From Second Amendment Foundation, which can always use your financial support with half a hundred pro-gun cases going at the moment: www.saf.org .
FED. JUDGE GRANTS PRELIM. INJUNCTION AGAINST TENETS OF NJ GUN LAW
A federal judge in New Jersey on Tuesday granted a preliminary injunction in part against certain tenets in the Garden State’s revised gun permit law, Chapter 131, chalking up a win for the Second Amendment Foundation and its lawsuit partners.In her meticulously-researched 235-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb writes, “The Constitution leaves the States some measures to combat handgun violence. But what the Second Amendment prohibits the States from doing, and what the State of New Jersey has done here with much of Chapter 131, is to ‘prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.’ That is plainly unconstitutional.“Bruen required the State to bring its firearm laws in compliance with the Second Amendment,” Judge Bumb adds. “Chapter 131 was the State’s response, but it went too far, becoming the kind of law that Founding Father Thomas Jefferson would have warned against since it ‘disarm[s] only those who are not inclined or determined to commit crimes [and] worsen[s] the plight of the assaulted, but improve[s] those of the assailants.’”SAF is joined in this case by the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society, Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, Nicholas Gaudio, Jeffrey Muller and Ronald Koons, the latter for whom the case, Koons v. Platkin, is named. They are represented by attorney David Jensen of Beacon, N.Y.“Judge Bumb’s ruling clearly recognizes the issues we raised with New Jersey’s restrictive gun law, and she’s fired a legal shot across the state’s bow,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “When New Jersey passed Chapter 131, it did away with the ‘justifiable need’ requirement, but replaced it with an equally egregious ‘sensitive places’ restriction to effectively prohibit carrying a legally-licensed handgun anywhere in the state. That just doesn’t pass the smell test.”Adam Kraut, SAF’s executive director and a practicing attorney, agreed, stating, “Today’s order granting our preliminary injunction against the State of New Jersey’s anti-carry law reaffirms that the rule of law is alive and well. After the Supreme Court decided Bruen last summer, the State of New Jersey enacted a series of restrictions that were wholly incompatible with the Constitution and disregarded the Supreme Court’s directive. It is unfortunate that a lawsuit was required in order to force the State to respect its residents’ constitutional right to bear arms. We look forward to continuing to litigate these issues in New Jersey, and across the nation, to ensure constitutional rights are not meaningless words on paper.”
The great northeast of the communist United States of America. It’s truly a shame that this very location is where the fight for independence began has the most restrictions on firearms. The founding fathers had it right. May they not be rolling over in their graves.
I question anything this judge said about there being allowance for handgun violence in the Constition. Back when that was written there was nothing around with handguns.
What she did was great, but she lists at least that bit in error.
If by “nothing arund with handguns” you mean they were not availble nor were they in common use, you are very much mistaken. Handguns were VERY common and popular. And they often played significant roles in battle. It waw very common, almost universal, that military men particularly officers, would have a brace of some sort of pistol in their waistbands, and they knew how to use them to good advantage.
They certainly were nothing unusual in that time, and definitely had no restrictive laws concerning their use, possession, concealment deployment, etc. As ordinary as apple pie
Yes, there were flintlock handguns back then. Blackbeard the pirate (a.k.a. Edward Teach) was born about 1680 and lived until 1718. So, that was fifty years before the Founding Fathers were doing their thing. Blackbeard could fire six pistol shots without reloading, because he wore a sash with six pistols in it.
Alexander Hamilton was a Founding Father, and he was killed by a handgun fired by Aaron Burr in 1804.
I forgot to add that, in a museum in NJ, I have seen a pair of dueling pistols once owned by George Washington. They came with a wooden box with accessories. I believe the pistols were on loan, so they could be anywhere now.
good to hear – although the ruling wasn’t a perfect win since the judge failed to enjoin a few aspects of the law, it is truly a significant win for the 2A community. Judge Bumb really took the State of NJ and the legislators who passed the laws to the woodshed. She especially pointed out that the law’s primary sponsor hysterically (my word, not hers) declared: “[b]ecause of Bruen, more New Jerseyans will die as result of gun violence.” She also spanked the legislature for not providing evidence they promised that would show a history and tradition of firearm regulation in the appropriate period that would support the law in question. And the efforts of the legislature to hurry her along in her ruling was deemed “most unfortunate.” And all that is in the first few introductory pages of her opinion!
