henry provided a whistle blower on the david from a county official with irrefutable knowledge about a policy that was being alleged to reduce the overall number of crystal licenses nassau county and deter ownership that is the confidential appendix paragraphs thirty dollars thirty nine cents more thoroughly d cited as being just one through eight but that confidential appendix was not mentioned anywhere in the decision now the court has to give in a motion to dismiss every benefit to the nonmoving party in this case the plaintiffs and by failing to address that critical last to david the court applied a different policy the court a policy of public safety now public safety was not the right policy and i argue that in s p a seventeen special pending seventeen which is decision you can see with the code the court is focusing on the public safety policy but in reality in the henry case there's no public safety concern the county if you look at the restricted actions that are mentioned in the henry cases for example the letter that's being issued upon it i'd like to ask about the government's interest in its policy here but the fore but before we get to that you sent a twenty eight chain letter yesterday about this full scope case and i just wanted to ask you something about it because looking at the case where both the state attorney general's office and the county of national stated that those two cannot be linked to the language that was used by ms connally in that citation is that revocation does not equal ineligible under four hundred eleven and so and we should also note that in the henry k well as the county about that but you're saying that the county has changed its position since the one that it represented in the brief that there which was going to revoke his pistol license and restore his rights one chacon license and what they've done now is they're taking that that weinstein case and they're trying to say notwithstanding the fact that they've decoupled this issue and that weinstein should not be applied to support an independent county revocation right at any time they're now doubling down on that and that's just so then maybe we can clarify what the current status but at least as it's been briefed to us it seems that the county has had been arguing that mr henry was subject would be in all arms ownership isn't that right that is certain right and then can i ask you is there any reason so you talked about the public safety interest to mr henry was subject to the temporary order of protection and has been involved in some other disputes is there a concern that he's something other than a law abiding citizen why isn't there a public safety concern because the history you're trying to there's no public safety concern because the matter went to the family court the family court upon an ex part application by his daughter who has custody of by the way they did a hearing on that and even at the ex parte temporary order the judge did not check box twelve which is the part of an order of protection for  the restricted acts is that the county has a policy i mean i understand that but you know the new york state law does give the county the right to revoke a license for good cause and so is the question whether this is good cause no because that's never been tested the counties whether it's automatic and they don't look at good cause once the revocation takes place for a handgun they're automatically revoking rifles and shotguns and that just can't be the law the say well just to clarify just clarify what happened so my understanding based on the new york state cases is that these ex parte orders of protection just issue as a matter of course often and often in an abundance of caution but they're not they're not contested and they and takes that away that demonstrates the loose fit between this public safety argument and what they're actually doing even apart even even apart from that question my understanding of the facts of this case is  linking this automatically linking without any due process of the removal and again the county appeared to be changing their policy to remove that from the they indicated in court they were going to do it and then this decision came down dismissing our case they instead double down on this policy again and again there's another case out there for another one for small cicle davenport it's the same thing so the teams but then but then the stricken re gets a notice that his license has been officially revoked right and in that letter the county cites not only the temporary order of protection but justified but the revocation of all firearms is definitely not should not be lengthened there is no due process related to that and i'd like to point out that there was no public safety emergency with this case on some allegations that have been made against mr henry i understand from your brief that mr henry denies those allegations if you have an opportunity to to contest that he put evidence in front of the county before the they made the rescissions followed about a year after the family court action dismissal so they were no no rush but as far as his opportunity to be heard the answer is no he's able to write a letter and then they wait several more months and then by virtue of the appeal the date of revocation is delayed another year and the whole process is meant to delay delay delay which supports the confidential  would imagine he could wouldn't qualify even after five years had elapsed or any reason to think that he would i think the chances of him ever owning a handgun in national county are very very low i suppose to any other county where he could easily get home premises license even new york city gets a home premises license he'll never meet a proper course standard in national county but national county does not recognize the proper course standard and does not issue a home premises license i say must believe he wrote a letter and did an administrative appeal yes but they basically just again after several months or years reached another decision and then they they bootstrapped the time for revocation after that but there was just another letter process hearing i believe in the new york city does hearings on these types of replications where there's evidence presented in witnesses come forward but no there was nothing like that just a letter to his letter contained evidence i believe  i explained that yes i believe it contained his affirmation that was merely a statement that you know for years he's had the license has not been revoked and that the family court did not support revocation and that the pistol license section that the police were did the police not the sheriffs that the police were confiscating all firearms when the family court order box twelve had not been checked and that was the chief offense that she found with the county which is still continuing but again it's part of their policy to deter gun ownership if you bring a family court action we're taking your guns whatever the family court says it makes no matter what well yeah i appreciate that if my counselor for the questions w way good morning robert ben do i can i just want to make sure you can hear me case when the order of protection was served on mr henry by the deputy sheriffs the only thing he had was his pistol d and that was what was taken the county never had any l court and you make this point in your brief to say is that because plaintiff is not alleging that nassau county has implemented a policy banning all firearms ownership for all people to make it clear that nassau county does