Ninth Circuit Upholds CA's Magazine Ban

The Ninth Circuit is up to its usual tricks again.

Despite clear direction from the Supreme Court in Bruen, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit has upheld California’s unconstitutional ban on standard-capacity magazines holding over 10 rounds. This decision flies in the face of Bruen and Heller, and demonstrates once more the Ninth Circuit’s ongoing hostility toward the Second Amendment.

In a sharply divided decision, the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s ban—despite a scathing dissent by Judge Patrick Bumatay, who correctly pointed out that the majority misapplied Bruen. As Judge Bumatay stated:

“Bruen did two things: (1) it ended judicial interest balancing and (2) it provided a new framework for considering Second Amendment challenges. Despite this revolutionary change, things remain the same at the Ninth Circuit.”

The vigorous dissent didn’t stop there. Judge Ryan Nelson highlighted serious procedural violations by the en banc panel, noting that the body didn’t have the statutory jurisdiction to hear this case in the first place.

And Judge Lawrence VanDyke delivered a blunt and courageous dissent and he took the extraordinary step of recording a video message explaining his objections to the majority’s decision. If you haven’t seen it, we encourage you to watch it.

This isn’t just about magazines. It’s about courts ignoring the Constitution and undermining the Supreme Court’s clear rulings in Bruen and Heller. California’s argument that these magazines are mere “accessories” rather than protected “arms” defies logic, history, and common sense. And, as usual, the state failed to offer any historical analogs to justify its ban.

2ALC is already working with our allies to support bringing this case back to the Supreme Court. We will coordinate an amicus brief campaign to ensure that the High Court understands the full legal history at play in this case, which shows the gaping flaws in California’s arguments to defend the ban.

We need your help. This campaign requires significant resources, and we cannot do it without your support. Every dollar goes toward legal advocacy, research, and bringing together experts to make the most compelling case possible.

Donate today to fuel this critical fight!

The Supreme Court has already sent a message to the Ninth Circuit once when it vacated a previous en banc ruling in this case. Now it’s time to make sure they get it. With your help, we can hold lower courts accountable and defend the rights our Constitution guarantees.

Thank you for standing with the Second Amendment Law Center. The fight is far from over—and we’re just getting started.

DONATE TODAY!

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

CA Gun Show Ban To SCOTUS?

California’s misguided attempt to suppress "gun culture" by banning gun shows on state-owned lands disregards the protections enshrined in the First and Second Amendments. Despite the state's hollow claims of “protecting public safety,” this law is nothing more than a strategic move aimed at advancing a gun control agenda. Thankfully, the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) has stood steadfast against these overreaching bans, and today, their fight reaches the highest court in the nation.

Today, CRPA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, requesting review of B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom. This pivotal case centers on Crossroads of the West, a prominent gun show organizer that has been unjustly barred from holding events on public fairgrounds. The state’s justification for this ban rests on the baseless assertion that firearms purchased at gun shows are disproportionately used in crimes—a claim unsupported by evidence.

CRPA President and General Counsel Chuck Michel underscored the importance of this battle, stating:

“Our Crossroads of the West and CRPA plaintiffs had no choice but to ask the Supreme Court to correct the Ninth Circuit's misguided decision to ignore the law of what speech is constitutionally protected and completely disregard the Supreme Court's directive in Bruen. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will see the merit of our positions and grant cert to protect the rights of tens of thousands of lawful gun owners in California to assemble and enjoy the camaraderie and benefits of gun shows.”

From the outset, CRPA has challenged this law in court, exposing its constitutional flaws at every turn. The case has followed a convoluted legal journey, culminating in a troubling Ninth Circuit decision in June. That ruling employed twisted logic to evade the critical First and Second Amendment issues raised.

We commend our friends at CRPA and our allies in this case—the Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and others—who continue to fight tirelessly for justice. Cases like this, which define how Bruen is applied across the nation, have implications far beyond California and are critical for safeguarding constitutional rights nationwide.

