North Dakota liquor-establishment weapons guide
Possessing a Firearm or Dangerous Weapon in a North Dakota Liquor Establishment
N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-04 does not ban every weapon everywhere inside every business that serves alcohol. Current law prohibits an individual from entering or remaining, while knowingly possessing a firearm or dangerous weapon, in the part set aside for both retail alcohol sales and consumption of purchased alcohol or in a licensed gaming site where bingo is the primary gaming activity. A separate sentence addresses two projectile-voltage device types in the alcohol-sale-and-consumption area. Six statutory exceptions include the proprietor, the proprietor’s employee, law enforcement, narrowly described security and raffle roles, and a qualifying restaurant area. The current violation is an infraction—not the class A misdemeanor found in older versions—so the alleged offense date, exact interior location, item definition, knowing possession, and exception evidence must be analyzed precisely.
You will work directly with me.
If you hire me, I identify the precise doorway, room, counter, table, restaurant boundary, gaming license, item, means of possession, and exception alleged. I compare body-camera footage, surveillance, photographs, floor plans, receipts, witness accounts, search authority, and the statute in force on the event date rather than treating “bar plus weapon” as the complete analysis.
Six proof questions organize the charge
| Issue | What current law requires | What the record should show |
|---|---|---|
| Identity, date, and place | This individual entered or remained in North Dakota on the alleged date. | Complaint, body camera, surveillance, transaction record, witnesses, location, and offense-date statute. |
| Entry or remaining | The person entered or stayed in the specific covered part of the establishment. | Doorways, interior theory, timestamps, instructions to leave, and duration—not merely presence somewhere on the property. |
| Covered area | An alcohol retail-sale-and-consumption area, or a licensed gaming site where bingo is primary, depending on the theory charged. | Floor plan, liquor and gaming licenses, age policy, signs, seating, service layout, restaurant division, and actual use. |
| Covered item | A firearm, dangerous weapon, or one of the separately described projectile-voltage devices. | The item itself, photographs, operability or design evidence where relevant, measurements, and the correct statutory definition. |
| Knowing possession | The accused knowingly possessed the item. | Physical control or both power and intention to control an accessible item; admissions, placement, ownership, access, conduct, and third-party explanations. |
| No applicable exception | The facts do not place the accused and conduct within one of subsection 2’s six exceptions. | Employment or ownership records, duty status, designation, unloaded display, money-delivery role, and restaurant admission policy. |
The charge should not be reduced to three words: person, bar, gun. Each statutory phrase limits the offense. A firearm may be loaded or unloaded under the title definition. A dangerous weapon includes an extensive list, but not every object capable of causing injury. Possession may be actual or constructive, but constructive possession requires both power and intention to exercise control. And the prohibited place is a defined portion or qualifying gaming site, not automatically the parking lot, sidewalk, lobby, hotel room, kitchen, event room, package-sales area, or every restaurant seat.
The State must prove the charged theory beyond a reasonable doubt if the matter is tried. An exception issue must be handled under the applicable burden and instruction law, but the defense should obtain the supporting records rather than assume the State’s report correctly excludes it. A proprietor, employee, designee, officer, or security worker can still face another offense if the weapon was used unlawfully; the § 62.1-02-04 exception addresses possession under this section, not every possible use or charge.
The statute does not make an entire mixed-use property a prohibited area
The alcohol theory joins retail sale and on-site consumption
The first theory applies to “that part” of the establishment set aside for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages and the consumption of purchased alcoholic beverages. The conjunction matters. Evidence should show how that particular area was set aside and used at the relevant time. A package-sales counter, restaurant dining room, lounge, event hall, hotel lobby, patio, casino floor, or shared corridor may require a boundary-specific analysis rather than a business-name assumption.
Photographs taken later can be misleading if furniture, signs, doors, service counters, age restrictions, or licensing boundaries changed. I seek contemporaneous surveillance, diagrams, licenses, inspection records, point-of-sale layout, employee testimony, menus, entrance policy, and the accused’s actual approach. If police recovered the item in a vehicle, coatroom, restroom, kitchen, office, stairwell, or another part of the property, the State still must connect that place to the words of the charged theory.
