 PM
You are paranoid. As to your comment who is the first person they target when they rob a bank. Usually its the security guard if there is one and then the tellers. I don't think I have ever heard of someone in a bank that was OC and shot and wounded.

Right. OCers are a variable you cannot plan for if you don't throw a grenade in or open up with dual-wield automatic rifle fire first.

OCers aren't required to wear uniforms and don't sit or stand in the same place most if not all of the time.

You are missing the point. The reason they target the security guard is because they are the only one that poses a threat. You can bet if they come in and see a person OCing, they will be the next to be targeted. Again, it's common sense.

Common sense, bull.

You're not going to walk in a bank and immediately spot the OCer like you would a posted guard. Walking in, acting like a regular customer, getting in line, looking for an OCer to take out immediately after the guard, then finally robbing the bank is way too much for almost ALL CRIMINALS. Either they pay careful attention and leave to find a softer target, or don't and get caught/shot (or are successful because of bank policy and/or nobody was armed).

You don't understand criminals if you think they're going to fight to the death over every, or even a significant amount, of their crimes.

Alphahookups
05-31-2009, 6:28 PM
Oh please...stop with the semantics. All I know is if I were in a situation bad enough to try armed robbery, and I saw an OCer, they would be a target. Why? Because they pose a threat...plain and simple. Now a CCW PERSON looks like all others, so they wouldn't be at risk until they pulled their weapon. The act of surprise is not there with OC. As you walk down the beachwalk OCing, Everyone knows you're carrying, and ANYONE that wanted to could take you out(since they have the act of surprise on their side).

N6ATF
05-31-2009, 7:01 PM
All I know is if I were in a situation bad enough to try armed robbery, and I saw an OCer, they would be a target.

This says it all. You're projecting both YOUR own level of logic and reasoning for even committing armed robbery in the first place on criminals.

You are subjectively correct if you become the criminal.
Objectively, no evidence given.
Historically, no evidence given.
Criminologically, practically all evidence to the contrary - movies and the rare sociopath excluded.

Theseus
05-31-2009, 7:10 PM
Realize OC is growing and will come to CalGuns in a much larger capacity whether you believe it or agree with it or not so just accept that!

phamkl
05-31-2009, 7:26 PM
Not to mention... chances are there's not going to be a bank robbery while you're UOC'ing. In the case of a bank robbery you're likely in too deep anyway since whoever is doing the robbery is probably going to be pretty well armed. If you're anywhere where someone isn't expecting to come up against armed resistance, UOC seems like a good deterrent.

KylaGWolf
05-31-2009, 7:47 PM
Oh please...stop with the semantics. All I know is if I were in a situation bad enough to try armed robbery, and I saw an OCer, they would be a target. Why? Because they pose a threat...plain and simple. Now a CCW PERSON looks like all others, so they wouldn't be at risk until they pulled their weapon. The act of surprise is not there with OC. As you walk down the beachwalk OCing, Everyone knows you're carrying, and ANYONE that wanted to could take you out(since they have the act of surprise on their side).

Well now let me use a bit of devils advocate to you. IF CCW becomes more common place in CA what would stop that same desperate person that is going to commit an armed robbery in said same bank from just opening fire on everyone in the bank since now ANYONE could be a threat. Oh and by the way the states that DO allow OC have a lower incidence of crime in general. Gee maybe those same said bad guys realize that they don't stand half a chance knowing that there are good guys that are armed.

KylaGWolf
05-31-2009, 7:49 PM
Realize OC is growing and will come to CalGuns in a much larger capacity whether you believe it or agree with it or not so just accept that!

Yep you got that one right!

racer_X_123
05-31-2009, 8:17 PM
Ok, so what are the downsides of applying and being denied. If I apply now and get rejected (inevitably) will it be a problem when it comes time that CA switches to shall issue? Also, What about a free state? Would a denial in CA reflect badly in my record when it comes time to get one there.

1JimMarch
05-31-2009, 8:50 PM
k, so what are the downsides of applying and being denied. If I apply now and get rejected (inevitably) will it be a problem when it comes time that CA switches to shall issue?

I doubt it! That would allow you to open up the whole "corruption in the bad old days" issue.

If Cali goes shall-issue, the one ADVANTAGE the cops will immediately recognize is the ability to put all that CCW corruption crap behind them and pretend it never happened. That will be realized from the California DOJ on down. Denying CCW based on decisions in those times opens up that whole can of worms in court. If Cal-DOJ attempts any such thing, their own involvement in covering up the local misconduct can be brought to bear against them, and they'll damned well know it.

My prediction: they will NOT want to go there. And by "they" I mean the whole cop structure top to bottom, running all the way to the AG's office.

Also, What about a free state? Would a denial in CA reflect badly in my record when it comes time to get one there.

