HR 822 Reintroduced! National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill

[IndyGunner]

After the sentence is served and his freedom is reinstated, he could again practice his right to keep and bear arms. Hopefully in a more responsible manner.

The way it currently works, his right might be denied for life even after he has been freed.

I agree 100%. I have a few friends who can no longer defend themselves just because of a non violent crime. Should they have spent time? Probably. Do they deserve to be rendered helpless or face more criminal charges simply for trying to protect ones self. I mean ****, we post these people in the newspaper. You're going to publicise someone then sit back and watch the fireworks?

 

[Bunnykid68]

The government does not give us any rights, we already have rights. the Bill of Rights was intended to protect rights we already had, not to give us rights.

 

[ViperJock]

In my opinion, the negligent act of the host might warrant the consequence of losing his freedom for a time via incarceration.

After the sentence is served and his freedom is reinstated, he could again practice his right to keep and bear arms. Hopefully in a more responsible manner.

The way it currently works, his right might be denied for life even after he has been freed.

Interestingly, the woman who was shot, does not want to press charges. As I am not a LEO or otherwise involved in that sort of thing for a living, I am not sure if criminal charges will be filed anyway. The woman DOES, however, want his ability to ever own a firearm again revoked. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

 

[ATM]

...The woman DOES, however, want his ability to ever own a firearm again revoked...

Of course. She probably blames the evil inanimate object for this guy's negligence.

Don't punish a person's irresponsible actions by revoking their rights, do it by revoking their freedom to perform further irresponsible actions.

 

[88GT]

@88GT

Wow. You made a lot of assumptions about me and my moral code just now.

And I'd say I was correct in those assumptions. You think your opinion of correct behavior is sufficient to dictate who gets to exercise what rights. In other words, you want every body else to live by YOUR moral code, even if it means imposing on them restrictions on their rights to exercise their liberties as they see fit. Was I wrong?

Apparently, my mind is too small to understand the great questons of life. Why is it that when someone cannot give a satisfactory example to a philisophical question, they revert to emotional outbursts? Who says they are inalienable or inherent? Men. Good, wise, intelligent men, but men nonr-the-less. It was their opinion, it was a wonder of their time, but it was still only the best that men could do. I don't believe God reached down and with his own hand wrote the constitution, I could be wrong. Are men infallible?


88GT, I especially like the way you cut the paragraph before the next question so that it could be taken out of context in your quote. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars. If the government ie FF, gave the rights, can not the government take them back? On one hand we curse the government, on the other we praise. We don't want to think of the government as the one that gives us rights, because that means we have to consider the fact that maybe they could change.

I don't need to assume too much here. You make it abundantly clear you're not connecting the dots regarding the FF and rights. THEY believed rights were inherent to man and that government's function was to protect those rights. The government they created didn't give us those rights and if one of them was here today to ask where our rights came from, I'd lay every dime I have that not a single one would answer anything but "our Creator."

If you are referring to my desire not to be shot by a irresponsible idiot swinging a gun in my direction with finger in the trigger guard as a unique moral code then I am guessing that most, if not all, on this site share that moral code.

No, I'm referring to how quickly you'll tell another man he can't exercise his rights because you don't like the way he does it.

By the way, I do believe the constitution to be divinely inspired, and I do believe in the founding fathers vision and foresight. I also do not believe that anyone should be able to restrict the rights given to us in the constitution; as long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others. Rights without responsibility = the downfall of society.

But if you don't embrace the idea that rights are inherent to the man, you will always support policies that impose your own moral code on others, which is just another form of tyranny.

 

[ViperJock]

Don't remember enforcing anything on anyone. I simply posed the question, "Is there a "something" that someone could do that would be grounds for revoking a right?" It is also easy to interject ones own moral code on another person when one is not the person having had a gun pointed carelessly in their direction. Aren't you imposing your moral code on me, just by saying that I am wrong? By the way, I have read the holy books of several religions, and I don't remember God ever telling anyone they had an innate right to carry a gun no matter how they used it. I also seem to remember God imposing a moral code on everyone. But hey, you win. Why? Just because.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Tried to send this earlier, but apparently, my connection reset on me.