is not taking the position that residents cannot purchase and possess long arms there is a situation when a person has a pistol permit license and deprivation hearings which are new but they come into play as far as when wrong on are retained and how they get back to the original owner after the order of protection the surrogate if i may d everyone was operating under a problem to the extent that in new york when orders of protection were issued initially the of the family court it was difficult to get the long d arms back to the person in order to because it was difficult to get a family court judge to give an order directing the sheriff to turn it back and put well i mean until this argument i think from your briefing it seems that the revocation of the pistol permit operated to be a prohibition on owning any guns including long arms now you're saying it's only pistol and so maybe that modifies the way we should think about this but you are taking away his right to own a pistol shouldn't that at least until the amount of process involved not you know which was just offered without him being able to make any argument in his defense and then the county immediately revoked earth suspended his license and confiscated his gun that right i'm sure because we are but one must invest because it must be confiscated when the person becomes ineligible to have a license and the reason that mr henry became an eligible to have a license is because nasa county's policy is that a temporary order of protection is good cause for denying a license or for recruiting was right i mean that the statute doesn't say isn't sheriffs go to the home to serve it on that on the party they would be derelict in their duty if they didn't confiscate a pistol and that's what they're obligated to do and it's the government's interest to protect the other people in that house who have caused an order of protection to be issued for their protection i've never heard of a situation where someone was just was challenging in the  whether there's interest in this but in this case the order of protection was dissolved march two thousand and fifteen and there was no determination that mr henry was a threat to anyone right so i don't know whether that's true i don't know what they knew  the time but they did know that there was a dispute to the extent that people were in court an order of protection was d issued blade judgment turned over to the sheriff for that so i guess my question is after the order of protection is dissolved and there's no further actions and no determination anything else needs to be done mr henry's a threat to any one else you still continued t domestic violence which is certainly cause to be very concerned about the people in that in that home and correctly so that is that i understand i understand what i'm looking at is  way the law works if you have an export order protection so that with no no right to the individual firearms or to come to an end and represent his interest before the before the order of protection is certain before the lifted and he could take it except protect several months before the temporary order of protection is lifted but once it's left it then under that circumstance i don't understand the kennedy's right to keep his are under the constitution  hearings which are were triggered by the very thing that you're saying namely free resigning for example the order of protection and then it's lifted and the sheriff would do and say i can't just give you back these things because subdivisional eleven talks in terms of revocation suspension and talks about the issuance of a temporary order of protection and the state shall surrender weapons that's you said something about a thorough investigation and that you have an opportunity to explain his side but then you also said that adversary hearings would be too much of a burden so could you clarify for me what what investigation happened and to what extent  got this so my understanding is in october th seen the county sends a notice saying his license was revoked and it was based on a history of allegations that i understand sir henry denies so what the appeals to the police appeals process before they rented that decision and that's a fourteen page decision that goes beyond that one order of protection to fourteen different incidents of domestic violence now of course all of those incidents had occurred before the temporary order of protection in this case and yet he retained the license so is it that this temporary order objection was she saying that the county to believe that there were too many incidents and so the lesson to be suspended was the temporary order of protection obviously was the triggering factor because now it says that you only lose your rights in the firearm if the order protection was issued after hearing where the person received notice and had an opportunity to participate there's a finding that the person is a credible threat and so on it seems much  than nassau county is policy so would you acknowledge that at least you could have a more narrowly tailored policy that would get at the threat of the mystic violence and not capture people who  and unfortunately it happens a lot just don't know the stakes ackley what more the police department can do other than providing the appeal process the post deprivation hearings  where the federal government if you are right to rehearing maybe present evidence you know a little a trial in effect as opposed to as opposed to just a letter which you're going to be taken into consideration by dismissed you know just right it's a privilege and it's subject to the reasonable regulations of the of the police to already have the right of the protection of the public and this happens unfortunately a lot in suburbia enactment certainly in the city  one he can do it and number two if he doesn't like it it can take an audit will seventy eight proceeding and we get involved quite a lot with article seventy eight proceedings re involving the review of decisions of the licens the public safety policy because a change a light on the loose fit between this public safety policy and the way the county is and acting is very important for us there's always been a difference drawn between council there's always complaining about allegations related to seeing boys he had custody of his daughter and the thing was thrown out so this was a very light touch in the family court but the county comes down as they do with their policy and the case that judge spat said that a post deprivation article seventy eight hearing does not satisfy due process the county really has not changed since resent no they're still taking property they're still not giving it back they're still making wait years and years to get their property back and now they're trying to interpret four hundred points years or eleven in the way although they're walking it back right now well argument to say in that the letters are still going out this three cases that i'm aware of that are all saying if you lose your handgun license for any reason not a real federal reason and latin for the moment but for any reason that you lose all rights and shotguns and i've i've offered in the supplemental filing the st the letter which mirrors exactly that language  that decision not withstanding you could win in family court you could just by being in family court the county is revoking your handgun and taking rifles and shotguns just because she showed up and went into family court the outcome is of no matter to the county ok i think we have the arguments thank you the case is