Well THIS I can answer for sure. I was denied a total of nine times in Cali, possibly a record. I left in '05, spent a year in the Seattle area, scored a WA state CCW no sweat. Came to AZ in '06, scored AZ CCW no sweat. Neither state so much as asked. So that's absolutely, positively a non-issue.

N6ATF
05-31-2009, 9:05 PM
Hell, being denied that many times in CA is a badge of honor. Proves you didn't bribe anyone or had to move to BFE County to be approved sans-bribery.

1JimMarch
05-31-2009, 9:38 PM
Hell, being denied that many times in CA is a badge of honor. Proves you didn't bribe anyone or had to move to BFE County to be approved sans-bribery.

Fought two lawsuits on it.

Alphahookups
05-31-2009, 9:50 PM
I love how everyone snaps like I'm attacking OC in general... I'm not... I'm mearly saying that ccw would be the preferred method.

As for your statistics kayla.... I would like to see them.

Alphahookups
05-31-2009, 9:52 PM
... And I'm sorry about calling you kayla instead of kyla... I'm on my phone and it won't allow me to edit

Theseus
05-31-2009, 10:10 PM
I love how everyone snaps like I'm attacking OC in general... I'm not... I'm mearly saying that ccw would be the preferred method.

As for your statistics kayla.... I would like to see them.

But honestly and as politely as I can mean it, no one asked. . . Did they?

N6ATF
05-31-2009, 10:11 PM
Fought two lawsuits on it.

Even better.

DDT
05-31-2009, 10:54 PM
Oh please...stop with the semantics. All I know is if I were in a situation bad enough to try armed robbery, and I saw an OCer, they would be a target. Why? Because they pose a threat.

Interestingly the pharmacist involved in the shooting in the other thread didn't choose to shoot the guy WITH the gun when it was an active shooting situation. So you think that your general run-of-the-mill bad guy is going to be smarter and in a better state of mind than someone like the pharmacist who's been robbed a number of times and responded as quickly as he did?

DDT
05-31-2009, 10:55 PM
I love how everyone snaps like I'm attacking OC in general...

I can't imagine where they got that idea......


I have never been a fan of OC because it does little more than make you a target

artherd
05-31-2009, 11:52 PM
Playing with fire. Might work, might get you labeled as a smart-***.

It would be more interesting to simply cite your case in :)

County?

Theseus
06-01-2009, 12:36 AM
LA county, but the City of Alhambra issues permits as well. Since they were the ones that recommended the case to the DA I am thinking that might just be sweet. . . even if it doesn't work.

Alphahookups
06-01-2009, 7:20 AM
But honestly and as politely as I can mean it, no one asked. . . Did they?

Well, um...yes...it's kinda the point of the thread :rolleyes:

Alphahookups
06-01-2009, 7:24 AM
Interestingly the pharmacist involved in the shooting in the other thread didn't choose to shoot the guy WITH the gun when it was an active shooting situation. So you think that your general run-of-the-mill bad guy is going to be smarter and in a better state of mind than someone like the pharmacist who's been robbed a number of times and responded as quickly as he did?

Greetings fellow San Carlosian!

Well, I would say it was a pretty good rule of thumb that if you were attacked by two people, to shoot the person with the gun first :D

...but nevermind the reason WHY(poor shot placement, bad decision, adrenaline...) he shot the unarmed guy, if were are changing the subject, who would you have shot first?

...and in response to your statement about me critiquing OC...it's the point of this thread...that right now the only way to protect ones self is UOC, which is pretty much need the bottom of types of carrying.

DDT
06-01-2009, 7:49 AM
...but nevermind the reason WHY(poor shot placement, bad decision, adrenaline...) he shot the unarmed guy, if were are changing the subject, who would you have shot first?

My point wasn't who he SHOULD have shot first. I was merely pointing out that your suggestion any bad guy would seek out OCers to shoot first is not a fair assumption.

Bugei
06-01-2009, 7:53 AM
I was thinking that, even though I may not want one, that once my case is over I apply for a CCW with my local PD and sight the dangers and risks of UOC as the "good cause".

What do you all think of trying this?

It's as least as amusing as Perata's "good cause" being that his gun control legislation has made people angry enough to threaten him with death.

Alphahookups
06-01-2009, 7:54 AM
My point wasn't who he SHOULD have shot first. I was merely pointing out that your suggestion any bad guy would seek out OCers to shoot first is not a fair assumption.

It might not be a fair assumption, but it's a logical one.

Now, of course I'm not trying to say that OC is bad...it very well might be a good deterrent, but I can't seem to emphasize enough how much safer I would feel concealed carrying vs open carrying.

I still haven't seen any stats from Kyla's side showing OCs effectiveness either...my point being it's not used nearly enough to have any real stats compiled.

