my name is john sweeney and i'm counsel for plaintiff collins with the court's permission i will reserve two minutes for rebuttal and appellants thank you for permitting argument and my dry cleaners thank you for making it by video our remaining who would stand mr mutare have been denied even the premises license because he had a bitch of all failure to demonstrate a law abiding temperament this case is different because we have law abiding responsible new york citizens whose qualifications to obtain a permit are not in question so this case does prevent an opportunity for this court to revisit could chelsea and we think it should consider that in light of the developments in connection with the city of new york case and so it i'm struck by your use of the word revisit  could you invite us to use any bank and make an opinion and they will do the act judge it that's your last position and you're a right that that is correct your honor we acknowledge i'm curious why you want that because right but if your ultimate objective is to get rid of or modify could be i don't see why you aren't better with a request to is to agree with you it is our alternative request that this case be reheard bonked by the full court while why is it your primary position for the reason i just get only because this court r based upon the cases that i have read your honor however i won't quibble over this i would welcome a review by the full court on bach and if it is this court's desire to give that opportunity  went for a rehearing and bank of the property and i just wondered what about that i bow to your wisdom your honor i would draw my request for a mini on bond procedure and would rather have the option to proceed with a full court on bank review after this panel issues its decision well you you always have that up you don't need our permission to file a petition for rehearing a bank so when you say you'd like the option you have it no matter what we say true but i would really like this panel to embrace the notion that it is time for the full court to review ski and that this court can do and i would like to address why we think that's appropriate particularly in light of the developments in the city of new york case the circumstances in that case are truly remarkable the city had insisted and this court had agreed that the ban on handgun transport to ranges in homes outside the city limits served important public safety concerns but the city promptly abandoned the law once search shari was granted while no binding decision came from the city of new york case there is guidance that we believe suggests should be reconsidered by this court is that and four supreme court justices question this court's use of intermediate scrutiny to uphold the transportation band  that's correct your honor and i'll do the math justice thomas and gore ships join section four a of justice alito is to send concluding transportation ban is unconstitutional under the text history and tradition analysis justice kavanagh's concurrence agreed with his assent generally on that point and cited to his own dissent in heller to where he had declared heller macdonald leaves little doubt that the courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text history and tradition not by a balancing test such a strict or intermediate scrutiny and of course chief justice roberts did not weigh in on this point and city of new york but he was among the majority along with justices alito and thomas want to highlight one aspect of can chelsea this morning the court and could chelsea correctly observed that understanding the scope of the constitutional right is the st step in determining the yardstick by which we measure the state regulation but could chelsea only performed half of that analysis instead of developing the text history in tradition of the right to carry firearms in case of confrontation could chelsea merely assumed that the nd amendment must have some application outside the home and only grudgingly because the text does not limit the right to bear arms to the home but could chastity want to devote many pages to an analysis on the history and tradition of limitations on that why no wonder could chelsea concluded the core right did not extend outside the home but that conclusion cannot be squared with heller which held that the guarantee included the individual right to possess and carry in case of confrontation actually you can even hear what you've already s in the way of humanity and what you hope to say or the next is correct since you've agreed we can't do anything about it you read we're bound by why i make all these arguments will i would hope that you could say says that the supreme court's recent decision in nicer person is new york city somehow change that once we fully address those arguments in our may nd letter to this court but went after the decision and nicer for a persons new york city it applied that two step framework recognized that intermediate scrutiny was still an appropriate standard for evaluating new york's firearms licensing note the standard allows the carrying of home benson public for self defense and it doesn't require applicants to show that they've experienced prior arrests or across the places have been offered and specific allegations demonstrating that the stand there it is actually  suited to the particular circumstances of their jurisdiction there are strong historical precedence for what new york has done here among other things massachusetts had an ordinance that existed before the founding that it reenacted as a law after the founding that prohibited public airing of firearms altogether but then when massachusetts amended that law in the mid th century to allow public airing it did so for individuals who could show a proper particular to the applicant and also characteristics having to do with the comedian the way the applicant lives population density composition geographic location again distance from law enforcement officials and so new representing the li no further questions special need for self defense and that would be the only thing to pursue them in the strait of remedy to achieve we're here instead because the core right includes the right to carry outside the home carry a firearm under new york law they should be capable of carrying it outside the home for self defense as well yes your honor but if they're not qualified then the it was no right are you saying that right carry any firearm for any purpose anywhere outside the home we are we are talking about carrying a handgun for the purpose of self protection and public places that are not precluded from having firearms that's what we're asking about and we're asking around behalf of the many law abiding responsible citizens of new york who qualify to have a premises permit but are not allowed to take their firearm outside the home for self protection a this case can hear only handgun that is correct we are only talking about the issue of handguns this is a concealed carry permit that we are seeking here that applies central park with a concealed handgun and no one would know going in the kids section where you might drop it i don't think you would likely drop your concealed handgun if it was secured as most people  likely but it there are a lot you are right i hear your honor's concern but that should not be the basis of broadly denying the right to all law abiding citizens this court has already concluded that proper cause requirement places substantial limits on the ability of citizens to possess firearms for self defense in public and acknowledged that unlike in de castro there are no alternative options for attain a license to carry a handgun appellants a law abiding citizens a wish to protect themselves who public we asked this court reconsider to chelsea it's bound by good child we understand that but we do implore you