Tom in NC,
Judge Bumb’s words, to think that handgun violence would increase in the wake of Bruen, show abysmal ignorance. I guess she has never heard of what Florida went through in the 1980s. How carjackings decreased when Florida started to re-recognize the Second Amendment.
She wants the legislature to show firearm regulations from the 1700s and maybe 1800s? I’m sure they could have found laws forbidding slaves and even free black men from carrying handguns back then.
I guess both journalists and some jurists are totally ignorant when it comes to the subject of firearms. I wonder if Judge Bumb has ever had anything to do with criminal law. I would think handguns would figure pretty prominently in criminal law. Wouldn’t you?
When I saw that restrictive States were expanding “sensitive places” to include just about everything, the first thing I thought was a paraphrase of Syndrome from The Incredibles:
“When every place is ‘sensitive’, no place will be.”
Hawaii from my understanding is trying to do the same crap, at least in some counties. Thus ruling should help there too, as well as of course NYC.
Good work, guys.
People, donate to SAF. They are fighting the fight that a certain nationwide organization quit doing.
Notice how we are getting this Second Amendment victory even during the Biden Administration. Since Trump called CNN “fake news,” I call Biden “The fake President.”
Of course, Trump appointed a lot of judges, so that must be why we are getting this victory. I’m sure George Soros is working on a way to circumvent patriotic, constitution-honoring judges.
Here, I will change the topic. I wasn’t too concerned about Artificial Intelligence, but the people who have been working on it for 50 years are concerned, so I better listen to them. (Of course, I didn’t take Y2K seriously either, until I heard that Bill Gates was taking it seriously.)
My guns can protect me from wild animals, and criminal humanoids, so could my guns also protect me from AI robots or drones? Can we take the batteries out of AI machines, or throw water on them, or shut down the power to the grid and live like the Amish? No electricity means no AI. Is resistance futile?
Smart machines, stupid people (stupid voters, especially in American cities).
RE: Judges — The real, lasting effect of the Trump Administration was that quiet judicial revolution, appointing hundreds of federal judges and getting them approved through the Senate. His three SCOTUS nominations got top billing, as they should, but not many really paid attention to the lower court nominations.
Not until now, anyway. 🙂
RE: Drones — “What caliber for drones?” was a tongue-in-cheek question around the gun-related blogs several years back, when inexpensive, camera-equipped drones were becoming popular. As the governments start using them for warrantless surveillance — particularly around private residences — I expect we’ll see a less-humorous resurgence of the question. (I have a few thoughts/answers, but I’m no expert, so I hesitate to share them.)
“Chief U.S. District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb writes, ‘The Constitution leaves the States some measures to combat handgun violence.’
Left-Wing thinking. This is a positive decision but the Judge needs to avoid the trap of Left-Wing Thinking. This Judge is defaulting to a Worldview where human beings are nothing more than powerless clay molded by overwhelming exterior social conditions. That is Leftist thinking.
Handguns are inanimate objects. They have no capacity for violence. To, therefore, speak or write about “handgun violence” or “gun violence” is a contradiction-in-terms. Living creatures can initiate violence. Living creatures have a measure of free will.
The absurd nature of this thinking can be easily illustrated by applying this erroneous form to a different context.
Take the case of someone who captures and collects butterflies using a butterfly net. Are we to believe that the unfortunate butterfly, that gets caught in the net, is a victim of “Butterfly Net Violence”? Is the butterfly net to blame? Do you think that the butterfly net (also an inanimate object) leaped into the air, on its own volition, to encase any butterfly that ventures too close? Are these smart butterfly nets? Are they rocket powered and have an on-board computer to calculate intercept vectors?
Are you convinced of the silliness yet?
Unfortunately, the American Left has attacked firearms with (literally) decades of propaganda and indoctrination. They have followed George Orwell’s method of “shaping language” so that people, without thinking, use silly terms like “handgun violence” or “gun violence” without even realizing that they are speaking utter nonsense.