The gaming theory is not every place with gaming
The second theory covers a gaming site at which bingo is the primary gaming activity. Title 62.1 defines a gaming site as a room or premises licensed by the attorney general or a city or county governing body to conduct legal gaming operations. Section 62.1-02-04 adds the bingo-primary limitation. Pull tabs, electronic pull tabs, blackjack, raffles, sports pools, or occasional bingo do not automatically establish that bingo was the primary gaming activity. The license, charitable-gaming records, schedule, room use, signage, revenue or activity evidence, and event calendar can matter.
The projectile-voltage sentence is narrower in location wording
Subsection 1 separately says an individual is guilty for knowing possession of a device that uses a projectile and voltage, or a device that uses a projectile and may apply multiple applications of voltage during one incident, in the part set aside for retail sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. That sentence does not repeat the bingo-primary gaming-site language. The two device descriptions also should not be collapsed into an ordinary contact stun device without applying the enacted words and the general dangerous-weapon definition.
This produces six principal current-law prohibition alternatives: firearm or dangerous weapon in the alcohol-sale-and-consumption area; firearm or dangerous weapon at a licensed bingo-primary gaming site; and either of two projectile-voltage device forms in the alcohol area. Those alternatives may overlap when a device also satisfies the dangerous-weapon definition. The theory map is an analytical tool, not a claim that overlapping descriptions automatically permit multiple punishments for one act.
Where exactly?
Map the accused and item to the precise interior area at the precise time, including restaurant and gaming boundaries.
What item?
Apply the firearm, dangerous-weapon, or projectile-voltage wording instead of relying on an officer’s generic label.
What possession?
Separate physical control from constructive possession, which requires both power and intention to control an accessible item.
Which exception?
Verify proprietor, employee, officer, designee, on-duty security, and qualifying restaurant facts with contemporaneous records.
Firearm, dangerous weapon, gaming site, and possession have separate meanings
A firearm may be loaded or unloaded
Section 62.1-01-01 defines “firearm” or “weapon” as a device that expels or is readily capable of expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive. The definition includes loaded or unloaded pistols, revolvers, rifles, guns, machine guns, shotguns, bazookas, and cannons. For this location offense, the fact that a gun was unloaded, had no magazine inserted, lacked ammunition nearby, or was temporarily inoperable does not automatically take it outside the firearm definition. Whether it remained readily capable of expelling a projectile can still be a real factual question for a damaged, incomplete, replica, antique, or altered object.
“Dangerous weapon” is a detailed statutory category
The current list includes switchblade or gravity knives; machetes, scimitars, stilettos, swords, daggers, and knives with blades of at least six inches; throwing stars, nunchaku and other martial-arts weapons; billies, blackjacks, saps, bludgeons, cudgels, metal knuckles and sand clubs; slungshots; bows and arrows, crossbows and spears; projectile weapons powered by spring, compressed air or compressed gas, including BB, air and CO2 guns; bomb projectors; and objects that contain or can produce and emit noxious liquid, gas or substances.
The definition excludes ordinary defensive sprays containing CS, CN, or another irritating agent intended for individual defense. It also generally excludes a defensive voltage device, with a special qualification for projectile-voltage or multiple-application projectile devices and persons prohibited from possessing a firearm. Section 62.1-02-04 then adds its own device-specific prohibition without stating that the individual must be a prohibited possessor. That interaction requires the exact device design and charged text—not a shortcut based on the brand name “Taser,” “stun gun,” “pepper spray,” or “less lethal.”
Possession requires control, not only ownership
Title 62.1 defines possession in two ways. Actual possession exists when the individual has direct physical control of the item on or around the person. Constructive possession exists when the individual has the power and intention to exercise control over an item accessible to, but not on or around, the person. Ownership is not required. But mere ownership without present control, or proximity without both power and intention, does not automatically satisfy the definition.
A firearm in a purse, backpack, coat, booth, restroom, employee locker, hotel room, vehicle, shared table, or another person’s bag presents different access and intention evidence. Relevant facts can include who owned the container, who carried it, keys or combinations, seating, statements, fingerprints or DNA with their limits, surveillance, messages, prior handling, concealment, and whether another person had equal or exclusive control. A finding in a jointly occupied space requires evidence connecting the accused to knowing control.