Hmmm. In the case of the boy, I think his right maybe should have been suspended until he showed that he could responsibly bear his right. I'm not sure that someone should retain rights if they cannot responsibly manage them. Does a thief retain a right to liberty? Does a murderer retain a right to pursuit of happiness? At what point does a person have their rights, revoked (temporarily or permanantly)?

His right was subject to his parents' choice, as the person responsible for him. As to when a right is revoked, the answer is never. Rights are not subject to revocation. Your ability to exercise those rights within the law is subject to revocation. There is a difference.

OR should a person ever have to worry about having their rights revoked? Who gives the rights in the first place? If a body gives rights, can a body take them away? --Not saying this should be the case, a question to debate and think about;

According to our Declaration of Independence, our Creator granted us those rights. Only He can can take them away.

If the contitution itself makes possible the ability ammend, does that not imply that the FF saw that changes would become necessary? What parts of the constitution are ammendable? are rights ammendable? Can we only add rights?

Rights without responsibility = downfall of society. IMO.

I completely agree that rights without responsibility is a problem. Our Founders did, too. When someone acts irresponsibly but not criminally, the courts do (or should) not get involved. You asked above when rights are subject to revocation and I answered you. The rest of the answer, the part that addresses when the lawful exercise of those rights can be controlled, is, "When due process of law is employed to do so." That would be in the Fifth Amendment, BTW.

Hope that helps!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Don't remember enforcing anything on anyone. I simply posed the question, "Is there a "something" that someone could do that would be grounds for revoking a right?" It is also easy to interject ones own moral code on another person when one is not the person having had a gun pointed carelessly in their direction. Aren't you imposing your moral code on me, just by saying that I am wrong? By the way, I have read the holy books of several religions, and I don't remember God ever telling anyone they had an innate right to carry a gun no matter how they used it. I also seem to remember God imposing a moral code on everyone. But hey, you win. Why? Just because.

You're right. God never told a man he had an inherent right to carry a gun at all. What He did do, though, and IIUC, every Volume of Sacred Law (VSL)is in agreement on this point, is to grant us life. He also gave us minds with the ability to create tools and the ability to then use those tools. Abel was slain by his brother Cain. David slew Goliath. Peter (I think) used a sword to cut off the ear of a Roman guard. There are many examples of the use of tools to do violence in the Judeo-Christian belief system and I'd be willing to bet that others have their own stories as well. Peter was reprimanded not for having or using his sword but for when he did so. David grew up and is exalted to this day... The star on the Israeli flag is known as a "Magen David" (mah-GHEN DA-veed), or, translated, Shield of David. His was clearly a case of self-defense, and perhaps the best such example. Cain, OTOH, was punished for his inappropriate and unacceptable use of violence. It seems self-evident to me that He expected us to defend that which He gave us: Our lives. Our liberties. Our ability to pursue happiness (not to obtain it, just to seek it.) None of those rights may impinge upon those of another; It might please you to take the ten acres of land next to my home. They are not yours to take, and if I refuse to sell them to you, you may not have them. You may not then take my life instead, nor may you then "squat" upon that land with impunity in an effort to take that possession, though if you are unwelcome and refuse to leave, I may use force to remove you.

Does that put it in a better perspective? (also, just in case, I want to state that there is no sarcasm in that question. My goal is discussion and exploration of viewpoints, not argument, and I wasn't sure that was clear with that question.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[pathfinder317]

@Lucas156:
"a safety class requirement is just more government bureaucracy bull****. It probably won't even teach safety and I already have to get permission from the government to exercise my second amendment. I don't want any more restrictions on it than there already are. Why don't we just teach gun safety in schools as a required class. O we can't do that because guns are bad."

