2022 Los Angeles County Sheriff election mega thread..

[LrdVaderZ]

Originally Posted by lastinline

GMC is totally subjective; it has no definition, and can be applied in any manner so chosen by the IA. For example, someone may have a long-ago bankruptcy, since discharged. While it may be no fault of their own, it is a factor. Same for another individual who may have used legal prescriptions for controlled substances years prior. A brief unintended lapse in auto insurance, an unpaid parking ticket that a spouse picked up while driving your car, or an expunged misdemeanor from forty-fifty years past could all easily be used.

I don't see on an application anything about bankruptcy in distant pass. There is a question about being party to a lawsuit in last 5 years, which is different.

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by LrdVaderZ

I don't see on an application anything about bankruptcy in distant pass. There is a question about being party to a lawsuit in last 5 years, which is different.

If a elected sheriff, or his underling, wishes to include that as a part of the interview or another step in the process, there is absolutely nothing preventing such. Additionally, ALL criteria at this point of “may issue” is totally discretionary; as you will recall from recent history, the sheriff of the County of Los Angeles for many years (and decades prior with his predecessor’s) used that discretionary ability to deny the overwhelming vast majority of citizens from obtaining CCW permits, no matter what cause they could come up with, or how “good” their moral character was. That he is starting to issue more permits now is totally 100% up to him, and him alone. And that could change tomorrow if he simply wished it, with absolutely NO recourse for the citizens, other than electing someone else for his position.
Shall issue would make a clear definition of what issues or not a citizen may have in their personal history for the denial of any permit. That would effectively end this GMC bull**** once and for all.

[Paul49]

Originally Posted by lastinline

GMC is totally subjective; it has no definition, and can be applied in any manner so chosen by the IA. For example, someone may have a long-ago bankruptcy, since discharged. While it may be no fault of their own, it is a factor. Same for another individual who may have used legal prescriptions for controlled substances years prior. A brief unintended lapse in auto insurance, an unpaid parking ticket that a spouse picked up while driving your car, or an expunged misdemeanor from forty-fifty years past could all easily be used.

Agree. Maybe even throw in a psychiatric evaluation to boot.

[Paladin]

The period for registering to run is closed, so find out all contenders.

Next find out their CCW GC policies.

Then figure out if any ones better than AV have a solid chance of beating him. Only then consider changing. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” The NRA always supports a proven good incumbent over a great sounding challenger.

Political loyalty only works both ways.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Mute

Now the big question on Rodriquez is whether he stands a real chance or will he end up splitting the AV votes allowing a third (and likely gun hating leftist BOS stooge) candidate to squeak by for the win.

Exactly

[jorgi23]

They rather be treated like a test rat, than realize they have been wrong for their entire worthless lives.

"Democrat Syndrome"

[Paladin]

If NYSRPA gets decided before the election, great. While it is possible it could get released any day, it mostly will not be released until after the June election. Best not to factor it in this analysis at all.

At this point, IMO, AV in a relative sense has been GREAT for LA Co given its history. He has actually issued to non VIPs, to regular people who have death threats with Restraining Orders (Dark Red), business owner facing risks (Light Red), and employees facing risks (Yellow).

In an absolute sense he has just been okay. He has seemed to have backed off from accepting recreational activities risks (Light Green) and never accepted daily activities risks or merely “self defense” or “personal protection” (Dark Green).

He does regularly talk about and promote CCWs, far more than his RINO predecessor and has said he will implement online application process to streamline and speed up the process.

He has got a lot of political enemies, but they are far Left at a time when the electorate is rejecting “defund the police” Kool Aid. He is not embroiled in any major scandals.

Investigate the challengers but at this point I think sticking with AV is still the best move even if you personally can’t get issued. Historically CA counties go only in one direction: from restrictive to liberal issuance. You need 4 or 8 more years of regular issuance to consolidate the win and ensure a new sheriff does NOT take LA back to Dark Red. The political costs (tens of thousands of outraged CCWers), would be too great.

JMO

[LrdVaderZ]

Originally Posted by Paladin

If NYSRPA gets decided before the election, great. While it is possible it could get released any day, it mostly will not be released until after the June election. Best not to factor it in this analysis at all.