Knowing possession is an express element
The statute says “knowingly possesses.” North Dakota’s general culpability definition describes knowing conduct as acting with knowledge or a firm belief, unaccompanied by substantial doubt, that the person is doing so. Accidentally carrying another person’s bag, forgetting an item is present, being unaware an accessible container holds a weapon, or misunderstanding the precise room boundary raises a different set of questions from intentionally wearing or carrying a visible firearm. The legal effect of a mistake can depend on which element it negates and the evidence supporting it; an unsupported claim of forgetfulness is not self-proving.
Six exceptions require exact role and conduct evidence
| Exception | What should be verified | What should not be assumed |
|---|---|---|
| Law enforcement officer | Status under the title definition and any relevant duty or credential records. | That every retired, former, tribal, federal, out-of-state, reserve, or private officer necessarily fits without checking the definition. |
| Proprietor | Ownership or legal operation of the establishment at the time. | That a manager, investor, landlord, franchise employee, or family member is the proprietor. |
| Proprietor’s employee | Actual employment by the proprietor, work status, and contemporaneous payroll or scheduling evidence. | That every contractor, vendor, performer, volunteer, delivery driver, or off-site affiliate is an employee. |
| Designated raffle or auction display | Designation by the proprietor, unloaded status, and display as a prize or sale item in a raffle or auction. | That designation permits carrying a loaded item or possession unrelated to the display. |
| Private security handling money | Private-security status, on-duty timing, and purpose of delivering or receiving money used at the establishment or qualifying bingo site. | That every security worker, armored-car employee, or off-duty guard is covered regardless of assignment. |
| Qualifying restaurant area | The restaurant part and proof that people under twenty-one are not prohibited there. | That a food menu makes the bar area a restaurant, or that the exception follows the person into an age-restricted lounge. |
A concealed-weapons license does not appear in this exception list. North Dakota’s general permitless or licensed-carry rules do not erase a location restriction. Likewise, consent from a bartender, manager, security worker, or property owner is not itself a listed exception unless the facts satisfy one of subsection 2’s actual categories. Private-property rules may also be more restrictive as a condition of entry even when criminal § 62.1-02-04 does not apply.
State v. Wiedrich, 460 N.W.2d 680 (N.D. 1990), mentions the proprietor exception, but only in a narrow and older context. Wiedrich was tried for homicide after a shooting in his bar, not for unlawful possession. The Supreme Court said his requested proprietor-possession instruction correctly stated the law but was collateral to whether his use of the gun constituted homicide. The decision does not interpret the present statute’s room boundaries, bingo language, voltage-device sentence, knowing-possession requirement, or modern infraction classification.
How I analyze the evidence
1. Preserve the layout as it existed that day
Surveillance can overwrite quickly. Furniture, age-restriction signs, temporary event partitions, alcohol-service stations, restaurant access, and gaming setups can change. I seek preservation of interior and exterior video, floor plans, licensing diagrams, photographs, point-of-sale records, staff schedules, event calendars, bingo and gaming records, menus, signs, age policy, dispatch audio, 911 calls, and body-camera footage. Later photographs should be dated and compared with contemporaneous evidence.
2. Identify the moment of entry or remaining
The statute covers an individual who “enters or remains” in the covered part while knowingly possessing the item. The timeline can include arrival, notice of a boundary, discovery of the item, a request to leave, movement between restaurant and lounge portions, return after learning of the weapon, and police contact. A person who did not know an item was present upon entry may present a different knowing-possession question once told about it. The count and instructions should identify the factual theory rather than shift between entry and remaining without fair notice.
3. Trace the item and container
Photographs should show the item where it was found before movement when safety permits. I compare inventory, property receipt, serial number, make and model, condition, measurements, ammunition, magazine and chamber status, holster or container, chain of custody, laboratory work, and return or forfeiture record. For a knife, blade measurement and design matter. For a pneumatic, spring, voltage, spray, or less-lethal device, technical documentation may decide the definition. A generic report label is not a substitute for the item.
4. Test actual and constructive possession separately
Actual possession may be shown by a weapon on the person or in something the person directly carries. Constructive possession is more demanding than nearness: the title definition requires both power and intention to exercise control over an accessible item. I identify every person with access, ownership, seating, keys, codes, bags, vehicle control, locker assignment, and prior knowledge. Fingerprints or DNA can show historical contact and may not establish possession at the charged place and time; absence can also have limited meaning.