I recently took the NRA basic pistol course in order to get a carry license in another state. Having spent considerable time on the range, the class did not offer much new insight. However, there were a few newbies that learned several things about gun use and safety from that class. I don't think it is unreasonable to have someone demonstrate that they can shoot it relatively safely and accurately in order to be able to carry it. (the NRA course in not that demanding) LEOs have to qualify with every gun they carry do they not? Why shouldn't everyone? <--not rhetorical. please, weigh in....

just to give another perspective

Think of all the LTCH holders out there.
Are there enough ranges in this state to run an "effective" class ?
Are there enough "certified" instructors ?
How much longer would this add to the already long wait time to recieve the LTCH ?
I think the state is already understaffed in more critical areas.
I say leave the training to the individual, afterall he is the one "responsible" for his weapon discharging.
I think tying the LEO and civilian into the same arena is not a fair argument, I am not obligated to confront a felon while in the commission of a crime, I don't have to be observant of other officers while serving a warrant, their job compared to me just being on the street is not the same situation , contrary to popular belief, there are actually officers out there who never handled a weapon prior to the academy.
The difference is a police officer is required to qualify, this is a job requirement.
I am exercising a right.

 

[ViperJock]

Thanks BoR! Great answer. What I am really looking for is discussion on the topic.

It seems self-evident to me that He expected us to defend that which He gave us: Our lives. Our liberties. Our ability to pursue happiness (not to obtain it, just to seek it.) None of those rights may impinge upon those of another; It might please you to take the ten acres of land next to my home. They are not yours to take, and if I refuse to sell them to you, you may not have them. You may not then take my life instead, nor may you then "squat" upon that land with impunity in an effort to take that possession, though if you are unwelcome and refuse to leave, I may use force to remove you.

I completely agree with this. Which is why I asked the question in the first place. It seems to me that the part of using force to remove the squatter or protecting my own right to life could mean several things. My question is perhaps better worded;

"Does the above person, threatening or taking away one of my self-evident rights, become subject to a self-evident process that would subsequently deny him his innate rights? OR in other words, freedom to exercise his? Does he voluntarily forfeit his rights by violating a code of justice?"

The decision belongs to the individual therefore it would be voluntary; On the one hand, I violate no person's rights, thus I retain my rights. OTOH, I choose to threaten the rights of others, therefore, I allow mine to come in question.

What seems to be stated by some people is; no matter what a person does with that firearm, they should still be able to carry it. This is anarchy, is it not? No rule of law? It is ironic to me that some people espouse the cause of anarchy in the name of freedom. But anarchy in a practical setting creates a power vacuum which is typically filled with a tyrant.

 

[ViperJock]

just to give another perspective

Think of all the LTCH holders out there.
Are there enough ranges in this state to run an "effective" class ?
Are there enough "certified" instructors ?
How much longer would this add to the already long wait time to recieve the LTCH ?
I think the state is already understaffed in more critical areas.
I say leave the training to the individual, afterall he is the one "responsible" for his weapon discharging.
I think tying the LEO and civilian into the same arena is not a fair argument, I am not obligated to confront a felon while in the commission of a crime, I don't have to be observant of other officers while serving a warrant, their job compared to me just being on the street is not the same situation , contrary to popular belief, there are actually officers out there who never handled a weapon prior to the academy.
The difference is a police officer is required to qualify, this is a job requirement.
I am exercising a right.

Thanks for the reply. I know this thread has gotten long so you probably didn't see my responses the rebuttal on this earlier which was essentially that you are right. You make some good points with good reasoning.

One thing I would ask you to consider as far as the issue of things taking longer if one has to wait for a class etc is this: Is the safety of your family more or less important than the extra time someone would have to wait for their LTCH? Some will say yes, some will say no, some will say I should yell "be safe" at the offender as he breaks the shot which will miraculously prevent a carelss AD from hitting a loved one. All can be assured that I do not intend a door to door search to check your class participation.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks BoR! Great answer. What I am really looking for is discussion on the topic.



I completely agree with this. Which is why I asked the question in the first place. It seems to me that the part of using force to remove the squatter or protecting my own right to life could mean several things. My question is perhaps better worded;

"Does the above person, threatening or taking away one of my self-evident rights, become subject to a self-evident process that would subsequently deny him his innate rights? OR in other words, freedom to exercise his? Does he voluntarily forfeit his rights by violating a code of justice?"

The decision belongs to the individual therefore it would be voluntary; On the one hand, I violate no person's rights, thus I retain my rights. OTOH, I choose to threaten the rights of others, therefore, I allow mine to come in question.