You see the danger here? If one believes, even subconsciously, in something like “gun violence”, then ridiculous proposals for Firearms Prohibition start to sound reasonable. This is REAL brainwashing in action, folks!
Even reasonable people can find themselves “brainwashed” into cultural madness if they allow themselves too much exposure to the mental poisons being pushed, daily and hourly, by the spin doctors of the American Left and their Media henchmen.
Exactly why I always put phrases like “gun violence”, “handgun violence”, and “gun control” in quotes. They’re not my phrases, and they don’t make sense.
“Gun control”, for example, doesn’t seek to control guns. No bill, enacted or proposed, makes it illegal for a gun to get up and shoot someone or prohibits guns from walking themselves into “sensitive places”. That would be ridiculous*!
Instead, “gun control” seeks to control gun owners and their behaviors, what they must and must not do with guns, where they can and cannot go, and what types of guns they may or may not purchase or own.
Interestingly, the bumper sticker’s definition — “Gun control means using both hands” — makes more sense than the gun-controllers’.
Or another sound byte: “Gun control” is not about guns; it’s about control.
* – On the other hand, the thought occurs to me that it would be interesting to see a “gun control” bill phrased in such a way that a firearm is treated as a small child. Something like, “No firearm shall enter [insert ‘sensitive place’] unless accompanied by its owner or lawful possessor.” Meaningless in practice — where could a gun go, unless its owner/possessor were transporting it? — but with enough elements of “control” that some people might vote for it.
I am afraid of car violence, so I keep my car tens of feet from other cars, and wear seat belts.
My other fear is white supremacy. Just think of how great a place America could be if we weren’t plagued by white supremacy. We could have plenty of stuff for everyone to enjoy, and non-whites would not be afraid to immigrate here. They could live among us, and contribute to our society. But no, sadly, white supremacists have to go and ruin everything.
@ Roger Willco – “white supremacy”
I know that you are speaking “tongue-in-cheek”! 🙂
Otherwise, I would recommend that you unplug from the Anti-American Media since your comment sounds like the writings of the brainwashed.
The only true racists, that I know of, are the race hustlers on the Left. The democrat party, here in America, has always used race as a wedge issue going back to the “Trail of Tears” and their support for slavery (Pre-Civil War).
Their use of the “white Supremacy” buzzword is pure projection. About 98% of the billionaires and leftist global elites are, themselves, of the white race.
They are, in fact, a bunch of white supremacists who project and accuse their political opponents of their own sin of “white supremacy”. All of which is done, disingenuously, to keep themselves at the top of the global power pyramid and to continue to rob the people and rake in that tax money, graft, and kickbacks.
However, the false charge is useful to them. It keeps Conservatives on the defensive and keep the non-white population believing that they are “Victims of Institutional Racism”. It keeps non-whites loyal to the Leftist white supremacists. It keeps them “on the plantation” (in squalor and misery) and voting democrat every election.
Yippy-Ki-Yay! Move along, you little doggies! 🙂
Look, guys, I know thread drift is a thing, but does a 2A discussion really have to devolve into this white supremacy dialogue? Please…
@ Mas – “thread drift”
Sorry about the thread drift. However, I would point out that racism (and white supremacy) is not totally unrelated to the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Much of the Firearms-Prohibition Movement is driven by the racism and the white supremacy of the American Left.
Just a couple of points:
1) Many (perhaps even the majority) of early Firearm-Prohibition Laws, drafted in the 19th Century, were written and passed with the express purpose of disarming Blacks and freed slaves.
2) The infamous Sullivan Law, passed in 1911, was specifically aimed at disarming the Black population and poor immigrants. It was written to grant the authorities the power to issue firearm licenses subjectively (May Issue). The effect was to disarm the Blacks and poor whites while allowing the rich whites to own arms and carry them if they want. Or to allow the bodyguards of the rich whites to carry. If that is not white supremacy, then I don’t understand the term.
As you know, the unconstitutional Sullivan Law remained “on the books” for over a century. It was only recently struck down by the SCOTUS in their Bruen Decision.
So, again, sorry for the thread drift. On the other hand, how far off-topic are we, really?
