regulations prohibited the sale opinions that would not be presented if that's correct the you know there's not a presumption on that in that it's got to be continue number one where there is no perception in number two shooting or just in your residence you don't know the truth of what i do know is is that many states have requirements that you mean to me in order to have arms that right i mean that's an argument that could be made in august cases tend to centrally it says well we're good people you know who showed up in texas we'd like we informed this dealer the situation there for dollars they don't want that piece because they say we don't need that because we've got the guy from our we've got the certificate from our local guy we've done everything we need to do why isn't it then unconstitutional burden as applied and then i  is an economic reality there's no federally licensed arms handgun dealer in that state the state can do anything you just know dealer and the residents say well i would look i'd like to go to the neighboring estate and get again but the only thing keeping what evidence is there of the specific burden on the hansens other than one hundred twenty five dollars what do they suffer as a result of this they suffer various things it's not just the one hundred twenty five dollars which by the way  would be a sufficient form of injury and it is but i'm overstating and cannot she strike something down under let's say intermediate scrutiny as applied to them i would want to know how are they being harmed and how somebody theoretically also imposes shipping costs it also imposes a great a delay in time in well you also have to go in and figure out time to go to the other dealer i mean this is you're acquiring multiple trips all for most people the hansens office or the individual plants in this case but we're also suing on behalf of members of the committee generally who are throughout look at throughout the united states in americans everywhere who are handed consumers like consumers of any other product  harmed when they are deprived of access to national market if they can only shop with a hundred that we can say that i mean for example in texas there is quite a robust market firearms i don't think texas citizens are in any way put out by having to go around texas and buy firearms as gun shows there's stores etc like that that's why i'm asking on the as apply it seems to me there could be situations where the market is affected to the point that somebody has a monopoly and charges o couldn't as easily go ahead and and acquire guns when visiting here in texas it's not a random thing that the hansens visit taxes they have a connection to the state they come here often and there are many people who travel to various from one part that states the other and they like to go shopping when they do so ok let me put a comment at this point where a law impinges on really maybe the people of d c are impinged upon because of the lack of robust market worries the people of texas really are because you know you can't go a couple miles without finding some sort of place you can buy a gun is that a circumstance where there propre challenge isn't as applied by the individual rather than a facial because certainly the the burden in texas throughout the state of new york want to just we could assume that new york has a robust market for contraceptives as much as texas has firearms and you know we we can make those types of guesses for the supreme court it was enough that we know that when you  buy a cucumber why does the fact that i can't buy a cucumber in wyoming really him and johnny because i'm not going to wyoming i live in texas i can buy the cucumber i understand i can buy the cucumber in texas i have to get it from army i get that but to me this seems backwards of of the real typical problem the two of the problems you can't get in your own state which seems maybe as the case in d c but is it the case in texas so why does it on its face burden everybody to have to go to have to buy stuff in their own state when the stuff is a hand for the same reason would burn them if the stuff were a book or a birth control pill or or religious article or anything else it's a beauty contest for protection when the government says that i mean what if we did this with books and said look we have community standards for obscenity and mail calories so in order to secure the local interests increase standards where say that you can only buy a book in your own state where the licensed book seller is aware of the community standards and of course you can have any book you want america dissolves the one that people said was banned in like school libre but so if i wanted to go by that texas and they decided that didn't fit in back in the fifty's or sixty's and this isn't fit our standards then i'm deprived of the book but here i'm not sure doctrine and all that goes with it but the fact of the matter is that when people go shopping for things we have a national market for everything this is a lot of people fought very hard to preserve the union right and part of that means that we can travel freely throughout the united states and we find ourselves someplace and we can transact and do business especially with respect to those specific things that are not very many of them which is supreme court has found to be imbued with fundamental constitutional protections so this is a very serious infringement on the second amendment and i think it's not the reason is it's the government's burden no matter what their burden to justify this restriction by showing that there's an appropriate fit either a suite a strict scrutiny fit or intermediate scrutiny fit that that justifies this law so let's let's see purchase fire in so he would know just like everybody in maryland or virginia exactly where that if elves get their specific information about the laws of each state but i know that they do that it is standard practice i gun sales in this country and everyone in washington d c who has a rifle laws in this country particularly these days all kinds of assault weapons definitions and the like material in the d c mr regulations and d c codes and rifles there are many district residents of those who go to the gun stores in maryland or virginia and walk out with why fields because those dealers have figured out that when they get know that this this market exists without a lot of ethical is going to jail all the time and i suppose that if they were to commit a violation they would go to jail to be prosecuted if a gun dealer in texas sells a prohibited rifle to somebody in california for example one would expect  that that dealer would be brought up on charges for violating mentally to be sweet the very least and they would go to jail and i'm sure there are people in jail today who violated one thousand to be three and we're not challenging that we know that a lot of things are irregular in this author and and so the country functions and we have a functioning market the government never said i mean this is they never came in and said oh we've got an epidemic of rifle violations on which worst would  truly concerned about respecting the local preferences of states and localities to respect those preferences of those localities that want to transactions to go through right i mean first of all there's no entice circumvention interest is being satisfied none at all which seemed to to most people to myself at least to show that in fact there was a prohibition on of on these types of of sales and at the fourth circuit you can listen to the audiotape of virginia solicitor general got up and said but no but no arms dealer in the world would do it for free because you know people easily don't free in america it's amazon and all the others they should they charge you for shipping so it's natural to charge to transfer something from one place to another that figure is reasonably foreseeable once you understand if the government is forcing people to go through a middleman who wouldn't otherwise exist and since science is being paid because he's taking the responsibility for checking that these people are properly allowed to  receive his gun he isn't simply being a place where you can pick up your vet expect he's more than that right yes and he has a legal obligation to do more than simply let you pick up a fed ex package at his office whatever checks they wish to conduct addition of course to the to the federal background check to see as a check i'm not sure exactly what to do but the d c has to approve the transfer they specifically some states have a license to purchase f you want to add or you're just out here to buy a gun kill you can take it back to d c only in strict compliance with the law even if we were to say this isn't facially unconstitutional isn't it unconstitutional as applied to d c residents specifically the hansens is they can't go to a store and buy a gun they have to go through this whole gyration the cost of more money oh i mean the cost more money part is is is point would it become in your view a violation as applied violation of the second amendment what sikes decides to challenge your honor there's probably a point there that might be a c wants to check records it knows where to go it can go to its own can like try to keep these records