The road to victory demands relentless effort, and 2ALC needs your support to keep pushing forward. Help us fuel this critical battle—make a donation today to protect our fundamental freedoms!

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

Gov. Newsom Calls Special Session To "Protect California Values"

This morning, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a proclamation calling a special session of the legislature to focus on fighting back against potential Trump administration policies through increased resources directed to the state’s Department of Justice.

We all know that gun control advocates will not stop, but this move by Newsom represents a troubling new standard, namely, using public dollars to fight against private parties (as parties to legal cases often are). And all this before Trump has even been sworn into office.

Second Amendment defenders across the country know that the fight has only just begun. Newsom will be leading the charge nationally, and has made it no secret that he will be running for president in 2028. He is already raising money for that campaign.

Stand with us at 2ALC to ensure that we have the resources to succeed!

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

2ALC Fights For CCW Rights in CA Case

Limiting access to, and imposing lots of restrictions on obtaining and carrying with a CCW permit is a big part of California politician’s ongoing crusade to render the Second Amendment meaningless. Allies like our friends at the California Rifle & Pistol Association continue to fight in counties like Los Angeles and San Francisco where activist sheriffs and local lawmakers foist fees and delays on CCW seekers while the state legislature slaps restrictions on where and how carry is permitted for those who do the work to obtain one.

Under current California law, non-residents are not even allowed to apply for a CCW in California. And that is among the issues in the case of Matthews v. City of Los Angeles, in which 2ALC has filed an amicus brief. Our brief, which was filed in concert with CRPA, Second Amendment Foundation, and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, demonstrates that there is no historical basis for requiring valid CCW holders in one state to secure another CCW when traveling to another state. Historical tradition and laws prove quite the opposite. Many laws specifically prohibited local restrictions on the right to self-defense simply because one was outside of their home state.

Current California law expressly prohibits out of state residents from even acquiring a California CCW. That leaves us with a status crime while there is no way for the individual to remedy their status. The result is exactly as gun control advocates intended: the only way to win is to relinquish your Second Amendment rights.

CRPA and Second Amendment Foundation, as the brief points out, are “associational plaintiffs” in a case challenging California’s ban on nonresident CCW’s, and that case should soon produce an injunction that prohibits that restriction.

Clearly, great progress is being made. But our work MUST continue as anti-Second Amendment lawmakers and jurisdictions continue their assault on our fundamental rights. Will you please contribute to bolster our efforts?

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

Stay Lifted, "1 In 30" Enjoined Once Again!

A Ninth Circuit panel has lifted the stay on the district court’s injunction in Nguyen v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s limit of one gun purchase per 30 days. With the district court’s judgment back in effect, Californians can now legally purchase as many firearms at one time as they please.

The Second Amendment Law Center, joined the California Rifle & Pistol Association, and Operation Blazing Sword-Pink Pistols in filing an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Nguyen. This arbitrary rule restricts lawful gun owners while doing nothing to stop criminals, and it causes increased expense for purchasers, making them wait 30 days and incur the nearly $40 DROS fees all over again.  

“The state fared very poorly in this case because their case is inherently weak,” explained 2ALC President Chuck Michel. “California’s gun control advocates start from the position that the Second Amendment is a second-class right, which leads them to pass absurd restrictions like this. Imagine limiting free speech by regulating how often an individual can perform an otherwise lawful act. It’s shamefully unconstitutional.”

Congratulations to Nguyen plaintiffs on this important win! Please subscribe below for continued updates and DONATE to help 2ALC in supporting other key cases.

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

2A Allies In CA Challenge State's 11% Excise Tax

Our friends at the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and other Second Amendment associations have filed the case of Jaymes v. Maduros to challenge the imposition of an additional 11% tax on firearms, ammunition, and so-called “precursor parts” in California.

Under the leadership of noted gun control advocate Governor Gavin Newsom, California continues to wage war on “gun culture” by taxing and hassling lawful gun owners’ fundamental right to keep and bear arms until it seems scarcely much of a right at all. All this while the state remains asleep at the wheel in defending the public from rampant crime.

