View Full Version : Does a blind person enjoy the constitutional right to own firearms?
CarlosDJackal
08-30-10, 13:18
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100821/OPINION01/100820019/-1/LIFEFRONT/+A+blind+man+and+his+guns
Evidently in 1994, this guy was originally allowed to keep his firearms regardless of his blindness. The stipulation was that he could only "shoot them under supervision notwithstanding his lack of sight".
14-years after the trial, he shoots himself in the shin. When the Police investigated, they "they found a number of loaded guns strewn around the house, including one in an oven mitt." Later on, his home was burglarized and one of the stolen guns was used in a suicide.
They confiscated his guns and tried to "revoked" his right to own any. As a compromised, the judge allowed the Police to hold onto the firearms that were confiscated after he shot himself because he had not stored them properly. But he was allowed to keep the ones that were presumably stored properly at the time of the incident. The judge also ruled that the subject must take a firearms safety course.
Based on this incident and keeping in mind that this guy is blind, do you think he should be allowed to keep and have unhindered or unsupervised access to his legally-owned guns?
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-30-10, 13:36
I've driven and golfed with 'legally' blind people, but if we are talking about the truly sightless I guess they would still have the right. If you say that they incapable of operating the weapon, that just opens the door to testing for everyone to show competency. Not a horrible idea, but what happens when it is every year, with every gun at $100 a test....
He still has the right to own a firearm. However, he's got a much greater personal responsibility in that if he uses the firearm for defense he is going to have a pretty hard time IDing his target and then accurately engaging the target. I will certainly want to be behind cover when a blind man starts flinging lead.
Business_Casual
08-30-10, 13:49
Would you deny the deaf freedom of the first amendment?
B_C
On one hand it seems politically indefensible in today's society to hold the position that a completely blind person should have all the firearm rights as someone who is not blind.
I still would say that I don't want to start down the slope of denying people rights for any reason. It wouldn't be long before more "common sense" rights restrictions creep into law. The Second Amendment is pretty clear in what it allows. They certainly had blind people back when it was written, so it isn't a matter of times having changed.
I initially voted "I'm torn.", but after writing this (and thinking logically) I wish I could change my vote to "Yes".
CarlosDJackal
08-30-10, 14:07
He still has the right to own a firearm. However, he's got a much greater personal responsibility in that if he uses the firearm for defense he is going to have a pretty hard time IDing his target and then accurately engaging the target. I will certainly want to be behind cover when a blind man starts flinging lead.
And this is the core of the issue. As an American he has the right to the rights as acknowledged by our Constitution. As a human being he has the right to stay alive and defend himself from harm (IE: with a gun).
But as the old saying goes, your right to throw your fist around ends at someone else's nose. In this case his right to keep and use his legally-owned firearm ends at the maximum range of whatever firearm he may be handling. Can you imagine if he had shot into a neighbor's house and killed someone?
IMHO, the original judge had it right. He can keep his firearms as long as their use is done safely and properly (IE: under supervision). And since he has already shown that he is (a) Careless about their storage; and (b) Careless about their use (he shot himself); then maybe he has given up his right to do so.
Just like if any of us were just as careless about how we use our own legally-owned firearms. if we were to put a bullet into our next door neighbor's wall because we were outright careless; then maybe we should loose the right to own and use them.
But I am still torn on this primarily because he has shown that he does not believe in being careful and is incapable of the safe handling and storage of his firearms (unless it was a true AD).
CarlosDJackal
08-30-10, 14:09
Would you deny the deaf freedom of the first amendment?
B_C
A shouted, written or hand-signed word cannot take off a baby's head from 200-yards away. Hence the dilemma.
But I am still torn on this primarily because he has shown that he does not believe in being careful and is incapable of the safe handling and storage of his firearms (unless it was a true ND).
Aren't all ND's "true" ND's? Sounds kinda silly to quantify negligence when it's the operator that caused it.
@topic
Can he own one? Sure. Should he be more responsible with his weapons... absolutely.
CarlosDJackal
08-30-10, 14:17
Aren't all ND's "true" ND's? Sounds kinda silly to quantify negligence when it's the operator that caused it.
@topic
Can he own one? Sure. Should he be more responsible with his weapons... absolutely.
Sorry, I meant "true ADs" - not "NDs".