What seems to be stated by some people is; no matter what a person does with that firearm, they should still be able to carry it. This is anarchy, is it not? No rule of law? It is ironic to me that some people espouse the cause of anarchy in the name of freedom. But anarchy in a practical setting creates a power vacuum which is typically filled with a tyrant.

Even a man in prison still has his rights. He may be forbidden to exercise some of them, but he still retains them. A better example might be a man in China. Specifically, this man:

On June 4, that image will be 22 years old. Did that man have the right of free speech? Yes, he most certainly did. Was he punished for exercising that right? Yes, he was, which means not that he didn't have the right, only that its exercise was unjustly forbidden. Did he have the right to bear arms? Yes, but similarly forbidden was its exercise, along with many other natural rights of men. So then, what is the difference between the right being revoked by man and the forbidding of the exercise of that right? For that, I need to ask another question: Our Creator created us all equal, right? If that is so, then the rights you have cannot depend on where you live. Suppose that man in the picture had been suddenly, at the moment the photo was snapped, transported to the US. The rights he has simply by being human are not changed by his location.

Our rights do not come from our government. In fact the reverse is true: Our government's powers come from us! "It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson, 1795

Is there anything a man can do to lose his lawful ability to possess and carry a firearm? Sure. Be incarcerated. While that man is incarcerated, he should not have access to weapons. Once he is no longer incarcerated, his ability to be lawfully armed should return along with his other rights. If he is not fit to exercise those rights, do not release him. If he abuses the rights he has, meaning specifically that he uses the firearm he lawfully possesses in an unlawful manner to initiate force against another person or his property, then that man has once again proven himself untrustworthy in a civilized society and again he should return to a cell or should find his way to a coffin. It is hardly anarchy for such a person, once convicted and sentenced for a violent crime, to wish to defend himself and his family after he is released. Why, then, should this same person be forbidden to do so? Punish actions, not the possession of things.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Scutter01]

Rights are not subject to becoming privileges.

I was at a national park recently that had a special "Free Speech Zone" set aside for the exercise of your First Amendment Rights; Rights that apparently turn into privileges the moment you step outside that zone. This was not a college campus. This was a Federally-managed National Park. My "free speech zone" used to be called "The United States". Now it's a 10' x 10' square in the back corner of a parking lot.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks for the reply. I know this thread has gotten long so you probably didn't see my responses the rebuttal on this earlier which was essentially that you are right. You make some good points with good reasoning.

One thing I would ask you to consider as far as the issue of things taking longer if one has to wait for a class etc is this: Is the safety of your family more or less important than the extra time someone would have to wait for their LTCH? Some will say yes, some will say no, some will say I should yell "be safe" at the offender as he breaks the shot which will miraculously prevent a carelss AD from hitting a loved one. All can be assured that I do not intend a door to door search to check your class participation.

Who should teach these classes? How much more should they cost, over and above the fee for the LTCH itself? How much should we have to pay for each firearm with which we qualify? Consider Otis McDonald. He is an older man and not a man of wealth. The neighborhood in which he lives is not the best in the world. Let's suppose he lives in Indianapolis. On a fixed income, it might take him months to save enough just to pay for the four-year LTCH. If the class is any good, he might have to pay a similar amount for it, so now his fees alone are sitting at about $100 and might have taken him a year to save up to pay. In addition, there is the cost of the firearm itself, plus ammunition. Just for S&Gs, let's say he buys a hi-point, a serviceable firearm but not an expensive one. He's just doubled the time (at least) before he can carry. In that two years that he's been defenseless because of stupid restrictions that only penalize the good citizen and affect the criminal not at all other than to make his "feeding ground" fertile with unarmed, defenseless prey, Otis has a very good chance of being victimized a second time. When was the first? When his legislators made him helpless in the face of someone who valued Otis only for what he could take him for.

Otis doesn't live in Indianapolis. He lives in Chicago. His permit is $100 for three years. He has to obtain photos, photocopies, and a class consisting of four hours in a classroom and one hour on the range, but there are no ranges; they are outlawed. Oh, and anything made by Hi-Point is deemed an unsafe gun, so he has to buy something far more expensive. Plus, he has multiple other hoops he has to jump through, and that's only to possess a firearm in his home, not to carry it. He's not allowed to take his gun out on his front porch. I'm not aware whether the use of his firearm, should he have to do so, would be punishable or not, either.