The modus operandi (MO) of the Left (both American Left and Global Left) is to use fear and panic to stampede the population in a direction that hands more power and control to the Left. It is like in those old Western Movies where the cowboys all want to send the herd of cattle charging in a particular direction. The cowboys all ride over to the opposite side, shout, scream, and fire off their pistols. The loud noise induces fear and panic into the cattle who, dumbly, charge away from the racket, thus doing what the cowboy’s wanted.
The Left’s MO is a bit more complex but basically still the same. These are the steps involved:
1) The Left identifies a persistent human problem that can never be completely solved but which can be exacerbated and inflamed into a crisis.
2) Rather than trying solve the problem, they implement policies to exacerbate it into a crisis that they can use.
3) Once they have their crisis (Never let a crisis go to waste!), they whip up fear and panic of the crisis that they, themselves, helped to create.
4) They also use their media and indoctrination tools to control the dialog concerning the crisis. They “shape” the language so that the only response to the crisis is the one they desire. The one that hands them more power and control.
5) When the crisis gets bad enough, they induce panic and “stampede the herd” toward their preferred solution. Note that this solution never solves the crisis. Solving the problems of the People does not serve the interests of the Left. They need constant problems and a climate of constant crisis to continue the “Cattle Drive” toward their ultimate destination (total and permanent control over the population a la the ChiComs in China). Actually solving problems is counter-productive from the viewpoint of the Leftist Global Elites.
Once one understands the Left’s MO, you can train yourself to spot it in operation. Here is MO applied to firearms in the U.S.:
Left Wing Goal: The Left desires total power. An armed population is a serious roadblock to getting this power. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment and the large pool of gun-owners in the U.S. is a real problem (from the Left’s perspective). The Left’s solution is to apply their MO (outlined generally above) to “stampede the herd” into revoking the 2A and to, voluntarily, giving up their firearms. Since this is difficult, the Left has worked for decades toward this end.
Here are their specific steps:
1) They need a persistent problem that cannot ever be completely solved. They settle upon the problem of crime and violence.
2) They wish to inflame crime and violence into a crisis. They take many actions toward this goal. They undercut the mental health system and release large numbers of the mentally ill back into society. They do the same thing with the prison system and criminals. They undercut (and work to defund) the police. They open the border to allow large numbers of unchecked people into the U.S. They destroy stable family life with the welfare State. Their media, movies, and video games all glorify crime and violence. The open borders allow more illegal drugs to flood the country.
3) As a predictable result of the Left’s policies, the country is destabilized and crime and violence rise dramatically. So, do mass murder events which the Leftist media rushes to glorify so as to produce as many copycats as possible. The Left has created the crisis that they need to operate.
4) They Left uses propaganda and indoctrination to “shape language” and control the debate. Terms like “Gun Violence”, “Gun Safety Measure”, etc. are all selected so that Firearms Prohibition is the only option considered. They brutally shut down any discussion of any other option to address their manufactured crisis. Firearms Prohibition is the only one that the Left will accept and they enforce that end with their control of the media.
5) The plan, of course, is to continue to build up the crisis, in crime and violence, to the point where they “stampede the herd” into Firearms Prohibition. To the point where is 2A is repealed (or effectively gutted) and they have the political support for confiscation and forced disarmament of the population. They hope that many will panic and, voluntarily, give up their arms in some kind of “Government Buy Back Program”.
The actions of the Left stand out once you know their MO. It is clear as day.
The Left’s MO says a lot about Leftists. It shows that they consider human populations to be little more than herds of cattle. Cattle to be branded, herded, and exploited at will. The global Left truly think of themselves as “Elites”. As superior beings to the common people in the herd. This is the hallmark of being a psychopath. A psychopath sees himself (or herself) as different than others. That is why psychopaths can do their terrible crimes. By seeing their victims as “less than human”. The Nazis were able to kill millions of Jews in gas chambers because their ideology dehumanized them. The Nazis were psychopaths.
As shown by the Left-Wing control MO (outlined above), the Leftists also dehumanize the People. They see the ordinary people as little more than herds of cattle to be driven and exploited.
Almost our entire Government leadership, in the U.S. and the West in general, are psychopaths. That is why the country is so FUBAR.
“Almost our entire Government leadership, in the U.S. and the West in general, are psychopaths. That is why the country is so FUBAR.”