At this point, IMO, AV in a relative sense has been GREAT for LA Co given its history. He has actually issued to non VIPs, to regular people who have death threats with Restraining Orders (Dark Red), business owner facing risks (Light Red), and employees facing risks (Yellow).

In an absolute sense he has just been okay. He has seemed to have backed off from accepting recreational activities risks (Light Green) and never accepted daily activities risks or merely “self defense” or “personal protection” (Dark Green).

He does regularly talk about and promote CCWs, far more than his RINO predecessor and has said he will implement online application process to streamline and speed up the process.

He has got a lot of political enemies, but they are far Left at a time when the electorate is rejecting “defund the police” Kool Aid. He is not embroiled in any major scandals.

Investigate the challengers but at this point I think sticking with AV is still the best move even if you personally can’t get issued. Historically CA counties go only in one direction: from restrictive to liberal issuance. You need 4 or 8 more years of regular issuance to consolidate the win and ensure a new sheriff does NOT take LA back to Dark Red. The political costs (tens of thousands of outraged CCWers), would be too great.

JMO

By the way, is there an ETA on online?

[lastinline]

Would be absolutely hilarious to see a good ruling from SCOTUS, with the masses exercising CCW with little effort, while all those who ran the gauntlet, spent money, time, and endured rectal exams holding on to expensive permits that are no better than anyone else’s. I would at least hope one could deduct the licensing expense for tax purposes, like vehicle license fees, but that’s a whole other thread.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by LrdVaderZ

By the way, is there an ETA on online?

Last I heard was this summer, but I stopped monitoring the LA Co CCW application thread awhile ago. Best to pose the question over there.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

I'm going to vote for him because he's Hispanic. My sole requirement, just like Biden and his VP and SCOTUS prerequisets.

It's about time LA County elects a Hispanic sheriff - long overdue.

I know you're being sarcastic but...

Obviously Sheriff AV is Hispanic, and convicted former Sheriff Baca is also Hispanic.

As for this challenger to Sheriff AV:

I'm likely to vote for Sheriff AV, even though, on paper, AV's CCW position isn't as perfect. Why? Because Sheriff AV issues, in reality, to real people. This other guy... who knows, campaign promises don't always translate into reality. And Sheriff AV has done good things on other issues, including being a strong supporter of the Gascon recall and bringing attention to the idea of requiring homeless people to follow laws like the rest of us. The other factor is that SCOTUS is likely to force all of California to go shall-issue this summer, so... it may be a moot point.

So I'm inclined to support AV at this point.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

I know you're being sarcastic but...

Obviously Sheriff AV is Hispanic, and convicted former Sheriff Baca is also Hispanic.

As for this challenger to Sheriff AV:

I'm likely to vote for Sheriff AV, even though, on paper, AV's CCW position isn't as perfect. Why? Because Sheriff AV issues, in reality, to real people. This other guy... who knows, campaign promises don't always translate into reality. And Sheriff AV has done good things on other issues, including being a strong supporter of the Gascon recall and bringing attention to the idea of requiring homeless people to follow laws like the rest of us. The other factor is that SCOTUS is likely to force all of California to go shall-issue this summer, so... it may be a moot point.

So I'm inclined to support AV at this point.

That was my point - I can't recall a time the LA County Sheriff WASN'T Hispanic.

All in good fun.

---

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

That was my point - I can't recall a time the LA County Sheriff WASN'T Hispanic.

All in good fun.

Ha, but you're forgetting the very forgettable Sheriff Jim McDonnell, who continued the non-issuance policy of Sheriff Baca.

Unless something unexpected comes up to change my mind, I'm voting for Sheriff Villanueva. He's been great. One more point about him, BLM protests against him. That's proof he's good!

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by lastinline

Would be absolutely hilarious to see a good ruling from SCOTUS, with the masses exercising CCW with little effort, while all those who ran the gauntlet, spent money, time, and endured rectal exams holding on to expensive permits that are no better than anyone else’s. I would at least hope one could deduct the licensing expense for tax purposes, like vehicle license fees, but that’s a whole other thread.