5. Compare statements with recordings
An officer’s summary may omit hesitation, ambiguity, who supplied a fact, whether the person distinguished ownership from possession, or whether a statement referred to another time or place. I obtain complete body-camera, interview, dispatch, and jail-call recordings. Miranda, custody, voluntariness, language, intoxication, medication, fatigue, invocation of counsel, and the scope of questioning may matter. A statement that “it is mine” does not alone prove knowing possession in the covered area.
6. Reconstruct the legal basis for the search
A weapon can be discovered through a consensual encounter, frisk, arrest, warrant, vehicle search, private employee search, inventory, probation condition, or another claimed authority. I reconstruct what officers knew before each step, not what they learned afterward. Consent requires scope and voluntariness analysis. A protective frisk requires its own factual basis and scope. A warrant depends on the affidavit and particularity. A search incident to arrest or vehicle search has limits. Evidence first found by a private person may present different constitutional questions depending on government involvement.
North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 governs warrants and suppression procedure, while federal and state constitutional law supplies substantive limits. A search problem does not automatically mean suppression, and a lawful search does not prove the offense’s location, knowledge, possession, item definition, or exception elements. Each issue requires its own record.
7. Demand complete discovery and authenticate the exhibits
Rule 16 provides for disclosure of statements, documents, objects, examinations, tests, expert material, and witness information under its terms, with a continuing duty and protective-order authority. Rule 901 requires sufficient evidence that an exhibit is what its proponent claims. Surveillance exports should identify source system, camera, time offset, completeness, export process, and alteration. Licenses, diagrams, receipts, photographs, messages, and reports require their own foundation and may raise hearsay or completeness questions even after authentication.
8. Separate this infraction from other possible allegations
A person may also be investigated for prohibited-person possession, concealed-carry violations, terrorizing, menacing, reckless endangerment, assault, discharge, intoxication-related conduct, trespass, or violation of a court order. Those offenses have different elements and penalties. Lawful possession under § 62.1-02-04 does not authorize unlawful use; unlawful presence under this section does not prove brandishing or assault. Count-by-count analysis prevents a dramatic fact from substituting for an unproved element.
Current law ordinarily authorizes a fine, not jail
| Issue | Current rule | Why the date matters |
|---|---|---|
| Classification | Infraction under § 62.1-02-04(1). | Older versions classified the offense as a class A misdemeanor. |
| Ordinary maximum | Up to a $1,000 fine under § 12.1-32-01(7). | The current infraction does not ordinarily authorize imprisonment. |
| Repeat-infraction treatment | If the person had at least two prior convictions for the same infraction within one year before the new offense, sentencing as a class B misdemeanor may be available. | The complaint must specify misdemeanor treatment when the prosecution invokes it; identity, dates, and same-offense status require proof. |
| Class B misdemeanor ceiling | Up to thirty days, a $1,500 fine, or both under current § 12.1-32-01(6). | This is not the penalty for an ordinary first current violation. |
| Weapon return or retention | Depends on lawful ownership, seizure basis, other charges, court orders, agency procedure, and any forfeiture statute. | This infraction alone should not be described as automatically forfeiting every seized item. |
The historical change is not academic. North Dakota’s 2019 Session Laws, chapter 519 (House Bill 1163), changed subsection 1 from a class A misdemeanor to an infraction. Earlier versions therefore can govern older conduct even though the current code says “infraction.” The law in effect when the alleged conduct occurred controls classification and defenses, subject to applicable saving and amendment law. A current webpage must not retroactively promise infraction treatment for an older case or apply an older misdemeanor penalty to a current event.
For an ordinary current infraction, North Dakota procedure generally does not provide imprisonment, appointed counsel, or a jury trial. Those rights change if repeat-infraction allegations expose the person to misdemeanor punishment or another charge is filed. Court costs, conditions tied to another case, employment rules, concealed-license consequences, immigration considerations, and weapon-return disputes can still matter even when § 62.1-02-04 itself is only an infraction. The effect must be assessed from the full case, not inferred from the fine ceiling.
A conviction under this location infraction does not by itself equal a conviction for prohibited-person possession, domestic violence, violent misdemeanor conduct, or felony firearm conduct. Any impact on the right to possess firearms must be traced to the actual judgment, separate federal and state prohibitions, protection orders, status, and later events. Likewise, the mere existence of a concealed license does not defeat this location charge.