A shouted, written or hand-signed word cannot take off a baby's head from 200-yards away. Hence the dilemma.
A very emotional argument. Throwing in the baby part is especially good. The problem with it is that if you start taking away rights based on "something could happen" you end up in a place where you can justify revoking a great many rights based only on similarly emotional arguments.
Edit: Since we've ventured into that realm, how about another example: An OEF/OIF Marine veteran is blinded in the line of duty. He comes back home only to find that the government wants to take his boot camp graduation present--an engraved 1911, because a blind person can't have firearms.
If we're talking about this specific case, then there may be sufficient reason to deny firearms usage. In general though, I think where we're at in terms of laws is a good place to be.
A shouted, written or hand-signed word cannot take off a baby's head from 200-yards away. Hence the dilemma.
"The pen is mightier than the sword."
On a side note, this is a textbook emotional appeal. Alric said it well. This is the very argument used by the City of Chicago, the District of Columbia, New York City, et al to deny the rights of their citizens to own and/or carry firearms.
Another side note regarding the poll..."common sense" is another (ironic) Bradyism.
i keep coming back to the philosophy that "safety" and "liberty" are different, and often contradictory concepts.
i'd take liberty any day.
He better hope he never shoots the wrong person or he's just as responsible for his actions as a person with sight.
GermanSynergy
08-30-10, 17:33
If the person in question is not a prohibited person, they absolutely should have the right to own firearms.
IIRC there was a case of a man paralyzed from the neck down in NJ that wished to purchase a shotgun for hunting, and was denied by the powers that be due to his disability. Not sure what the outcome was on that case.
Complication
08-30-10, 18:08
On a side note, this is a textbook emotional appeal.
I don't think it is. He may have gone a little far on the rhetoric to make a point, but the foundation of his statement is sound.
I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, but I can say that claiming this consideration has no rational basis is foolish. Firearms and speech are two manifestly different things which must be treated differently under the law. It's the same reason why the punishment for public intoxication is less than a DUI. Driving a motor vehicle drunk poses a manifestly greater danger to society at large than stumbling down the sidewalk puking on someone walking their dog. People with Tourettes pose no danger to society besides occasionally offending someone. On the other hand, a blind man with a gun might pose enough of a danger to society that his blindness should be considered, at least. Same reason why someone can be declared incompetent and unable to drive--if they've lost motor control or can't see the road they really have no business driving themselves around. Does that infringe on their rights? Yeah--it's hella inconvenient for them, too. Is their license getting stripped away safer for them and the rest of the drivers on the road? Definitely.
While 1A and 2A may be EQUAL rights, they are not identical and thus must be treated differently.
If you think it's simply an emotional argument--and not a legal or logical one--that guns are, all other things equal, more dangerous in the hands of someone with 0% sight, then you've got some serious issues. Does that mean this guy shouldn't have guns? Who knows. Does it mean his blindness is definitely something to take into consideration? Absolutely.
A judge wouldn't be wrong to take his blindness into consideration. Yes, it might be a "slippery slope" but I have no idea how you propose to have a rule of law when those entrusted to enforce it aren't allowed to consider the facts of the issue before them.
rubberneck
08-30-10, 18:43
Would you deny the deaf freedom of the first amendment?
B_C
A convicted felon still has the protection of the first amendment but can no longer say the same about the second. The idea of ordered liberty necessarily means that all rights can't be absolute and that we must accept some limitations in some extreme cases. Where to draw that line is always a difficult conversation.
A convicted felon still has the protection of the first amendment but can no longer say the same about the second. The idea of ordered liberty necessarily means that all rights can't be absolute and that we must accept some limitations in some extreme cases. Where to draw that line is always a difficult conversation.
I guess I'm of a different mindset, I don't believe rights can be restricted or they simply become privileges that can be revoked.
What right do we have to restrict gun ownership for felons?
rubberneck
08-30-10, 18:53
I guess I'm of a different mindset, I don't believe rights can be restricted or they simply become privileges that can be revoked.
What right do we have to restrict gun ownership for felons?
So you think the right to threaten to murder someone should be protected by the first amendment or are you willing to accept that there are certain rare instances where a right is not absolute?
How would the judge have handled it if the man in question had full vision? He still shot himself in the leg, and he still would have many loaded firearms unsecured in his house.