Do you still think requiring that training is a good idea? Otis is far more likely to be killed than he is to ever own a legal firearm in that Godforsaken city.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Rights are not subject to becoming privileges.

I was at a national park recently that had a special "Free Speech Zone" set aside for the exercise of your First Amendment Rights; Rights that apparently turn into privileges the moment you step outside that zone. This was not a college campus. This was a Federally-managed National Park. My "free speech zone" used to be called "The United States". Now it's a 10' x 10' square in the back corner of a parking lot.

...That our government places unConstitutional restrictions upon the free exercise of our rights does not convert them from one to the other, it merely shows how far from the Founders' intent we have allowed our government to drift....

What you experienced is shameful, Scutter. I'd love to see a workable solution that would turn this around. "Going Galt" sounds good, but how many people are willing to subject themselves voluntarily to the loss of all property, freedom, etc. in an effort to "not feed the machine"? How many will be willing to do so once those first however-many are "made an example of"?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SirRealism]

I was at a national park recently that had a special "Free Speech Zone" set aside for the exercise of your First Amendment Rights; Rights that apparently turn into privileges the moment you step outside that zone. This was not a college campus. This was a Federally-managed National Park. My "free speech zone" used to be called "The United States". Now it's a 10' x 10' square in the back corner of a parking lot.

That sounds crazy. I was going to ask you to elaborate... thinking it might have been some special circumstance or special event that prompted them to create that. But I did a quick search and found quite a few hits: National Park Service Struggles to Rework Free-Speech Rules | Bobby Magill | Travel & Outdoors | NewWest.Net

That they specifically call it a "First Amendment Area" on that sign is very offensive.

What you experienced is shameful, Scutter. I'd love to see a workable solution that would turn this around. "Going Galt" sounds good, but how many people are willing to subject themselves voluntarily to the loss of all property, freedom, etc. in an effort to "not feed the machine"? How many will be willing to do so once those first however-many are "made an example of"?

Blessings,
Bill

I've given a lot of thought to that (going Galt), as well. It's unfortunate that it'd would take so many "regular" people to make that work. It's possible that, if you don't have the critical mass, you might well just make things worse for a long time. It's hard to predict.

 

[SirRealism]

Even a man in prison still has his rights. He may be forbidden to exercise some of them, but he still retains them. A better example might be a man in China. Specifically, this man:

That photo will never cease to give me chills. I'd love to think I would have the cojones if the circumstance ever presented itself, but I doubt it.

 

[ViperJock]

Honestly, I am not sure if it is a good idea or not to have a required class. There are lots of good reasons for both. Many of the reasons for NO class requirement have been posted. I think that like the idea or not, most would admit that a well taught class would increase the safety of new users. Who would teach it? how much would it cost? all issues that probably make it annoying at best. The original thought behind this whole argument is that if a national carry permit becomes the norm, the requirements will most likely incorporate the most stringent current state requirements. Like it or not, if this passes, we may all have to submit to it.

As for the Creator, as a believer, I try to understand Him, but as a human, I know that I cannot. In one book, he states "an eye for an eye." But in another, he says, to turn the other cheek. He says, "do good to those who despitefully use you." "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." "Blessed are the peacemakers for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." I am absolutely NOT saying we should not defend ourselves and our families, but I think it maybe a mistake to assume God WANTS us to do something based on our own human understanding and limited perception. His kingdom is "not of this world." Perhaps what matters to him in this world is how we behave, not how long we survive? Thus, I think arguments that God wants me to be armed may not be clear cut as some might think.

To quote one person who claimed to be quite close to God, "O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?" To claim belief in the Creator means that we expect a reward after this life. Why then fear death? Why then would God want us to contradict "thou shalt not kill," in order only to delay our reward? Thus, I think the argument that God wants me bear arms may not be correct.