What to establish before deciding how to respond
Obtain the charging and location record
The citation or complaint should identify the date, establishment, item, and statutory section. Discovery should reveal the exact interior location and knowing-possession theory. If the location is described only as “inside the bar,” I compare that shorthand with the floor plan, video, restaurant boundary, licenses, age policy, and the officer’s actual observations.
Verify the item and possession theory
I inspect the property record and available photographs or testing, apply the current definition, and identify whether the State claims actual or constructive possession. Shared containers, another person’s item, forgotten property, lack of knowledge, movement between areas, and employee or proprietor status need evidence, not speculation.
Resolve the practical consequences
An infraction may be resolved differently from a misdemeanor, but a rushed admission can still complicate employment, licensing, another pending case, a protection order, a concealed-weapons license, or return of the item. I explain the legal defense, cost and timing, collateral risks, and realistic disposition options without overstating a fine-only charge or ignoring a related criminal count.
Frequently asked questions
Is the current offense a misdemeanor?
Ordinarily, no. The current § 62.1-02-04 violation is an infraction with a maximum $1,000 fine. Older versions were class A misdemeanors. Two prior convictions for the same infraction within the preceding year can permit class B misdemeanor treatment if properly specified in the complaint.
Does the prohibition cover the entire restaurant or building?
Not automatically. The statute identifies the part set aside for retail alcohol sales and consumption of purchased alcohol, a licensed gaming site where bingo is primary, and a separate alcohol-area theory for certain projectile-voltage devices. The exact interior boundary and use must be proved.
Can I carry there with a concealed-weapons license?
A concealed-weapons license is not listed among § 62.1-02-04’s six exceptions. The exception and precise location analysis still must be completed, but a license alone does not override this location restriction.
Does an unloaded firearm count?
Yes, if it otherwise meets the title definition. Section 62.1-01-01 expressly includes loaded and unloaded listed firearms. Condition may matter for whether a damaged or incomplete object is readily capable of expelling a projectile and for other charges, but “unloaded” alone is not a defense.
What does constructive possession require?
For an accessible item not on or around the person, the title definition requires both the power and the intention to exercise control. Mere proximity, presence in a shared space, or ownership of the premises does not automatically establish both.
What is the restaurant exception?
The section does not apply in the restaurant part of an establishment if individuals under twenty-one are not prohibited there. A food menu alone does not necessarily define the restaurant part; layout, license, access policy, signs, video, and actual use can matter.
Are pepper spray and stun devices prohibited?
The dangerous-weapon definition excludes ordinary defensive sprays and generally excludes ordinary defensive voltage devices, but contains projectile-voltage qualifications. Section 62.1-02-04 also separately covers two projectile-voltage device forms in the alcohol-sale-and-consumption area. The exact design and charged language must be checked.
What evidence should I preserve?
Preserve the citation, property receipt, complete videos and messages in your possession, receipts, location history, item and container records, witness names, employment or proprietor proof, and a room-by-room timeline. Do not alter the item, reset a device, contact witnesses to align accounts, or obtain restricted business records unlawfully.
A lawyer’s file review of Possessing a Firearm or Dangerous Weapon in a North Dakota Liquor Establishment
Most bad early advice comes from answering the charge label instead of reading the charging clause. I begin with the operative count and work outward: definitions, exceptions, enhancement facts, evidence, procedure, and only then possible outcomes.
Read the count as a set of propositions the State must prove
The right starting point for Possessing a Firearm or Dangerous Weapon in a North Dakota Liquor Establishment is N.D.C.C. §§ 62.1-02-04, 62.1-01-01, and 12.1-32-01, read as it existed when the conduct allegedly occurred. I break the charge into the facts the law truly requires instead of treating the offense name as proof. Any fact that raises the degree or punishment gets its own question: who says it happened, what record supports it, and does the evidence satisfy the definition the statute uses?
I then place those answers on a timeline and test them against the complete record. A police summary may describe a witness, video, message, test, or prior conviction, but the underlying source matters more than the summary. Gaps, inconsistencies, and legal objections should be evaluated separately so that a real weakness is not confused with a technical complaint that has no remedy.