TatankaGap
06-01-2009, 8:20 AM
Now, of course I'm not trying to say that OC is bad...it very well might be a good deterrent, but I can't seem to emphasize enough how much safer I would feel concealed carrying vs open carrying.

I still haven't seen any stats from Kyla's side showing OCs effectiveness either...my point being it's not used nearly enough to have any real stats compiled.

I have 2 states CCW permits, shall issue and I CCW or OC depending on what I'm doing and how I feel and what I'm wearing. That's how it is in a free state.

In PRK, it's so restricted to get CCW that for most everyone, it's not a practical option. So to say that you would prefer CCW is really saying you would prefer something that you can't get. So do you go naked instead? No necessary.

UOC is the best you have under the circumstances. In a self-defense situation in a bank robbery, while the robbers come in, you see them because you are in a high awareness level - when they shoot the security guard, you are already loaded and ready -

If you can't get your mag into your gun while they are shooting the security guard, Darwin says you may not make it.

Assuming you're loaded, if robbers shoot the security guard, you take cover and shoot the robbers. If you weren't UOC, you'd be sitting there with nothing but you're xyz in your hand.

Even without the crisis scenario, IMHO, UOC is the way to shall issue CCW because if enough people UOC regularly, then a bunch of regular folks are going to pressure the politicians to do something because the exercise of 2A may shock their suburban sensibilities (btw, imagine if someone suggested that it would be OK to limit people's 1A rights to fit within suburban sensibilities!) ~

The answer will be shall issue CCW - IMHO - because the natural political solution to a bunch of people UOC'ing, is to give them a chance to exercise their 2A rights discretely -

That's how it's always been - people usually OC in the country and CCW in the city - to be nice to the city people and their sensitivities -

So the effect of UOC is two fold - 1) self-defensive; and 2) for a change in the law -

Carry On!

Decoligny
06-01-2009, 8:36 AM
Proof?..it's called common sense. When people rob a bank, who do they target first? Answer: The security guard. I'm not saying that it can't be a deterrent, but offensive strategy would say to take out threats first, then complete the mission.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but if you could have both...I would take CCW over OC everyday.

They target the security guard because they know way ahead of time that he is there and armed. In most bank robberies, he is the first person they POINT their weapon at. They rarely walk in and start to indiscrimantly kill people, even the ones who are armed.

Secondly, most robberies aren't "bank robberies". A person who is robbing a 7-11 isn't doing much planning. And they sure aren't planning on "taking out" any security guards.

Alphahookups
06-01-2009, 8:36 AM
Tatanka,

I know exactly the reason for UOCing and like I said, in CA it's pretty much all we have right now...BUT THE REASON FOR THIS THREAD was to determine if UOC could be good enough for good cause on the CCW application.

Glock22Fan
06-01-2009, 8:39 AM
If I was going to commit a bank robbery, I'd choose the bank with the fewest guns on display, rather than just try my luck shooting at all the carriers.

Alphahookups
06-01-2009, 8:39 AM
They target the security guard because they know way ahead of time that he is there and armed. In most bank robberies, he is the first person they POINT their weapon at. They rarely walk in and start to indiscrimantly kill people, even the ones who are armed.

The guard is targeted because he is the biggest threat. If a robber walks in, sees an OCer, he will either leave, or address the OCer and the guard.

Secondly, most robberies aren't "bank robberies". A person who is robbing a 7-11 isn't doing much planning. And they sure aren't planning on "taking out" any security guards.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. If a person walks into 7-11 and sees you with a gun on your side...they are going to react...in which way is unknown...but they will react.

Alphahookups
06-01-2009, 8:40 AM
If I was going to commit a bank robbery, I'd choose the bank with the fewest guns on display, rather than just try my luck shooting at all the carriers.

Granted...but once you found the fewest, you would then address those carrying.

HunterJim
06-01-2009, 8:51 AM
Tatanka,

I know exactly the reason for UOCing and like I said, in CA it's pretty much all we have right now...BUT THE REASON FOR THIS THREAD was to determine if UOC could be good enough for good cause on the CCW application.

I would like to get back to the original question in the thread; anybody know if this has been tried?

thanks...jim

Theseus
06-01-2009, 9:01 AM
Well, um...yes...it's kinda the point of the thread :rolleyes:

No, the point of the thread is to seek opinions about OC in relation to good cause when applying for a CCW, not whether you agree with or are cool with OC.

I have been.....

:threadjacked:

So this is how it feels. . . All I could do is watch. . .

Alphahookups
06-01-2009, 9:05 AM
No, the point of the thread is to seek opinions about OC in relation to good cause when applying for a CCW, not whether you agree with or are cool with OC.

Good grief, stop ruining the guys thread. I stated that I thought it can be argued that CCW is safer then UOC, thus being the good cause for carrying.

