Reading the Second Amendment

[hugh damright]

The Bill of Rights recognizes natural rights - rights which pre-exist outside any manifestation of government. As such, it is absurd to think that those rights do not apply to each state government, each city government, etc

I already answered this comment once, but I want to answer it again.

In a sense, I agree that "those rights" do apply to each State, but I do not agree that the BOR applies to the States. It may seem like a fine distinction, but I think it is significant.

The way I look at it, even if there was no BOR, the Constitution guarantees each State a Republican form of government, and that is free government, and free government requires an armed people, a free press, free assembly, jury trials, and so on ... as I keep suggesting, these are not just individual rights, they are principles of free government. So, if a State Government tried to take over the press to control the people, or tried to take over the guns to control the people, then I think the US should say "no - the people of every State in this Union will have a Republican form of government, where they control their government rather than the other way around." But see ... I am talking about political rights, about the US protecting each State's free government ... in contrast, when people want the US BOR to apply to the States, typically they mean that they want the US to force libertarianism upon every State. Virginia did not request the original amendments because we wanted the US to force a foreign culture upon us, we were trying to prevent that kind of thing.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

And I am only insisting that "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed BY CONGRESS." It might not be so clear at first glance, it might take a person a lot of work to conceive it, but I think it is the proper construction and consistent with constitutional law.

Yours is, I think, a not completely unreasonable stance at first glance, but is, I believe, provably incorrect. Here's why: Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment does not, in its language, only restrain Congress. You might argue in response that this doesn't matter, since the entire point of the Bill of Rights was to restrain the newly established Federal Government, but this is not entirely true. States are also restrained to some degree by the language of the Constitution, e.g., States are denied by this document the authority to declare war, engage in foreign diplomacy, coin money, etc. Implicitly, States are also restrained from disarming the Militia of the United States, which militia is made up of a portion of the members of the various State militias.

How is that, you ask? Well, it's right there in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, where the powers of Congress are listed. One such is the power to call forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, etc. Now, the militia cannot be called forth if is does not exist, and since the definition of a member of the militia is a civilian prepared, with his own arms, to muster in times of emergency, the States are precluded by the Supremacy clause from preventing civilians from possessing and drilling with arms suitable for service in a militia, as this would frustrate the exercise of a power granted to the Federal Government. The Federal Government, in times of emergency, cannot call forth the militia if said militia does not first exist.

Furthermore, the Second Amendment presumes the existence of a well organized militia, referring to the very same militia mentioned in Article I, Section 8. Combine these facts with Article VI's Supremacy Clause, whereby all powers granted to the Federal Government, when used, supersede any contradictory claims to power by the States, and you have a pretty air tight case for the States being prohibited by the US Constitution from disarming the militia, for it is certainly in conflict with the Federal Governments power to call them forth if they are not permitted to exist under State law.

And what do you mean that the militia belongs to the people and not the State or government?

You are being disingenuous. I never said that. You are intentionally twisting my words. What I said, and you know this, was that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not to any strata of government or the state.

I think we agree that militia is of/by/for the people, a way for the people to check the government, because that is the principle of free government, the political right. But I guess I don't see where the States fit into your view of militia. And please understand, when I say "State," I am not talking about the Governor or the State Legislature, I am talking about the people of a State as a collective, as a political body. It is my assertion that only a State level militia could ensure a free State.

Nice try. The State, no matter how you look at it, is not the same as the people, though it is controlled by the people in a representative republic, and ideally it represents their will.

 

[Graystar]

what you have the judge doing in your statement is "judging that guilt" . He does no such thing - judging guilt is as I stated, the determination of the jury . Passing sentence is a seperate issue.

Every time I go to jury duty they tell us that we're not the one's judging the accused. I guess they're just lying to us to appease those people who feel they shouldn't judge others, eh?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I already answered this comment once, but I want to answer it again.

In a sense, I agree that "those rights" do apply to each State, but I do not agree that the BOR applies to the States. It may seem like a fine distinction, but I think it is significant.

The way I look at it, even if there was no BOR, the Constitution guarantees each State a Republican form of government, and that is free government, and free government requires an armed people, a free press, free assembly, jury trials, and so on ... as I keep suggesting, these are not just individual rights, they are principles of free government. So, if a State Government tried to take over the press to control the people, or tried to take over the guns to control the people, then I think the US should say "no - the people of every State in this Union will have a Republican form of government, where they control their government rather than the other way around." But see ... I am talking about political rights, about the US protecting each State's free government ... in contrast, when people want the US BOR to apply to the States, typically they mean that they want the US to force libertarianism upon every State. Virginia did not request the original amendments because we wanted the US to force a foreign culture upon us, we were trying to prevent that kind of thing.

Hugh, I am beginning to understand you. I see now that you and I agree in broad terms, however, the Federal Constitution does in fact prohibit the States from exercising certain powers, if the exercise of those powers by the States would conflict with a power clearly granted to the Federal Government. That's what the Supremacy Clause is all about. As for the Tenth Amendment, I agree with you, but even the Tenth Amendment states that the Federal Government has certain powers, i.e., those delegated to it by the Constitution. The power to call forth the militia is one of those powers. Therefore no State law will be allowed to frustrate this power. Any State law which has the effect of disarming the militia frustrates Congress' power to call any portion of that militia forth in times of emergency, and is thus null and void.

 

[Graystar]

You guys are reading WAY too much into the Bill of Rights. I seriously doubt if any framer was considering all this theoretical mumbo-jumbo that’s being suggested.

The problem is that it’s so simple you can’t see it...or are unwilling to accept the simple nature of its origins.

Nearly all the Bill of Rights directly addresses grievances that the colonies held against the King. The colonist saw the new federal government as being on the same level as the King (which is was.) They simply wanted to make sure that this new federal government didn’t do the things that King had tried, so they explicitly stated what could not be done by the federal government.

You can match several of the amendments directly to grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence or to acts committed against the colonies by the King. And anyone who’s studied the history of the era can tell you that the crown tried to empty the colonies’ armories, and thereby disarm the militia, when it seemed clear that war was going to break out. The Second Amendment was written simply to insure that this wouldn’t happen again...and that’s all. Trying to read any more into it is an exercise in fantasy.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

You guys are reading WAY too much into the Bill of Rights. I seriously doubt if any framer was considering all this theoretical mumbo-jumbo that’s being suggested.

The problem is that it’s so simple you can’t see it...or are unwilling to accept the simple nature of its origins.

Nearly all the Bill of Rights directly addresses grievances that the colonies held against the King. The colonist saw the new federal government as being on the same level as the King (which is was.) They simply wanted to make sure that this new federal government didn’t do the things that King had tried, so they explicitly stated what could not be done by the federal government.

You can match several of the amendments directly to grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence or to acts committed against the colonies by the King. And anyone who’s studied the history of the era can tell you that the crown tried to empty the colonies’ armories, and thereby disarm the militia, when it seemed clear that war was going to break out. The Second Amendment was written simply to insure that this wouldn’t happen again...and that’s all. Trying to read any more into it is an exercise in fantasy.

Thanks for clearing it all up for us, Graystar.

 

[Graystar]

Thanks for clearing it all up for us, Graystar.

Anytime Hawkeye!

 

[cz75bdneos22]

Graystar, Sir you are simply Mahvelous!! he,he !!
keep it simple stupid, i heard that somewhere before..

 

[Dex Sinister]

That sounds right to me. Generally speaking, if a State disarms a person, under due process of law, then that is an intrastate matter. But if a State tries to disarm itself, to disarm the people, then ... Second Amendment or not, the US has a duty to say "no".

Which simply takes you into the wilderness of 14th amendment jurisprudence, since the 14th fundamentally changed the dynamic between the States and the Federal government.

The writers of the 14th were not only aware of, but deliberately intended to force the states to stop infringing on Black's gun rights, as part of the attempt to dismantle the Black Codes.

Given the incorporation doctrines followed by the Warren court, it's a little difficult to see why the 2nd amendment isn't as worthy of incorporation as any of the other amendments were.

You might be interested in:
Structure, participation, citizenship, and right: Lessons from Akhil Amar's Second and Fourteenth Amendments - Georgetown Law Journal

Really, though, most arguments come down to a single, fairly simple point:

Either one believes that US governments are capable of collectively holding rights that do not exist individually, and one fabricates arguments from that position - which in the end must mean that rights are a species of thing granted by the government as exceptions to its powers,

Or, one believes that the government cannot logically possess any authority not first existing at the individual level and then being deligated in part to the government. When one fabricates arguments from this position, in the end one will conclude that rights are inherantly an individual species of thing out of which individuals, acting together, grant our government some limited powers and authority.

[As you might recall, this was Hamilton's argument in Federalist #84, where he pointed out that the very idea of an American Bill of Rights was a bad one - because all through history Bills of Right had been grants of right to individuals from an unlimitedly-powerful government, and attaching one to our Constitution would only confuse the issue of what we had created.] But, I digress.

I've been studying philosophy for the last 25 years of so, and I can tell you that case law is merely ordinary philosophy, tarted up and considerably confused by the language pretense of pretending that nothing in the law ever changes - while instituting whatever changes one feels are "necessary".

From a philosophical viewpoint, this tends to make case law fairly useless to read - because most of the writing effort is actually made in the direction of obfuscating what one is doing, while pretending to be doing nothing at all.

• If the American people created our government, then ultimately any argument that holds that it possesses the authority to determine the extent of individual citizen's rights is logically self-defeating.
• If the government created itself, then ultimately it has all the authority in the world.

<shrug>

Dex

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Given the incorporation doctrines followed by the Warren court, it's a little difficult to see why the 2nd amendment isn't as worthy of incorporation as any of the other amendments were.

That's because the Second Amendment doesn't require the Fourteenth Amendment in order to be incorporated by the States. It is self incorporating since, 1) it is a general prohibition (not specific to Congress), and 2) it references militias, which are also mentioned in the main body of the Constitution in the context of a power of Congress to call them forth in times of emergency (Article I, Section 8). Therefore, since it is a power of the Congress to call them fourth, States are prohibited from frustrating their purpose with laws having the effect of disarming them. A disarmed militiaman is no malitiaman at all, and therefore cannot be called forth as a militiaman since a militiaman is, by definition a civilian who musters with his own weapons in response to emergency.

 

[AStone]

A simple request

I'm a biologist, not a legal scholar.

I've been 'sort of' following this thread for days...or is it weeks? I've lost track.

There are some very intelligent folks writing here, who have clearly studied this issue, who have articulate opinions about the 2nd and other amendments.

My hat is off to them.

However, I'm more interested in biology than law. Even though I value the 2nd (along with the other BOR amendments), honestly, I'm more interested in the citric acid cycle, ecosystem function, animal physiology & how to stop the heart beat of a (choose one or more) deer, quail, rabbit, elk, squirrel or human interloper than I am the fine points of punctuation, grammar, spelling and other details of 'goverment' documents 'governing' <ahem> whether I do or do not have the right to own a weapon, let alone use it to defend myself.

Right now, I'm assuming that I do. My 9 is just inches from my right hand. Any 'interloper' will feel its sting.

But my point is this: I hope, as this thread winds down (and they all do eventually wind down), that one or more of you will write a 'cliff notes' summary of it for biologists and others who don't really want to follow arguments about where the comma is and what it means, let alone try to reason what the founding fathers had to say or what the amendments meant.

By the way, I wonder what the founding mutha's would have had to say about individual rights v. those of 'the people', particularly given that their 'individual' babies were to become the next generation of 'people'.

My sense is, they'd say, sc**w the legal scholars. Defend yourself.

Nem

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

But my point is this: I hope, as this thread winds down (and they all do eventually wind down), that one or more of you will write a 'cliff notes' summary of it for biologists and others who don't really want to follow arguments.

Here's what you do. Open a new Word file. Then cut and paste every post I contributed to this thread, in consecutive order, onto the Word file. Now read what you have from beginning to end, and you will have the definitive last word on this entire issue.

 

[AStone]

Here's what you do.

Why do I postulate that there will be at least X others who argue the same about their positions?

OK, I'll modify my request: I hope that one or more 'unbiased' readers (assuming that any exist in here; admittedly, perhaps, an unreasonable assumption) will offer a 'cliff notes summary' of this thread when it 'ends'.

Nem

PS: the citric acid cycle is way more interesting, and with a MUCH longer history. Futhermore, lawyers & legal scholars can't touch it, because there are no human laws about it, and - more importantly - they simply don't understand it.

 

[Graystar]

Here's what you do.

And don't forget to add "...in another universe." at the end of each one.

(J/K...not every one )

 

[hugh damright]

You are being disingenuous. I never said that. You are intentionally twisting my words.

I did not intend to twist your words ... here, I will cut and paste your exact words:

"this right belongs to the people (regardless of the Second Amendment, as clearly implied in the Amendment itself), as contrasted with belonging to any level of state or government."

I asked for a clarification, I asked:

"what do you mean that the militia belongs to the people and not the State or government? ... I guess I don't see where the States fit into your view of militia."

And, again, it is my assertion that only a State level militia can ensure the security of a free State, that only a Virginia Militia can ensure the security of Virginia.

The State, no matter how you look at it, is not the same as the people

So the militia is needed for the security of WHAT?? If it is not needed for the security of a free people, but rather for a free State which you claim means something other than people ... what are you talking about?

And is it your assertion that Virginia is one thing and Virginians something else? The whole premise of a free State is that the State is the people. A free State is a body of people under a free government ... or do you have another definition?

Which simply takes you into the wilderness of 14th amendment jurisprudence

My intent here is to promote an understanding of, and respect for, free government. The 14th "Amendment" is a reconstruction amendment, intended to reconstruct our free government into something else.

You can match several of the amendments directly to grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence or to acts committed against the colonies by the King.

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures."

"He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power."

 

[hugh damright]

I'd like to offer a couple of examples of recent history where I think the political rights aspect of the Second Amendment can shine some light on things ...

Michael New was a US soldier who was told to put on a UN beret, and he said "NO". To me, this is a Second Amendment issue ... the military must always be the people's military, under the civil power, and if a US soldier puts on a UN beret, he is then a foreign solder and our military is no longer of/by/for the people.

And when the action in Iraq was being considered, at one point it seemed like the media was confused ... was it George Bush or Tony Blair who called the shots, who controlled our military? To me, this is another Second Amendment issue ... the States delegated the war power to Congress, so that is the civil power, not George Bush, and certainly not Tony Blair.

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power. - Virginia's Request for the Second Amendment"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Virginia, in addition to requesting a US Bill of Rights with the request for the Second Amendment, also requested an amendment which regarded the notion of State Militia, and seems to clarify that they were State Militia, and that unless the US called them forth to help with some national matter, they were under jurisdiction of their State.

"That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining it's own Militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the Militia shall not be subject to Martial law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State."

(To clarify, the requests for a Bill of Rights was one matter, and the requests that the Constitution be changed or amended was another matter. Virginia requested a Bill of Rights with twenty articles, and also requested twenty amendments to the Constitution.)

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I did not intend to twist your words ... here, I will cut and paste your exact words:

"this right belongs to the people (regardless of the Second Amendment, as clearly implied in the Amendment itself), as contrasted with belonging to any level of state or government."

I asked for a clarification, I asked:

"what do you mean that the militia belongs to the people and not the State or government?"

Hugh, don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language?

And, again, it is my assertion that only a State level militia can ensure the security of a free State, that only a Virginia Militia can ensure the security of Virginia.

So the militia is needed for the security of WHAT?? If it is not needed for the security of a free people, but rather for a free State which you claim means something other than people ... what are you talking about?

If English is not your first language, I mean, really, there's nothing to be ashamed of, man.

And is it your assertion that Virginia is one thing and Virginians something else? The whole premise of a free State is that the State is the people. A free State is a body of people under a free government ... or do you have another definition?

A State, whether it be Virginia or Alabama, is "a political unit having territory, population, and sovereignty over its internal affairs." The population of a state is a component of it, but is not identical with it. A free State is one which is accountable to its population, and at liberty to exercise sovereignty over its internal affairs, absent extraconstitutional interference from any larger strata of government with which it is associated.

My intent here is to promote an understanding of, and respect for, free government. The 14th "Amendment" is a reconstruction amendment, intended to reconstruct our free government into something else.

On this we agree.

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures."

"He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power."

Nice use of the Declaration of Independence. We are on the same wavelength here.

 

[Dex Sinister]

Nearly all the Bill of Rights directly addresses grievances that the colonies held against the King. The colonist saw the new federal government as being on the same level as the King (which is was.) They simply wanted to make sure that this new federal government didn’t do the things that King had tried, so they explicitly stated what could not be done by the federal government.

You can match several of the amendments directly to grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence or to acts committed against the colonies by the King. And anyone who’s studied the history of the era can tell you that the crown tried to empty the colonies’ armories, and thereby disarm the militia, when it seemed clear that war was going to break out. The Second Amendment was written simply to insure that this wouldn’t happen again...and that’s all. Trying to read any more into it is an exercise in fantasy.

Historically speaking, that's not quite all that the Bill of Rights was doing - although it is certainly true that one can match up amendments with grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

Specifically, the Declaration of Independence was constructed to echo in the mind of the English reader the concerns of violation by King George III of the individual rights of Englishmen guaranteed in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. William and Mary were forced to sign this before assuming the Crown after the English deposed James the II after he converted to Catholicism. By inclusion, this also referenced those rights confirmed by the Magna Carta of 1215.

If you look at what might be called the preamble text of the 1689 Bill of Rights, it is easy to see the parallel between both the Declaration, and our Bill of Rights.

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and…

It is worth noting that the Right to Bear Arms, contained therein, was considered an individual right possessed by all subjects of the Crown by the English in the 1700's.

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

This represents a continuation of the Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) tradition that the people, individually, had the right to freedom, the right to bear arms, the right to be punished only after being convicted in a trial by jury, and the right to elect their own representatives and determine the course of their government.

Most germane to this discussion: The idea that the Founders, who were extremely cognizent of the principles of the English Glorious Revolution of 1689, somehow failed to regard the right mentioned in the 2nd amendment as an individual right is just a little bit silly.

Dex

 

[Gordon Fink]

[Y]ou seem to think that the US has jurisdiction over our fundamental natural rights.

Wrong. I know that neither the U.S. federal government nor the governments of the several states have jurisdiction over any of our natural rights. The Bill of Rights legally protects several from violation by state or federal agency and admonishes the same to respect those rights not listed as well.

Of course, none of this matters in practice, and the Bill of Rights is honored most often in its breach. No document or government can give or take natural rights. Thus the syntax of the Second Amendment has no actual bearing on our right to own and use weapons.

~G. Fink

 

[hugh damright]

A State, whether it be Virginia or Alabama, is "a political unit having territory, population, and sovereignty over its internal affairs." The population of a state is a component of it, but is not identical with it.

Yes, the word "State" has various meanings. And if we were talking about geography, then it would be appropriate to think of the States as territory, but we are talking about government, and in that sense, a State is a political body, a body of people, and the body of people which is the State is also the body of people which is the militia.

 

[hugh damright]

Hey ... this is quite a forum! I don't think I knew what I was getting into with this thread .. there seems to be a lot of people here with a lot of knowledge and ... patriotism.

I want to be sure to emphasize the point that if the Second Amendment is viewed as a political right, as a collective right of the people to keep and bear arms to alter or to abolish their government, then it becomes very clear that it cannot be regarding the National Guard. At least I personally do not recognize the right of the National Guard to alter and abolish my government, and I do not see how anyone can take this view, this view where the National Guard has a right to control my State, and call it a "States' Rights" view. That is not a States' rights view! And it has nothing to do with the security of a free State! A free State is ruled by laws consented to by the majority, a free State is not ruled by the National Guard!

I believe that the true States' rights view of the Second Amendment is where Virginians have the collective RKBA, not just the individual RKBA, but even greater than the individual right, we have the collective right to get together and practice and drill and form well regulated militia that is capable of defending our free State. I think that is our natural right, that it existed before the US Constitution, and that the Second Amendment was intended to protect this right.

 

[antsi]

Proliferation of Entities

When people try to re-interpret the second ammendment so that it does not apply to individuals, I am reminded of the phlogistonists and geocentrists.

The geocentrists, when confronted with evidence of a heliocentric solar system, constructed elaborate systems of "eipcycles" - planets moving in circles upon circles upon circles, in order to "explain away" the plain truth of the matter, that was obvious on the face of it, that the planets were moving around the Sun.

Biologists who believed in spontaneous generation invented a magical substance they called "phlogiston" to explain how maggots arise spontaneously from rotting meat and rats arise spontaneously from bins of corn.

In all three cases, you have people weaving elaborate fantasies and constructing patently absurd entities in order to perpetuate belief in something that is just patently prima facie wrong. Folks who want to wish away the second ammendment invent ludicrous notions like "collective rights" and construct complex evasions and hyperventilate about commas, all in order to explain why the second ammendment doesn't mean what it obviously does mean.

It's sad, really.

When people accused Hugh Damright of being a troll, they were being rude but I do sympathize with the eerie "something's not right here" feeling that the accusation reflects. Whenever someone is bending over so far backwards to believe something so patently absurd, you do start to wonder what is motivating them to contort themselves so grotesquely and swallow so many logically indigestible entities - like phlogiston, epicycles, and "collective rights."

 

[hugh damright]

I think that it's a bit late in the debate to deny the existence of collective rights. Some examples of collective rights are:


the right to form a well regulated militia
the right to alter or to abolish government
the right to establish and ordain a constitution
the right to declare war and peace

Of course, someone will want to reply with some closed circle logic where every collective right is a "power", but it won't hold up. If the US is attacked, will you say that we have a power to defend ourselves but no right to defend ourselves? It does not hold up. There is a collective right to self defense, and that is what the Second Amendment is all about.

Some of you guys better start paying attention, I may throw a pop quiz!

 

[boyd425]

I want to be sure to emphasize the point that if the Second Amendment is viewed as a political right, as a collective right of the people to keep and bear arms to alter or to abolish their government, then it becomes very clear that it cannot be regarding the National Guard.

The national guard came into existence around 100 years -after- the signing of the constitution. This is a hagard old strawman that we don't have to answer with deeper arguments about "collective rights" (of which I dont think there are any ; ) boyd425

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I think that it's a bit late in the debate to deny the existence of collective rights. Some examples of collective rights are:


the right to form a well regulated militia
the right to alter or to abolish government
the right to establish and ordain a constitution
the right to declare war and peace

Actually, what he probably meant to criticize is the view that a collective right is to the exclusion of the corollary individual right. I actually, for example, have the right to declare war, as do you. I have waived the exercise of this right, because I have decided that the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs, but the right is still there. If it wasn't there, there could be no collective right to do so in the form of the authority we give to our government. The same principle applies to all of the collective rights you mentioned. They are only collective rights in the sense that we all have the right to act upon them, but either have waived the exercise of them for a greater benefit, or choose to exercise it as a member of a unity, rather than as an individual. For example, the right to form a militia is next to useless when exercised alone, but each individual member is exercising his individual right to be a member of said militia, so the "collective" right is just the sum total of all the individual rights, rather than being to the exclusion of the individual right.