I personally believe that unless you have proven you are incapable of holding yourself to the higher degree of responsibility that is required to own firearms/carry them, you should be allowed to.
So you think the right to threaten to murder someone should be protected by the first amendment or are you willing to accept that there are certain rare instances where a right is not absolute?
Is it illegal to threaten to murder someone? I know, it sounds like a silly question, but I've been trying to find some kind of law that indicates it is and I've come up dry. It seems like threats of violence usually end up in restraining orders, not legal action against the "would be aggressor".
I also looked into the "crying fire in a crowded theater" saying I've heard before. Seems that it comes from the majority opinion in Schenck v. United States. The opinion states that it was illegal to circulate fliers decrying the WW1 effort, saying it would hurt the recruitment effort. Doesn't seem like the most shining example of liberty, or what this country stands for, to me.
CarlosDJackal
08-30-10, 21:21
A very emotional argument. Throwing in the baby part is especially good...
No emotion involved. I could have just as easily said pet doggie and it probably would have invoked more of an emotion (pretty sad that we live in a society where cutting puppies out of a pregnant dog evoked more outrage that cutting a baby out of a pregnant woman - but I digress).
It's easy to ay that this guy should be allowed to own and use firearms when you don't live next to him. It's like saying that it's okay to build an artillery range or a halfway house for "recovering" pedophiles anywhere as long s it's not in my neighborhood.
I'm not really arguing against the blind person's right to own firearms. I am however, arguing about doing so without the necessary control to keep himself and those of his neighbors safe from his proven lack of judgement and common sense.
If he had not shot himself in the shin; then there would not even be an issue. But that's the same argument that arises about idiots who have full sight. I have been swept by so many morons with loaded guns so many times that I'm convinced that I'm living on borrowed time.
I once had a guy point a loaded AK-47 with his finger in the trigger guard and the safety off right at me while he was looking through his spotting scope. When I yelled at him to watch his muzzle, he just looked at me and shrugged. Turns out he didn't even know what a muzzle was!! If I had my ruthers, this idiot should loose his right to Keep and Bear Arms.
I'm still torn on this one - I am generally against any kind of a ban on firearms ownership (having grown up in a society were this occured and have seen first-hand the negativ effects of gun control). But the fact of the matter is, if this guy had used any common sense and followed the judge's ruling from 1994; then he would not be in this predicament. It makes no sense for him to be shooting a firearm anymore than it makes sense for him to be riding a motorcycle. JM2CW.
CarlosDJackal
08-30-10, 21:27
I guess I'm of a different mindset, I don't believe rights can be restricted or they simply become privileges that can be revoked.
What right do we have to restrict gun ownership for felons?
COMMON LAW. By consciously taking any criminal action against another individual or society; one has by default given up their rights to include the right to live (hence the concept of the death penalty).
CarlosDJackal
08-30-10, 21:30
Is it illegal to threaten to murder someone? I know, it sounds like a silly question, but I've been trying to find some kind of law that indicates it is and I've come up dry...
FYI, threatening to murder someone can fall under the category of "Assault" (in most situations).
Complication
08-30-10, 21:32
FYI, threatening to murder someone can fall under the category of "Assault" (in most situations).
Yes. The fact that it results in restraining orders should indicate it's (il)legality as well.
Yes. The fact that it results in restraining orders should indicate it's (il)legality as well.
I hear divorces routinely result in restraining orders too. I usually associate 'illegal' with an action that gets one a hefty fine, jail time, executed, or someone else seeking civil remedy.
I'm still torn on this one - I am generally against any kind of a ban on firearms ownership (having grown up in a society were this occured and have seen first-hand the negativ effects of gun control). But the fact of the matter is, if this guy had used any common sense and followed the judge's ruling from 1994; then he would not be in this predicament. It makes no sense for him to be shooting a firearm anymore than it makes sense for him to be riding a motorcycle. JM2CW.
We should clarify what we're talking about here. Are you wanting to discuss this blind man in particular, or blind people in general? You keep going back to this example of negligence, which probably needs some kind of legal remedy, whereas I don't think it would be right to apply the same treatment to all blind people.
Complication
08-30-10, 22:12
I hear divorces routinely result in restraining orders too.
Only when there's threats or justifiable fear of harm. I don't believe there's a restraining order in the world you can get on the basis of "I just don't like him anymore."
Does a blind person have a right - absolutely. Could be for investment - you never know, or passed down.
Hell might enjoy firing for the recoil if 100% blind, just with help/supervision.
The facts of the case seem to be:
1) The charged man is blind
2) He had some kind of brush with the legal system in the 90s that left a judge ruling he needed supervision while shooting
3) He shot himself in the shin
4) He had loaded guns around the house
5) His house was burglarized, and when police investigated they confiscated unsecured guns
Since no part of this article is about the actual act of shooting, #2 doesn't seem as relevant. We have LEOs who have Negligent Discharges, and I'll imagine a large percentage of the gun owning population doesn't secure their guns at all times (including LEO) while retaining their rights. I don't know about New Jersey (Hopler's state of residence), but many states don't hold the gun owner responsible for what happens after a gun is stolen.
To me it goes back to the Constitution, and liberty as others have said. We wouldn't take the guns away from a normal citizen because of an ND, or "unsecured loaded weapons" in the house.
COMMON LAW. By consciously taking any criminal action against another individual or society; one has by default given up their rights to include the right to live (hence the concept of the death penalty).
And we imprison people as punishment for their crimes, correct? However once they've served out their incarceration (spelling), why isn't their citizenship restored?
Now if you want to argue that a person who beats a man to death with a baseball bat shouldn't be walking the streets, that's another discussion. And I would agree with you on it.
I'd have to look at the Constitution, but I don't remember the part where blind people have a different set of civil rights.
Of course they can keep and bear arms. And of course they have the same responsibilities as everyone else and the same penalties as everyone else if they misuse it.
of course they have the right.
but they also have the responsibility that goes with it.
I think a better question would be should a blind man have a right to drive a car? How about fly land a plane?
I think a better question would be should a blind man have a right to drive a car? How about fly land a plane?
Hell yeah on driving - took my grandmother driving once in a parking lot. It was the most exciting passenger trip I ever experienced without breaking 10mph, and was great fun.
Public roads - no way.
The only legit argument from the other side on this case should be if his mental state coupled with inability to see constitutes the guy lacking the judgement to safely use firearms.
I think a better question would be should a blind man have a right to drive a car? How about fly land a plane?
Neithet driving a car nor flying a plane are constitutional rights. Those are privileges granted based on demonstrated ability to perform up to certain criteria. There are no criteria for US citizens being granted civil rights - those are basic rights that are guaranteed, and "keep and bear arms" is one of them. Are you suggesting that different rights should be granted to different classes of citizens?
rubberneck
08-31-10, 07:57
I'd have to look at the Constitution, but I don't remember the part where blind people have a different set of civil rights.
The constitution doesn't say anything about paranoid schizophrenic's having a different set of civil rights. Are you comfortable with someone suffering from that condition being able to own firearms? Yes the blind man has the same second amendment rights as you and I do but like the felon or the mentally ill and there might be a set of circumstances where that persons right clearly becomes a risk to everyone around him. If this was just a case of a blind man wanting to own guns that would be one thing but this guy clearly is a threat to himself and others.
The constitution doesn't say anything about paranoid schizophrenic's having a different set of civil rights. Are you comfortable with someone suffering from that condition being able to own firearms? Yes the blind man has the same second amendment rights as you and I do but like the felon or the mentally ill and there might be a set of circumstances where that persons right clearly becomes a risk to everyone around him. If this was just a case of a blind man wanting to own guns that would be one thing but this guy clearly is a threat to himself and others.
I don't see any case of mental illness or incapacity in the case at hand. His "threat" is shooting himself and having loaded guns around the house. How many gun owners fit in that category? Should they lose their rights too for being a threat to themselves and others?
rubberneck
08-31-10, 08:46
I don't see any case of mental illness or incapacity in the case at hand. His "threat" is shooting himself and having loaded guns around the house. How many gun owners fit in that category? Should they lose their rights too for being a threat to themselves and others?