HondaMasterTech
06-01-2009, 10:17 AM
It may be argued that UOC gives the bad guy additional information about the situation as it is being assessed before the crime is committed. This could work to the benefit of either the criminal allowing for improved strategy or could work for the decent folks and actually detour the criminal altogether. I think is a logical addition to the CCW argument as a whole. But for a "good cause"? I dont think it would help.

N6ATF
06-01-2009, 10:19 AM
Granted...but once you found the fewest none, you would then address those carrying proceed to rob the soft target.

This is how all non-idiot, non-insane fight-to-the-death criminals actually work.

Untamed1972
06-01-2009, 3:18 PM
I have 2 states CCW permits, shall issue and I CCW or OC depending on what I'm doing and how I feel and what I'm wearing. That's how it is in a free state.

In PRK, it's so restricted to get CCW that for most everyone, it's not a practical option. So to say that you would prefer CCW is really saying you would prefer something that you can't get. So do you go naked instead? No necessary.

UOC is the best you have under the circumstances. In a self-defense situation in a bank robbery, while the robbers come in, you see them because you are in a high awareness level - when they shoot the security guard, you are already loaded and ready -

If you can't get your mag into your gun while they are shooting the security guard, Darwin says you may not make it.

Assuming you're loaded, if robbers shoot the security guard, you take cover and shoot the robbers. If you weren't UOC, you'd be sitting there with nothing but you're xyz in your hand.

Even without the crisis scenario, IMHO, UOC is the way to shall issue CCW because if enough people UOC regularly, then a bunch of regular folks are going to pressure the politicians to do something because the exercise of 2A may shock their suburban sensibilities (btw, imagine if someone suggested that it would be OK to limit people's 1A rights to fit within suburban sensibilities!) ~

The answer will be shall issue CCW - IMHO - because the natural political solution to a bunch of people UOC'ing, is to give them a chance to exercise their 2A rights discretely -

That's how it's always been - people usually OC in the country and CCW in the city - to be nice to the city people and their sensitivities -

So the effect of UOC is two fold - 1) self-defensive; and 2) for a change in the law -

Carry On!

You make it sound so easy though! What one in this state must factor in right now is that he is FAR MORE LIKELY to be harrased by the police for exercising his UOC rights then he is to need his weapon for self-defense. So one must ask themselves which they are willing to deal with? Getting harrassed by uninformed COPs on weekly/daily basis (and possible arrest / legal costs) or the once in a million chance he might need to defend himself?

demnogis
06-01-2009, 3:36 PM
As OCing you do become a likely target for police harassment. There are many factors to this, mostly due to their inexperience and lack of knowledge on OC laws. I wouldn't pin it on the LEO, but on the agency, their BS policies and politics.

Until they become aware of the legalities of it, plan on being detained at least once.

Will you be detained? Plan on it, prepare for it. Arm yourself with the knowledge of the law. Do not consent to anything, comply with orders (even unlawful ones) but tell them YOU DO NOT CONSENT.

Will you get charged? Highly unlikely - if you're smart and stay out of school zones, out of government buildings and know where not to carry. Only carry in those places if you intend on taking the full-expense challenge.

Will it make you a prime target for criminals and the non-law-abiding? Indeterminate. You probably won't notice since nothing will happen...

Will you get questions from the curious? Undoubtedly.

Will you ever need to draw and load? No-one knows. LEOs don't know, congress doesn't know, state senate doesn't know, and the owner of the store you are a patron of doesn't know. Consider it insurance.

Untamed1972
06-01-2009, 4:01 PM
As OCing you do become a likely target for police harassment. There are many factors to this, mostly due to their inexperience and lack of knowledge on OC laws. I wouldn't pin it on the LEO, but on the agency, their BS policies and politics.

Until they become aware of the legalities of it, plan on being detained at least once.

Will you be detained? Plan on it, prepare for it. Arm yourself with the knowledge of the law. Do not consent to anything, comply with orders (even unlawful ones) but tell them YOU DO NOT CONSENT.

Will you get charged? Highly unlikely - if you're smart and stay out of school zones, out of government buildings and know where not to carry. Only carry in those places if you intend on taking the full-expense challenge.

Will it make you a prime target for criminals and the non-law-abiding? Indeterminate. You probably won't notice since nothing will happen...

Will you get questions from the curious? Undoubtedly.

Will you ever need to draw and load? No-one knows. LEOs don't know, congress doesn't know, state senate doesn't know, and the owner of the store you are a patron of doesn't know. Consider it insurance.

I admire you guys who are willing to gear-up and deal with all the hassles and harrassment. I just don't have the time, the patience, or the funds to take that on right now.

I have LOC'd in AZ before though. It was interesting to do it for the first time. I think I was more aware of it then anyone else was. I did a couple of looks, but most people didn't care.