I do not claim to know one way or the other. I am only trying to present an alternate way of looking at things. As a person, I hope I never have to use any of my weapons. As a husband and a father, I would use one without hesitation to protect my family. I own firearms and I do not wish to ever lose that right for any reason, I see a lot of "loose talk" about clearing leather and rights and I see very littel talk about exercising restraint, about taking responsibility for the great power one holds in a holster. I see talk about BGs and wonder at the fine line that seperates a "BG" and someone who draws on a stranger who appears to have road rage. I wonder at the emotional rants about rights, made by those itching to "have no choice" but to use deadly force. Oh well.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Honestly, I am not sure if it is a good idea or not to have a required class. There are lots of good reasons for both. Many of the reasons for NO class requirement have been posted. I think that like the idea or not, most would admit that a well taught class would increase the safety of new users. Who would teach it? how much would it cost? all issues that probably make it annoying at best. The original thought behind this whole argument is that if a national carry permit becomes the norm, the requirements will most likely incorporate the most stringent current state requirements. Like it or not, if this passes, we may all have to submit to it.

As for the Creator, as a believer, I try to understand Him, but as a human, I know that I cannot. In one book, he states "an eye for an eye." But in another, he says, to turn the other cheek. He says, "do good to those who despitefully use you." "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." "Blessed are the peacemakers for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." I am absolutely NOT saying we should not defend ourselves and our families, but I think it maybe a mistake to assume God WANTS us to do something based on our own human understanding and limited perception. His kingdom is "not of this world." Perhaps what matters to him in this world is how we behave, not how long we survive? Thus, I think arguments that God wants me to be armed may not be clear cut as some might think.

To quote one person who claimed to be quite close to God, "O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?" To claim belief in the Creator means that we expect a reward after this life. Why then fear death? Why then would God want us to contradict "thou shalt not kill," in order only to delay our reward? Thus, I think the argument that God wants me bear arms may not be correct.

I do not claim to know one way or the other. I am only trying to present an alternate way of looking at things. As a person, I hope I never have to use any of my weapons. As a husband and a father, I would use one without hesitation to protect my family. I own firearms and I do not wish to ever lose that right for any reason, I see a lot of "loose talk" about clearing leather and rights and I see very littel talk about exercising restraint, about taking responsibility for the great power one holds in a holster. I see talk about BGs and wonder at the fine line that seperates a "BG" and someone who draws on a stranger who appears to have road rage. I wonder at the emotional rants about rights, made by those itching to "have no choice" but to use deadly force. Oh well.

Viperjock, you said you took the NRA Basic Pistol class, right? I don't know if you've taken any other classes. I have a few firearms classes to my credit as well. There are members here who have been to classes from one end of the country to the other, some many times over. We have some excellent and well-trained shooters and instructors here. Know what the one thing they all have in common is? Being in Indiana, none of them have HAD to take those classes. We've all done them by our own choice.

Ever have the misfortune to have to take Defensive Driving, maybe to get out of a ticket? How many people do you see sitting in class in rapt attention? Not many, from the time or two (lots of years ago) when I had to take it. No, everyone seemed to be falling asleep, staying awake only enough to get juuuuuust enough info to pass, then forget it all. That's what required classes will do: Make people spend money they earn other than how they choose to obtain something they don't want, all so that the state will graciously allow them permission to exercise natural rights that are theirs by birth. I think it's possible you're misreading something important here. Feel free to correct me if I'm the one who's mistaken, of course, but it seems to me that you might be confusing the stand I and others take (that training classes should not be mandatory) with a belief that training classes should simply not be, or should not be taken. Farther from the truth the latter could not be. I have yet to see anyone on INGO advocate for gun owners never receiving training, we simply do not believe that government should dictate what, how much, and what subjects. For no other right is training required: not for the use of free speech or press, not for jury duty, not for the exercise of the right to counsel or the subpoena of witnesses, not for the right to remain silent when arrested. We don't even require training for the privilege of citizenship called voting. Now tell me: With which can you do more harm: A gun or a vote? Look at the last, oh, say, 22 years or so before you answer, and compare the violent crime statistics since 87 with the people who've held the highest offices, being the President, VP, and leaders and members of Congress.

Lastly, you should also know that the correct translation of that Commandment is generally accepted by those far wiser and far more knowledgeable in such matters as translation than I that the Commandment is best translated, "Thou shalt not murder." This is a far cry from "kill". If the commandment was to not kill, vegetarians we would be, and it would indeed be a sad life without bacon.

Blessings,
Bill