I am not the only one who sees this “Big Picture”. The author of this opinion piece is another one (although he uses the term “sociopaths” rather than “psychopaths”. It is “six of one or half a dozen of the other” as far as identifying the Power Brokers in the “Deep State” and global big business is concerned! :-)) :
TN_MAN: RE: Illegal drugs —
This is an interesting point, because there’s a direct historical analogue in how allowing illegal drugs into the country through an open border fuels the violence.
During “Prohibition”, moonshiners and bootleggers were all branded criminals, and the people who ran underground “speakeasy” bars were the same. With no legal recourse to protect their interests, many resorted to extra-legal (read: illegal) recourses, often including brutal violence, and smaller venues were persuaded (or “persuaded”, if you catch my drift) to ally themselves with larger groups for protection.
Thus, the rise of organized crime and the Mob, to the great fear of the general populace. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed in the wake of Prohibition, ostensibly to counter organized crime by targeting their weapons (yes, it passed almost seven months after Prohibition ended, but the fear was still running high).
Back to today, we’re seeing the exact same events play out again, with illegal drugs and the gangs whose businesses rely on them. They deal in high-demand, illegal substances, and because of that there are zero legal recourses when one group’s interests conflict with another’s. Thus, gang violence and “turf wars”, often with firearms, which scares the public.
The government, of course, has all the resources necessary to combat drug-fueled gang violence. They could target the sellers, the distributors, the manufacturers that are within the country. They could secure the border to severely limit what comes in. (Alternatively but less desirably, they could amend U.S. Code to decriminalize drugs and allow them to be sold legally, with FDA oversight. Legalizing currently-illicit substances, done correctly, would go a long way to defunding and disempowering the gangs.)
But none of that serves the power-amassing interests of the Left.
So instead, they keep the border open, defund the police, release drug criminals and gang enforcers back onto the streets, and wait until the public has had enough and demands additional weapons controls.
Just like in 1933-34.
The biggest difference between then and now is a critical mass of the population is aware that the Left’s desire is for power and not public safety, isn’t fooled by their benevolent-sounding words, and will not comply with unconstitutional laws.
@ Archer – “Just like in 1933-34.”
Correct! The Left’s MO is not new. “Never let a crisis go to waste” has been a guiding principle of the Left for more than a century. Sometimes, the crisis is one that just occurs, due to bad luck or bad planning, on its own. However, the Left cannot just leave things to chance. They cannot just count on a crisis “falling into their laps” (all ready to be used) when needed. So, the Left has become extremely skilled at manufacturing them.
Look around! The border crisis, the crime and violence crisis, the Covid-19 crisis, The War in Ukraine, the Debt Ceiling Crisis, etc. All manufactured by the American and/or Global Left so that they can be exploited for political purposes. It is not mere coincidence or change that the World of the 21st Century is lurching from one crisis, to another, to another, to another, (in an infinite series). It is all being rigged on purpose to advance the political goals of the Left. It is being done to keep the “Cattle Drive” headed in the direction that the Left desires.
It is hard to say whether the Left planned for Alcohol Prohibition to generate a crisis of violence and organize crime. I think that the Left supported Alcohol Prohibition, initially, just because they saw it as a way to expand Government Power and to expand control over the population. They Religious Right was willing to go along with the idea. So, between support from both the Right and the Left, it was a policy that “had legs”.
However, once Prohibition (and the Great Depression) created a major crisis in the U.S., the Left immediately set about exploiting it.
As you know, they used it as an excuse to attack the 2nd Amendment Rights of the People. They used it to push their Firearms-Prohibition agenda by passing the National Firearms Act of 1934.
However, that was only part of it. They used it as an opportunity to get their man, FDR, elected as President. In fact, they used it to gain control of D.C. for at least a couple of decades. With their Administration, in-power, they advanced an entire set of “Left-Wing New Deal Programs” all of which were designed to take power away from the People and to concentrate it in the central Government. They turned the Prohibition/Great Depression Crisis into a Golden Opportunity to advance the statist plans of the Left.
FDR truly “showed the way” to the American Left. He illustrated just how to use a crisis to gain power and advance an agenda. It is a lesson that the Left has never forgotten.
Ever since that time, the Left has refined their MO of crisis manufacturing and exploitation. They practically have it down to a science now (a century later).