What are the second and forth rules of gun safety and can they realistically be met by someone who is legally blind? His disability severely limits his ability to safely handle a loaded firearm without supervision and his threat to others extends as far as a bullet can travel. He got lucky and shot himself but it could easily have been someone minding their own business and if he had he would have likely been charged with manslaughter, reckless homicide or negligent assault and a conviction would have resulted in him losing his second amend rights rights anyway. I guess we should wait until he kills or maims someone else before questioning his ability to responsibly own firearms.
The constitution doesn't say anything about paranoid schizophrenic's having a different set of civil rights. Are you comfortable with someone suffering from that condition being able to own firearms? Yes the blind man has the same second amendment rights as you and I do but like the felon or the mentally ill and there might be a set of circumstances where that persons right clearly becomes a risk to everyone around him. If this was just a case of a blind man wanting to own guns that would be one thing but this guy clearly is a threat to himself and others.
I am far MORE uncomfortable with the concept of some "entity" being responsible for deciding what special groups of citizens the constitution applies to, and which groups get singled out for "special handling" relative to what civil rights they are entitled to.
Either we all have guaranteed constitutional right, or none of us do because once we start down that slippery slope, YOU might be in the next group that gets selected for a selective review of just what rights YOU are entitled to.
What are the second and forth rules of gun safety and can they realistically be met by someone who is legally blind? His disability severely limits his ability to safely handle a loaded firearm without supervision and his threat to others extends as far as a bullet can travel. He got lucky and shot himself but it could easily have been someone minding their own business and if he had he would have likely been charged with manslaughter, reckless homicide or negligent assault and a conviction would have resulted in him losing his second amend rights rights anyway. I guess we should wait until he kills or maims someone else before questioning his ability to responsibly own firearms.
There are plenty of sighted dumbasses out there who violate gun safety rules every time they touch one, and I'm sure there are also blind gun owners who don't put others in jeopardy/use their guns responsibly without the state coming along and saying "well you're blind, turn 'em in immediately".
If you'd like to discuss whether or not anyone should be able to own guns without passing some kind of state mandated safety course then have that discussion. But safety and responsibility transcend vision.
Regarding your last sentence, well, yes, that's generally how America is supposed to work. We should be left alone to the greatest extent possible. We presume people are innocent until proven guilty, people are born with innate civil rights...and though it's easy to paint a scary picture of blind people running around blasting their guns at everything and the blood of babies and cute little puppies running in the streets, there is no inherent danger in a blind person owning a gun. It's what they do with it that is the concern (just like people who can see).
Complication
08-31-10, 09:06
There are plenty of sighted dumbasses out there who violate gun safety rules every time they touch one, and I'm sure there are also blind gun owners who don't put others in jeopardy/use their guns responsibly without the state coming along and saying "well you're blind, turn 'em in immediately".
I think people sense that there's a subtle different between someone who
a) Can't follow some of the gun safety rules because they're incompetent (which, in theory, can be overcome and isn't readily measurable)
and
b) Can't follow some of the gun safety rules because of a permanent physical limitation (which cannot be overcome and can be perfectly measured).
rubberneck
08-31-10, 09:21
I give up. I am not about to get into it with someone that either can't understand what was clearly written or can but is willing to misrepresent what was said.
Well I'd have to agree that you should drop it.
rubberneck
08-31-10, 09:43
Well I'd have to agree your argument is pointless.
I'd say your response is something that I would expect from my 6 year old not an adult. Congratulations on lacking the ability to have an adult discussion.
I think a better question would be should a blind man have a right to drive a car? How about fly land a plane?
pretty much.
i love how the supreme court has decided that the Constitution, instead of being a document that spells out a few express rights of the people, is in fact a complete list of a person's only rights. ****in reptards.
freely moving about this free land is a right, by whatever public means. should a blind person be allowed to fly a plane? no- that's suicide. there is no other outcome possible. allow him to get behind the yoke and he'll die, and likely kill other people. same goes for driving a car.
a gun, however, is not a vehicle weighing thousands of pounds, and it's normal and use- sitting in a safe, drawer, or holster, does not pose any risk to society at large. it's up to the blind man to come up with some kind of strategy for the proper employment of the weapon, just like he's had to come up with a strategy for pissing, reading, combing his hair, and walking down the street. if he fails, then he is liable for his failure.
I think people sense that there's a subtle different between someone who
a) Can't follow some of the gun safety rules because they're incompetent (which, in theory, can be overcome and isn't readily measurable)
and
b) Can't follow some of the gun safety rules because of a permanent physical limitation (which cannot be overcome and can be perfectly measured).