“California continues to waste taxpayers’ money by passing laws it knows won’t withstand challenge under Bruen and Heller,” stated 2ALC President Chuck Michel, who also serves as the volunteer President of CRPA. “We’re beating these laws back one by one and will continue to do so despite the efforts of those who wish those decisions never existed.”

2ALC continues to play an active role in cases like Jaymes and others around the country that threaten gun rights. Our amicus brief campaigns provide depth and insight to cases challenging 2A restrictions by supplying historical research regarding “historical analogs” as required under Bruen.

Please subscribe and donate below to help our efforts!

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

2ALC Files Amicus Brief In "1 In 30" Case

Today, the Second Amendment Law Center filed an amicus brief in the case of Nguyen v. Bonta. The plaintiffs in the case are challenging California’s “one gun a month” law as an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment. Read the full brief here.

“The right to keep and bear arms, naturally, includes the right to actually purchase those arms in the first place,” stated 2ALC President Chuck Michel. “Our brief furthers the plaintiffs’ case that no reasonable historical analogs exist for California’s arbitrary time limit on firearm purchases.”

In its arguments supporting the law, the state cites as precedence laws that barred the purchase of firearms on the basis of race and ethnicity. Such laws would be clearly unconstitutional today, demonstrating just how far the state will go to attack the Second Amendment.

In April, the plaintiffs won a summary judgment in the case, but the court stayed that ruling to allow time for the state to appeal.

Amicus briefs serve a critical purpose in post-Bruen cases by providing extensive legal and historical context that the new standard requires. 2ALC continues to lead these efforts in critical cases like this all across the country, but we NEED YOUR HELP!

Donate below and subscribe for updates!

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

Stay Overturned, Injunction Barring SB 2 Implementation Back in Place

Over the weekend, the stay on the injunction in the case of May v. Bonta was lifted, barring the state from implementing the “sensitive places” aspects of SB 2. The new law, passed this past summer and enthusiastically signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, created almost no place in the state where a concealed carry permit holder can carry a firearm to protect themselves and others.

The California Rifle & Pistol Association secured the injunction last month, only to have it stayed by an order issued in the last hours of the year. The decision to lift the stay puts that injunction back in place and bars enforcement of significant portions of SB 2 and basically protects the status quo for CCW holders in the state.

2ALC remains focused on defeating “sensitive places” laws wherever they are passed through the coordination of amicus brief campaigns that support pro-2A parties in cases like this. We will be aggressively supporting CRPA in this case to help ensure a win…even in the Ninth Circuit!

PLEASE DONATE to help our amicus campaign to defeat “sensitive places” in California!

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

SB 2 Injunction Stayed, Law Now Takes Effect

A 3-judge administrative “motions panel” of the Ninth Circuit issued a temporary Order late last week, staying the injunction in the case of May v. Bonta, which would have barred implementation of a new law known as SB 2. SB 2 makes CCWs invalid in most public places that the state has improperly designated as “sensitive.”. Because of the stay, SB 2 took effect on January 1 and will remain in effect until a different 3-judge panel, called the “merits panel,” considers the request and the CRPA’s Opposition to it. 2ALC is assisting CRPA in requesting an expedited ruling reversing the motions panel’s temporary stay of the injunction.

The law not only defines huge swaths of the state as “sensitive places” where CCWs are invalid, it also imposes new restrictions on CCW application and issuance processes. Meanwhile, the state has proposed new regulations to set up new requirements for certifying CCW instructors. If adopted as written, these will make it difficult to find a CCW training class because there will be a shortage of certified instructors. Our friends in law enforcement are pushing the DOJ to change the proposed regulations and make it easier to get certified, and the 2ALC and CRPA are opposing the DOJ’s proposed regulations as well.