The evidence I would ask for first
For Possessing a Firearm or Dangerous Weapon in a North Dakota Liquor Establishment, I would not begin with a canned list of defenses. I would begin with the source file: the warrant and search record, photographs, body-camera video, location and access evidence, serial-number or trace material, operability testing where relevant, permit and status records, DNA or fingerprint evidence with its limitations, ammunition and container evidence, and the records used to claim actual or constructive possession. A police summary can identify what an officer or witness says happened, but it cannot substitute for the recording, photograph, data, or document being summarized. The same is true of a complaint. It identifies the prosecution’s theory at the start of the case; it does not prove the theory.
I put those materials on one chronology. That lets me see what was known at each decision point, which account was contemporaneous, what appeared only after people spoke with one another, and where the record is silent. It also keeps an admissibility question separate from a factual one. A fact can be disputed even if the evidence was lawfully obtained. Evidence can also be accurate yet inadmissible for a particular purpose. Those are different arguments and should not be blurred together.
Read the charging document against the offense date
The alleged date matters because statutes, penalty thresholds, definitions, sentencing rules, and published decisions change. I save the version in force on that date and read the session-law history when the current online text is different. I also check whether a later amendment was merely clarifying or made a substantive change; that is a legal question, not an assumption. The same discipline applies to prior convictions and administrative events. A prior must fit the definition the charged statute actually uses, fall within any stated lookback period, and be proved by a reliable record.
I then compare the formal count with the probable-cause narrative and the discovery. If the prosecution’s theory shifts, I want the amended pleading and enough detail to prepare. If several factual alternatives are alleged, I identify whether they are separate elements, alternative means, enhancement facts, or merely evidentiary details. That distinction affects notice, motions, jury instructions, unanimity arguments, and how a verdict form should be read.
Separate an evidentiary weakness from a suppression issue
Not every troubling fact produces a motion to suppress. Suppression ordinarily requires a constitutional, statutory, or rule-based violation with a remedy that reaches the evidence at issue. A weak identification, an incomplete investigation, or a witness inconsistency may be powerful at trial without making evidence inadmissible. By contrast, a stop, search, interrogation, identification procedure, warrant, or test can raise a legal issue even when the resulting evidence appears incriminating. I analyze both tracks and do not promise dismissal simply because one problem exists.
For a search issue, I reconstruct what officers knew before each intrusion and what authority they claimed. For a statement, I examine custody, questioning, warnings, voluntariness, recording, and the complete context. For scientific or technical evidence, I request the method, underlying data, quality-control material, uncertainty information, and chain of custody. For hearsay or confrontation questions, I identify the actual statement, its purpose, the declarant, and the proposed foundation. Specificity matters; “the evidence is bad” is not a motion.
Prepare negotiation and trial at the same time
A plea decision should be compared with the case the State could present at trial, not with the complaint’s maximum penalty in isolation. I want to know the strongest admissible proof, the weakest required element, the realistic motion practice, the likely instructions, and the consequences of every proposed disposition. That includes custody, probation, treatment, restitution, driving, firearm restrictions, registration, employment or licensing, immigration consultation, family-court effects, and record consequences when they are actually triggered. I avoid telling a client that every collateral consequence applies to every conviction.
Trial preparation gives negotiation its credibility. Witness interviews, exhibit review, motions in limine, expert consultation, demonstrative evidence, jury instructions, and a clean theory of the case force both sides to confront what can be proved. Negotiation can continue while that work is underway. The two tracks are not opposites.
A case-law point worth keeping in its proper place
Appellate decisions matter, but a quotation should not be detached from the issue the court was deciding. In State v. Hartson, 2024 ND 78, ¶ 26, the North Dakota Supreme Court explained that, on a sufficiency challenge, “we do not weigh conflicting evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses.” That is an appellate-review rule, not a reduction of the State’s burden at trial. At trial, the prosecution still must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. I cite the case for the point it actually decided and then return to the charged statute, the instructions, and the admissible evidence in the present file.
What I would want you to understand before choosing an outcome
You should be able to identify the exact charge, the facts that set its level, the disputed elements, the evidence that matters most, the motions that have a legal basis, the realistic trial issues, and the concrete effect of each proposed resolution. If an answer depends on a missing report, recording, expert opinion, or certified record, I will say so. An honest answer about what remains unknown is more useful than a confident guess.