However, again as you noted, they have used the technique too much. They have “went to the well” too often. Many people, at those with an IQ above room temperature, are catching on to the tricks of the Left. While a chunk of the population still functions as “useful idiots”, another large segment has become deeply cynical concerning these left-wing tricks. They recognize that the media has been feeding them a narrative of constant lies and propaganda. The ability of the Left to keep using the tricks, in their play book, is been greatly eroded.
The only question is, will enough of the population “wise up” to the power-grab of the Left in time to stop them? This is still “up in the air”.
I’m an IT professional with a philosophy degree, so I can debunk the myth of AI from two standpoints.
IT: all a computer chip has is a lot of on off switches. That’s it. To multiply something by a billion it has to add itself to itself a billion times. That’s how smart they are.
You might as well say with a big enough number of light switches connected you are going to get the terminator.
You really think something that can’t tick a box or say ‘which of these pictures contains a hill?’ is going to become HAL?
Philosophy: The mind body problem is an old riddle in philosophy. We have a mind, but where is it? You can search the brain with a microscope but you won’t see that pic of the taj mahal I’m thinking of. We know they are connected, because if the brain gets damaged, the mind suffers. But how we have no idea of. Machines don’t have minds or consciousness.
A machine might pass the Turn test but it’s a silly test. If being convinced meant what you were told is true, then every con man would be an honest man.
Machines don’t have intelligence and never will.
Incidentally just in case no one knows it; Easy way to spot bots on-line is to ask them to spell your last name backwards. All these ‘foreign 16 year olds’ (to explain the poor english and ignorance) can’t.
Thanks. I suspected what you wrote all along, but when I hear about Geoffrey Hinton, the father of AI, who has worked on it since 1972, and he is afraid, then I doubt my own thinking.
Maybe these smart scientists are hypnotized by their own machines. Maybe technology is brushing up against limits, and it will stop developing soon. Technology could stop developing for economic reasons as well.
We broke the speed of sound, but we will not break the speed of light. Scientists clone all types of animals, except primates. There are limits. Art stopped developing. Maybe it is time for science to stop developing, too.
I’m not a legal scholar- but won’t the State just appeal to the Second Circuit (or whatever other appeals court has jurisdiction)? In NY, the State did just that after they similarly lost a case challenging their new unconstitutional carry law in a lower federal court. In short, the State is allowed to enforce its post-Bruen deliberately unconstitutional carry law anyway pending a decision by the Second Circuit. So none of us have been able to exercise our 2A rights since the Bruen decision- pretty much at all- or we take our chances.
Unless I missed something- we are still “anxiously awaiting” the Second Circuit’s ruling on one of the many challenges to the BS carry law. I’m not thinking the pro-2A side wins in the NY cesspool, which means the unconstitutional carry law will continue in NY for a long time to come. And, I would predict the same for Jersey (unless I’m missing something).
Probably. The State has essentially unlimited taxpayer-funded resources with which to mount its legal defense, plus they have the benefit of time. Historically, the longer a law is allowed to stand and be enforced, the more likely it will be upheld. Thus, it is in the State’s best interest to play endless delay tactics to try and wait out the plaintiffs and drain their resources. (I suspect they’re hoping for more Miller-style victories.)
Unfortunately, many of the Circuit courts are on that same page, and will wait as long as possible — months or sometimes years — before scheduling hearings and issuing decisions.
Fortunately, certain SCOTUS Justices are wise to the waiting game and have implied they’ll pull cases if the Circuits don’t move fast enough. Constitutional questions should not be forced to wait, nor should the people raising them be financially pressured to cease their petition.
I’m so glad I was born and raised in a free state, never having to know what it’s like to have the “kings” permission to buy/own/ carry guns…if you live in commie states, vote with your feet….
I’m strict about giving money to anyone. Every politician can go to hell, I used to work for a member of Congress, even the people allegedly on our side bother me. An exception – I donate to the 2AF because I see results. Glad they are not just fighting but winning.
Thanks for posting this, I don’t live anywhere close to NJ but I want everyone to enjoy freedom and liberty.
Nice to see a right decision come out of the courts once in a while.
Quote of the Day:
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR)