i think that's a caricature of bruen and that makes the second amendment a true outlier. there's no constitutional right dictated exclusively by whether there happened to be a parallel law on the books in 1791. >> thank you. >> thank you counsel. >> thank you, mr. chief justice and may it please the court. my friend described several times the government principle that in this case, they are not relying on any analogs that were direct it at people who were not part of the people, outside the community, national political community entirely. that means loyalist laws are off the analogical spectrum because loyalists were also pervasively deprived of all the rights of the people and citizenship. they were enemies. the government said so in the amicus brief. in response to justice gorsuch about how the courts of appeals handled self-defense, necessity and duress, we cited on page 11, it will show you how they handle it. there's effectively not one, even brief possession that lasts a little longer while being chased by people, not enough. there's no real keeping for self-defen