“Governor Newsom loves to claim that ‘as California goes, so goes the nation.’ In this case, that might actually be true,” commented 2ALC President & Senior Legal Counsel Chuck Michel. “The methodology used to apply the Bruen decision is the central issue in May v. Bonta, just as it is in dozens of other cases in the Ninth Circuit and across the country. This is a must-win at-all-costs fight, and 2ALC is on the front lines.”

Michel’s comments point up common focus at the heart of 2 ALC’s work: providing the historical legal background and research that bolsters the arguments of pro-2A litigants in the most pressing cases across the country. Bruen’s mandate to assess whether modern-day gun laws would have been supported under the founders’ interpretation of the Second Amendment requires vast amounts of legal research.

Through our coordinated amicus brief campaigns in multiple 2A cases, and one being put together in the May v. Bonta case, 2ALC is on the front lines fighting for your freedoms. We humbly ask for your support to turn back this blatant attack on “gun culture” and help to set a precedent for similar actions nationwide.

Please sign up below for further updates and click the button below to SUPPORT OUR AMICUS CAMPAIGN for May v. Bonta.

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

Judge Knocks Out "Sensitive Places" Law

Yesterday, Judge Cormac Carney of the Central District of California ruled emphatically against the state’s new “sensitive places” law in the case of May v. Bonta.

The ruling represents a massive victory in what has become a nationwide battle over such laws, with states like Hawaii and New Jersey promulgating similar restrictions. Judge Carney’s decision includes some very direct language eviscerating the state’s weak arguments.

““(T)he state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes,” writes Judge Carney.

He goes on to make clear how the Second Amendment ought to be viewed: “But the Constitution, by design, recognizes that some rights are so important and sacrosanct that nothing short of a constitutional amendment may take them away. No one—not a federal judge, not a state governor or legislator, not even the President of the United States—is above the Constitution.”

In an interview with The Gun Guy, Joel Persinger, 2ALC President Chuck Michel talks over the significance of the ruling, the path forward to truly defeating the law, and how cases like Duncan v. Bonta will impact the ongoing fight over the proper methodology that should be used in applying Bruen.

2ALC will be supporting our friends at the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and the Second Amendment Foundation through a coordinated amicus campaign. With “text, history, and tradition” now at the center of these cases, the importance of amicus briefs takes on a critical role in winning these cases.

And because winning EVERYWHERE is so important in setting precedent, we NEED YOUR SUPPORT! Please sign up below to stay informed and PLEASE consider making a donation to help our efforts in California!

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

Hearing Today in CA "Sensitive Places" Suit

Today in the Central District of California’s Southern Division, the issue of “sensitive places” takes center stage as the court hears the case of May v. Bonta. The hearing will determine if a preliminary injunction should be issued blocking the law which is set to take effect on January 1, 2024.

The California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, and Liberal Gun Club filed the case to challenge SB 2, which was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom earlier this year.

In addition to prohibiting concealed carry in a broad range of “sensitive places”, as we’ve seen attempted in states like Hawaii, New York, and New Jersey, the new law also creates new requirements that CCW applicants prove they are not a “disqualified person”, which allows subjective criterion to be used to deny CCW applications. California’s “good cause” requirement for CCW’s was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its Bruen decision in June 2022 for just that reason.

The Second Amendment Law Center will support CRPA’s case with an amicus campaign that provides legal and historical context that will assist the court in properly applying the Bruen standard.

This case represents one of the many cases pending across the country that will test how courts apply, or misapply the Bruen standard. Anti-2A jurisdictions argue for a weak Bruen standard, similar to the toothless standard of review they’ve been accustomed to for decades. Rather than being pressed to find a true historical analog for new restrictions, anti-gun-owner states argue (as they did in Rahimi) that they should be able to apply a “level of generality” as they look at any and all sources to find even the most flimsy justification. If such a watered-down methodology becomes pervasive, the Bruen “standard” would be easy to overcome, and many unconstitutional gun laws would be upheld. So, the stakes are high for the Second Amendment.

Please subscribe below to keep updated on this and other cases affecting Second Amendment rights in California and across the country. And please donate to help 2ALC’s amicus campaign in this case!

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

"Sensitive Places" Fight Resumes in May v. Bonta

Our friends at the California Rifle & Pistol Association recently took the next step in their fight against that state’s “sensitive places” law. Senate Bill 2 passed this summer and was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom along with a spate of other gun control legislation.

CRPA filed a reply to the state's brief opposing a motion for a preliminary injunction in the the case of May, et al v. Bonta. The OCurt will hold a hearing on the motion on December 5. If CRPA’s motion is granted, it would bar the new law from taking effect until the case is fully decided. Currently, SB 2 would be effective and enforceable as of January 1, 2024.

In addition to prohibiting concealed carry in a broad range of “sensitive places”, as we’ve seen attempted in states like Hawaii, New York, and New Jersey, the new law also creates new requirements that CCW applicants prove they are not a “disqualified person”, which allows subjective criterion to be used to deny CCW applications. California’s “good cause” requirement for CCW’s was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its Bruen decision in June 2022 for just that reason.

The Second Amendment Law Center will support CRPA’s case with an amicus campaign that provides legal and historical context that will assist the court in properly applying the Bruen standard.

This case represents one of the many cases pending across the country that will test how courts apply, or misapply the Bruen standard. Anti-2A jurisdictions argue for a weak Bruen standard similar to the toothless standard of review they’ve been accustomed to for decades. Rather than being pressed to find a true historical analog for new restrictions, anti-gun-owner states argue (as they did in Rahimi) that they should be able to apply a “level of generality” as they look at any and all sources to find even the most tenuous justification. If such a methodology becomes pervasive, the Bruen “standard” would be easy to overcome, and many gun laws would be upheld. So the stakes are high for the Second Amendment.

Please subscribe below to keep updated on this and other cases affecting Second Amendment rights in California and accross the country. And please donate to help 2ALC’s amicus campaign in this case!

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

BIG WIN! Ruling Strikes Down California's "Assault Weapons" Ban

In yet another key victory for California gun owners, Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. Southern District of California ruled yesterday that the state's decades-old ban on "Assault Weapons" is unconstitutional.

In his 79-page decision, Judge Benitez, who has authored a handful of recent pro-2A decisions in recent years, clearly articulates how the California law runs afoul of Heller and Bruen and painstakingly details the rationale behind his decision. As noted by our friends at the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Judge Benitez also reflects on the value of lives saved as a result of defensive gun use.

Benitez writes: ”This Court understands the unquestionable tragedy caused by lawless individuals using modern semi-automatic guns or any gun to injure or kill innocent men, women, or children. Their lives are important. But are their lives any more important than Jane Doe’s or the lives of her family? We hear constantly about mass shootings for days and weeks and on anniversaries. But how often do we celebrate the saving of the life of Jane Doe because she was able to use a semi-automatic weapon to defend herself and her family from attackers? Are the lives of Jane, John, and Junior Doe worth any less than others? Are they less important?”

The injunction issued in Benitez’ ruling is stayed for ten days from the date of the order to give the state time to appeal. The state will undoubtedly appeal, as they have from recent pro-2A decisions such as Duncan v. Bonta, and some of those cases may be headed all the way to the Supreme Court.

As with the upcoming U.S. v. Rahimi, and many other cases nationwide, the methodology used by courts in applying the Bruen standard remains a central issue for 2A advocates to watch. More progressive judges twist logic to circumvent Bruen, as exemplified by the Ninth Circuit’s recent claim that magazines are NOT arms as defined by the Second Amendment and, therefore, not even subject to the protections offered by Bruen.

Will these and other convoluted arguments take hold nationally? Gun control advocates certainly hope so. 2ALC and our allies across the country will continue to fight back to produce more wins like this one.

Please subscribe below to receive continued updates and, if you are so inclined, please contribute to 2ALC’s ongoing efforts to support key 2A cases across the country through coordinated amicus campaigns. It is this critical legal research and historical background that has become increasingly important in fighting back against the revisionist history and emotional arguments of the well-funded disarmament movement.