I don't think hilarious is the right word.

I respect those that trudged through the BS and costs to pursue a CCW in the face of LA County's past adverserial position, or propensity to only issue to Baca's cronies (Arthur Kassel) and his list of celebrities he asskissed.

Those few plowed an open path to convey the wishes and sentiment of the 'ignored' public, for more broad acceptance and issuance of CCWs, helping to prop up numbers that could no longer be ignored, and were convincing on a wider scale for other states to adopt constitutional carry recently (Ohio being the latest).

I would not want to diminish the efforts of those guys that wouldn't take no for an answer - they are the reason we have gotten to yes, wider CCW issuance, and that SCOTUS will be hearing such arguments.

---

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Ha, but you're forgetting the very forgettable Sheriff Jim McDonnell, who continued the non-issuance policy of Sheriff Baca.

Unless something unexpected comes up to change my mind, I'm voting for Sheriff Villanueva. He's been great. One more point about him, BLM protests against him. That's proof he's good!

All good points. It does pose some greater consideration and forethought.

---

[Dakota Exile]

Matt is shall issue.

https://rodriguezforsheriff.com/position_ccws/

[anonymouscuban]

Just came here to trigger some of you with my auto sig.


Yellow/Light Green GC
04/19 - Application Submitted
08/31 - Call for Interview
09/16 - Interview Completed
09/16 - Live Scan Started
09/16 - FBI Completed
09/17 - Training Completed
09/20 - CA Completed
09/21 - Firearms Completed
12/20 - Call for Pick up
12/22 - Permit Issued


REELECT SHERIFF VILLANUEVA

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by anonymouscuban

Just came here to trigger some of you with my auto sig.


Yellow/Light Green GC
04/19 - Application Submitted
08/31 - Call for Interview
09/16 - Interview Completed
09/16 - Live Scan Started
09/16 - FBI Completed
09/17 - Training Completed
09/20 - CA Completed
09/21 - Firearms Completed
12/20 - Call for Pick up
12/22 - Permit Issued


REELECT SHERIFF VILLAINUEVA

Who’s that anonymous Cuban guy?

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC

Who’s that anonymous Cuban guy?

There's a rumor making the rounds that he's actually Colombian.

[Mute]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

I don't think hilarious is the right word.

I respect those that trudged through the BS and costs to pursue a CCW in the face of LA County's past adverserial position, or propensity to only issue to Baca's cronies (Arthur Kassel) and his list of celebrities he asskissed.

Those few plowed an open path to convey the wishes and sentiment of the 'ignored' public, for more broad acceptance and issuance of CCWs, helping to prop up numbers that could no longer be ignored, and were convincing on a wider scale for other states to adopt constitutional carry recently (Ohio being the latest).

I would not want to diminish the efforts of those guys that wouldn't take no for an answer - they are the reason we have gotten to yes, wider CCW issuance, and that SCOTUS will be hearing such arguments.

---

I'd be quite alright with that outcome. This isn't the first time I've spent money navigating the CCW quagmire of L.A. County. As long as more good guys can carry their guns, I'll be happy.

[RoundEye]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

I don't think hilarious is the right word.

I respect those that trudged through the BS and costs to pursue a CCW in the face of LA County's past adverserial position, or propensity to only issue to Baca's cronies (Arthur Kassel) and his list of celebrities he asskissed.

Those few plowed an open path to convey the wishes and sentiment of the 'ignored' public, for more broad acceptance and issuance of CCWs, helping to prop up numbers that could no longer be ignored, and were convincing on a wider scale for other states to adopt constitutional carry recently (Ohio being the latest).

I would not want to diminish the efforts of those guys that wouldn't take no for an answer - they are the reason we have gotten to yes, wider CCW issuance, and that SCOTUS will be hearing such arguments.

---

Not only that, but anyone thinking that even with a favorable ruling at SOCTUS that California would just simply roll over we’re their tits in the air is sadly mistaken. It would be years of litigation before there would be any kind of meaningful change.

So all those people that spent the money will be on their second or third renewal cycle by then.