Well yes, there is; but when b) is being argued as a justification to remove the 2A rights of some people, the distinction needs to be made that though someone may not physically capable of following some of Jeff Cooper's rules, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily unsafe for that person to own a firearm. In the context of the particular subject of the OP (the guy that shot himself), his douchebaggery appears to be largely independent of his lack of vision at least in this instance.
I give up. I am not about to get into it with someone that either can't understand what was clearly written or can but is willing to misrepresent what was said.
If you are referring to my post, and specifically to the last part of it, I didn't mean to misrepresent anything you said. This discussion has sort of taken on two tracks; blind people in general and this particular blind guy. I was speaking more in generality and within the context of the entire thread than only specifically to you.
Of course a blind man has this right and should use it. It is complete bullshit this whole "safety" crap. Always some crap legislation trying to save someone from there self by stripping our rights and shitting on our liberty.
We as a virtuous and free people need to stop limiting ourselves and allowing so many restrictions to be froced upon us. It is pathetic and we sell off a bit of our Sovereignty everyday for some perceived "safety" and "comfortability". It is disgusting.
I have heard of many more cases where people have shot themselves having good vision, than blind people doing so; him shooting himself sounds more like personal irresponsibility rather than a direct result of being blind.
Why not? They can drive and vote, both of which are far more dangerous to the public.
Shooting simply becomes a potentially "negligent" activity if the owner doesn't do it in a safe manner.
My parents have a couple who are friends and are both blind.
The woman does Biathlon. She said that the targets emit some sort of radio waves and the rifles have a sensor on the sights that emit a sound or sounds. The closer you are to the target the louder or however it works the sound is (could be two waves that get more in phase as you get closer).
There is no reason a blind person should lose 2A rights.
CarlosDJackal
08-31-10, 13:36
And we imprison people as punishment for their crimes, correct? However once they've served out their incarceration (spelling), why isn't their citizenship restored?...
Because they gave up that right by their actions. The results of their actions cannot be undone (outside of any financial reimbursement) and therefore neither can their rights. It does not matter if they paid their debt to society either financially, in kind or through incarceration. What they did can never be undone no matter what they do. This is just common law that has been observed by every society since the man first became man.
As far as the original topic; I think that I am in agreement that he should be allowed to keep and own his firearms. I also don't see why they should not return the ones that were confiscated. However, allowing him to use any of them is another issue. I feel that they can and should restrict this for his safety and that of his neighbors.
It's the same as if someone who does not have a Driver's License is given a car. There is nothing that says that the owner of a vehicle must be of a certain age or possesses the proper certification or training. The limitations goes with the operation of that vehicle (which is what is licensed).
To ensure that he cannot accidentally shoot himself or a round out of his home (IE: into his neighbor's house) they can stipulate that a trusted friend or family member store the firearms and/or ammunition in such a way that he does not have access without proper supervision.
I think that this has been an interesting exercise and is a perfect example that nothing is ever black or white. The question is still whether or not the rights of everyone else not to get accidentally shot outweigh the blind man's right to be able to handle a firearm? The reality is it all depends on which end of the muzzle you are. Those that are behind and to the sides don't see any issue with it. But those who are directly in front does. JM2CW.
If the only issue is that he is blind, then yes, he has the right. He still has the same responsibilities as a person with their vision. Who cares if he shot himself in the shin. We've all seen/heard of respectable people having ND's. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have a firearm; just that they need to reassess their actions. I believe it was in a TigerSwan class where one of the instructors said, "There are two types of people. Those that have had ND's and those that haven't had them yet."
I can remember selling a revolver to an older gentleman a few years back who literally had to view the 4473 with a magnifying glass about 1" above it. At first I was worried about selling a revolver to someone who couldn't see. But then I considered the fact that it's not my responsibility to determine what he can or cannot own. When the FBI NICS BG check came back as "proceed" I knew that I wouldn't be liable for him owning a gun. He didn't have an OL but he did have a picture ID. He told me that it would be in case someone broke into his home. Although I'm the salesman on that 4473 I knew the FBI could've told me Denied or Delayed. They didn't. I truly hope nobody breaks into his home....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.