Join 2ALC’s Founders Circle and we will send you this handsome challenge coin!

CLICK BELOW!

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

Oral Arguments this Wednesday in Roster Challenge

Long a thorn in the side of lawful gun owners in California, the so-called Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) and its “roster” of firearms allowed to be sold in California may take another step toward extinction this week. The law has nothing to do with safety anymore, but it has deprived Californians of the ability to choose a handgun appropriate to their individual needs and circumstances for years.

On Wednesday, oral arguments will be heard in the case of Boland v. Bonta, a case led by the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) challenging the law. 2ALC helped coordinate an amicus brief campaign supporting CRPA’s case.

While thousands of different model handguns can be bought throughout the rest of the country, the roster law limits a California consumer’s choice to only a few hundred models. No new models have been added for years because the law now requires any new addition to the roster to have a built-in loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect safety, and microstamping. There aren’t any models with those three features available, and consumers don’t want them on their firearms anyway.

As if to underscore the arbitrary nature of the roster law’s requirements, the legislature even voted to delete three firearms from the list any time a new one with microstamping was added. Could the politicians’ intent to ban civilian handguns be any clearer?

The lawsuit and CRPA’s win in the trial court garnered national media attention, and now in the Ninth Circuit court on appeal by the state, 24 separate states banded together to file an amicus brief supporting CRPA’s case and condemning the law.

In what ought to be a crushing blow for the state’s case, the five leading law enforcement groups also filed a legal brief urging the abolishment of the roster. Lawmakers falsely claim the handgun ban law is about public safety, but those putting their lives on the line each day to protect the public oppose it. ‘Nuff said.

Thanks to our friends a CRPA for pursuing this important fight! Subscribe below to stay up to date!

CALIFORNIA's "SAFE HANDGUN ROSTER" HAS NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

For years now, lawful California gun owners have had very few choices when they go to purchase a new firearm. Such was the purpose of the Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) and its draconian requirements that manufacturers needed to meet in order to have a firearm approved for sale in the state.

Our good friends at the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) challenged the law in a suit known as Boland v. Bonta, and earlier this year a judge granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing the law and ruling that the state’s requirement of loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnects, and microstamping were unconstitutional.

The state, naturally, appealed and the injunction is stayed pending the hearing of that appeal. Recently, 24 states weighed in supporting CRPA’s case, pointing up just how quickly such unconstitutional requirements could spread to other states, handing a big win to gun control advocates. 14 other states filed amicus briefs supporting the state, indicating their desire to be able to pass similar handgun bans in their states. Oral arguments are slated for July.

“Considering the split between the states, this has become an issue with national significance,” exhorted CRPA President & General Counsel Chuck Michel, who recently provided an update on the case that was featured on CRPA’s news channel.

2ALC has been supporting CRPA’s efforts through an amicus brief campaign to ensure that California’s war on “gun culture” doesn’t infect the rest of the country.

Subscribe and donate to help us fight!

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required

NSSF Challenges CA's Law Promoting Frivolous Lawsuits

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has filed a legal challenge attempting to halt enforcement of a new law in California that unconstitutionally targets the firearms industry. The new law, originally known as AB 1594, seeks to hold the firearms industry “accountable for harms they foreseeably cause” by allowing legal challenges TO BE BROUGHT BY ALMOST ANYONE against everyone from large companies, to firearm retailers, on down to individuals.

Even staff analysis of the bill acknowledges that its provisions not only potentially violate the Constitution, but are in direct contradiction to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) signed into law in 2005 by President Bush.

“The Second Amendment Law Center salutes NSSF for this lawsuit to undo Newsom’s effort to bankrupt the firearms industry through a law that encourages frivolous lawsuits against highly-regulated firearm retailers by the gun ban lobby,” said 2ALC President Chuck Michel. “We will assist in coordinating an amicus brief campaign to support NSSF’s challenge.”

Keep me up to date in California!

* indicates required