[anonymouscuban]

Originally Posted by RoundEye

Not only that, but anyone thinking that even with a favorable ruling at SOCTUS that California would just simply roll over we’re their tits in the air is sadly mistaken. It would be years of litigation before there would be any kind of meaningful change.

So all those people that spent the money will be on their second or third renewal cycle by then.

I agree. It will take law suits to force our overloads to comply with any SCOTUS decision. So if it does go in our favor, I expect all of you that have openly voiced their opposition to our permitting laws to start carrying without one and then sue our Overloads when they charge you with illegal carry.


Yellow/Light Green GC
04/19 - Application Submitted
08/31 - Call for Interview
09/16 - Interview Completed
09/16 - Live Scan Started
09/16 - FBI Completed
09/17 - Training Completed
09/20 - CA Completed
09/21 - Firearms Completed
12/20 - Call for Pick up
12/22 - Permit Issued


REELECT SHERIFF VILLANUEVA

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by anonymouscuban

Yellow/Light Green GC
04/19 - Application Submitted
08/31 - Call for Interview
09/16 - Interview Completed
09/16 - Live Scan Started
09/16 - FBI Completed
09/17 - Training Completed
09/20 - CA Completed
09/21 - Firearms Completed
12/20 - Call for Pick up
12/22 - Permit Issued

8 months to complete: that's inexcusable, ridiculous.

Should have been no more than 8 weeks, and even that would be longer than it should be only because government bureacracy is involved and physical logistics.

A woman with a violent stalker, regardless of a paper-tiger restraining order in place, could be dead before she ever gets the 'approval' of the most efficient means to protect her own life - or in this current high violent crime frequency/government enabling amd empowering violent criminals as the preferential class - anyone else for that matter.

---

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

8 months to complete: that's inexcusable, ridiculous.

Should have been no more than 8 weeks, and even that would be longer than it should be only because government bureacracy is involved and physical logistics.

A woman with a violent stalker, regardless of a paper-tiger restraining order in place, could be dead before she ever gets the 'approval' of the most efficient means to protect her own life - or in this current high violent crime frequency/government enabling amd empowering violent criminals as the preferential class - anyone else for that matter.

---

One does not need a permit to carry if you have a restraining order against a violent person. There’s an exemption in the PC for that.

But I know what you mean. The latter is getting worse, especially in urban areas where people are victims of crime .

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

8 months to complete: that's inexcusable, ridiculous.

Should have been no more than 8 weeks, and even that would be longer than it should be only because government bureacracy is involved and physical logistics.

CA laws requires it to be done within 90 days or within 30 days after receiving the results of the fingerprint check, which ever is longer. [PC 26205]
^Clock starts when the issuing agency takes the applicant's fingerprints/live scan.

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by The Gleam

8 months to complete: that's inexcusable, ridiculous.

But it is by design. These whatever-you-call-them drag their feet, while the citizenry suffers. The L.A. Sheriffs department has completed background investigations on applicants faster than that, so there is no excuse for a measly CCW permit taking eight months (and sometimes longer) to acquire.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by lastinline

GMC is totally subjective; it has no definition, and can be applied in any manner so chosen by the IA. For example, someone may have a long-ago bankruptcy, since discharged. ....

I keep saying this claim, that GMC can be interpreted many possible ways, and I see no evidence backing this up. My understanding is that GMC has been litigated extensively because GMC is a requirement for many / most government jobs, and so it cannot be handled arbitrarily. In fact the 1970s AG Younger opinion letter dealt mostly with GMC and how it comes out of employment law. IAs are all law enforcement agencies, obviously, and they all have GMC requirements hiring their staff. How can they say that, say, a deputiy who had a a bankruptcy long ago has GMC but a CCW applicant in the same situation does not?

People talk about how SF is going to use GMC to deny people for all kinds of frivolous reasons but never back that up with evidence, so..

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by lastinline

GMC is totally subjective; it has no definition, and can be applied in any manner so chosen by the IA. For example, someone may have a long-ago bankruptcy, since discharged. While it may be no fault of their own, it is a factor. Same for another individual who may have used legal prescriptions for controlled substances years prior. A brief unintended lapse in auto insurance, an unpaid parking ticket that a spouse picked up while driving your car, or an expunged misdemeanor from forty-fifty years past could all easily be used.

A friend of mine was initially denied admission to the California Bar for "lack of good moral character" because he had some fix it tickets for his ancient BMW 2002. That was it.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Quiet

CA laws requires it to be done within 90 days or within 30 days after receiving the results of the fingerprint check, which ever is longer. [PC 26205]
^Clock starts when the issuing agency takes the applicant's fingerprints/live scan.

Got it, but... should be 90 days from submission of the application.

Even then, that's about 4 weeks longer than it should be!

--

[stoogescv]

Originally Posted by anonymouscuban

I agree. It will take law suits to force our overloads to comply with any SCOTUS decision. So if it does go in our favor, I expect all of you that have openly voiced their opposition to our permitting laws to start carrying without one and then sue our Overloads when they charge you with illegal carry. REELECT SHERIFF VILLANUEVA

AV said at a recent townhall event (in response to a question) that he will comply with the Supreme Court's decision, and I think the implication was that he would do so immediately upon release of the decision.

In deciding who to vote for in June, keep in mind that if a candidate gets more than 50% in June, then the election is over. AV is the only one who has a chance to get more than 50%, so I recommend voting for AV.

If nobody gets more than 50%, then the top two vote-getters go to a runoff in November. The worst-case scenario would be if the top two are both lefties, which would mean there would be NO pro-CCW candidate on the ballot in November. The chance of both AV and another pro-CCW candidate being the top two vote-getters is close to 0. That means the best probability is a November election between AV and one of the anti-CCW candidates. That is not a good situation for us to be in. The answer is that we should all be voting for AV in June and hoping he gets more than 50%.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

I keep saying this claim, that GMC can be interpreted many possible ways, and I see no evidence backing this up. My understanding is that GMC has been litigated extensively because GMC is a requirement for many / most government jobs, and so it cannot be handled arbitrarily. In fact the 1970s AG Younger opinion letter dealt mostly with GMC and how it comes out of employment law. IAs are all law enforcement agencies, obviously, and they all have GMC requirements hiring their staff. How can they say that, say, a deputiy who had a a bankruptcy long ago has GMC but a CCW applicant in the same situation does not?

People talk about how SF is going to use GMC to deny people for all kinds of frivolous reasons but never back that up with evidence, so..

Your general comparison premise, doesn't take LE's "SPECIAL CLASS" of citizen status into consideration. Can you name even ONE OTHER occupation in the state of Ca that has its VERY OWN ,Bill of Rights. Totally separate from, and in ADDITION to the Fed BoR that was ratified in 1791?

THE 14TH AMENDMENT is NON-EXISTANT in CrapOfornia. Gun Law CARVE OUTS for LE. Are a perfect example of this, which were/are, bought and paid for with multi MILLION DOLLAR, UNION CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.

Also that LABOR LAW is long established on every level. Whereas CCW issuance is totally DISCRESIONARY by statute. And all a CLEO has to do is simply say,
"DENIED for lack of GMC". Or any other reason. And is never even required to give their reasoning or justification for the mandate.

When it comes to CCW issuance in CrapOfornia. CLEOs are AUTOCRATS.

[RoundEye]

Tomorrow evening AV is hosting a connect with voters event in Santa Fe Springs from 5PM - 9PM.

11100 Greenstone Ave
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

[MountainLion]

After action report? Any news? Crickets?

P.S. Where is the tumble weed smiley?

[Aragorn]

Matt Rodriguez came and spoke at our Republican 48th breakfast meeting this past Saturday (4/9/2022) morning in Glendora. He is a registered Republican, a true conservative, came off as being totally genuine and is 1000% in favor of no bs "Shall Issue" permitting.

ON THE RECORD here:
https://www.rodriguezforsheriff.com/positions/#ccw

Unlike AV, who is on the record supporting all semi-auto rifle confiscation and bans (statement made after the El Paso TX attack in Aug 2019) and who opposed keeping the gun stores open during the lock downs (took a Federal EO pushed by Pres. Trump to nix that bull).

I cannot for the life of me wonder why anyone can actually support this man who is clearly anti-gun rights. Sure, he's issue something more than 0 permits but look at the motivation behind him in doing so: purely political and personal. This action on CCWs is just a direct poke in the eye to the LA Board of Supervisors, the DA and in the face of rising violent crime. He is also banking on SCOTUS taking the heat off him with their impending ruling on NY Rifle... . But if we get effed over again by SCOTUS, and AV is re-elected; watch how fast he stops issuing.

It's unreal the level of Stockholm Syndrome going on here at Calguns over this guy. Amazing. And sad.

[MountainLion]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

ON THE RECORD here:
https://www.rodriguezforsheriff.com/positions/#ccw

In a seriously anti-gun county such as LA (look at the results of prop 63), publicly telegraphing that he will issue CCWs widely is probably political suicide. The moment the other campaigns pick up on that (and I'm sure they're looking at his web pages), it's game over.

But to true believers, it's more important to fail while maintaining ideological purity than to win.

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by splithoof

And hopefully (IMO) that whole issue of CCW permits will be removed from his office entirely, and handled at the state level, as in other states. Allowing elected sheriffs any say in who carries is an assault on freedom. It is exactly why things are the way they are down in Los Angeles county, and other anti-gun locales.
I also believe that the ONLY reasons that AV has started a small trickle in permits is: 1) political prior to the election, and 2) a way to poke the BOS.

Why?

The state would be more restrictive than the counties. Currently most of CA is shall issue. Just a few exceptions in the urban cities.

[Paladin]

Beverly Hills under siege!

Y’all better PRAY Villanueva gets re-elected in Biden’s Amerika and Newsom’s Kalifornia….

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...residents.html

[RoundEye]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

Matt Rodriguez came and spoke at our Republican 48th breakfast meeting this past Saturday (4/9/2022) morning in Glendora. He is a registered Republican, a true conservative, came off as being totally genuine and is 1000% in favor of no bs "Shall Issue" permitting.

ON THE RECORD here:
https://www.rodriguezforsheriff.com/positions/#ccw

Unlike AV, who is on the record supporting all semi-auto rifle confiscation and bans (statement made after the El Paso TX attack in Aug 2019) and who opposed keeping the gun stores open during the lock downs (took a Federal EO pushed by Pres. Trump to nix that bull).

I cannot for the life of me wonder why anyone can actually support this man who is clearly anti-gun rights. Sure, he's issue something more than 0 permits but look at the motivation behind him in doing so: purely political and personal. This action on CCWs is just a direct poke in the eye to the LA Board of Supervisors, the DA and in the face of rising violent crime. He is also banking on SCOTUS taking the heat off him with their impending ruling on NY Rifle... . But if we get effed over again by SCOTUS, and AV is re-elected; watch how fast he stops issuing.

It's unreal the level of Stockholm Syndrome going on here at Calguns over this guy. Amazing. And sad.

Is Rodriguez actually in the game though? Or would it be another wasted vote for a candidate that doesn't really stand a chance (think Bob Lindsey from a few years ago). Lindsey was great on paper, but when it came down to election night, he wasn't even in the running.

[anonymouscuban]

Originally Posted by RoundEye

Is Rodriguez actually in the game though? Or would it be another wasted vote for a candidate that doesn't really stand a chance (think Bob Lindsey from a few years ago). Lindsey was great on paper, but when it came down to election night, he wasn't even in the running.

Yup. He’s a wasted vote. Stands no chance of being elected. All he will do is take a percentage of votes from Villanueva and improve the chances of whatever candidate the democrat machine props up.

I may as well ****ing run for Sheriff. A vote for me will be about as good as a vote for Rodriquez.

[stoogescv]

Originally Posted by anonymouscuban

Yup. He’s a wasted vote. Stands no chance of being elected. All he will do is take a percentage of votes from Villanueva and improve the chances of whatever candidate the democrat machine props up.

I may as well ****ing run for Sheriff. A vote for me will be about as good as a vote for Rodriquez.

Exactly. Anyone who doesn't vote, or who votes for anyone other than Villanueva, is automatically voting for gun control. People need to keep in mind that Villanueva is the ONLY candidate with a chance to get more than 50% in June. That is the game right there.