please the court i'm donald kilmer for the plaintiff appellant in this matter now this is a second amendment case because the city has made one we wouldn't be here if you were talking about returning my clients car or family bible or a bicycle that had  been come into the possession of the city of san jose nor are there any jurisdictional defects defects she's not complaining about a wrong committed against her in a discrete time where she was damaged or wrong the city of san jose supplemental provided under section thirty three fifty for the return of the firearms and possession of law enforcement remains available to lori lori complied with that she complied with the administrative procedures she tendered the releases the transfers the transmutations of the firearms to the city of san jose after the state court case was over after the court of appeals said this was her proper remedy the city can refuse to comply it's not work or fell down because she's here trying to enforce a state court judgment and it's not a hell she's not really in forcing a judgment she's inferred something from the court's decision that the court decision didn't say turn the guns back no it didn't but this court is bound by decisions made by state courts of appeal or we're not deal with we're usually in the business of enforcing state court judgments on what state courts for it's true so so your remedy seems to be in state court not here nor in forcing a state co judgment if that's really what you're doing course that's not really what you're doing you're trying to draw bits and pieces from a state court decision but it doesn't say in the end give back the gun so we're not really enforcing a state court judgment are we you know you inferring we have a we have a court of appeals decision from the sixty ca that specifically says that lori once she completes the transfer process so the guns are her sole and separate property and not the community property of her and her husband has this remedy available under the california statute of able to her and why i mean why is that being brought here well being brought here because my clients and i talked about whether or not we want judges who have life tenure making decisions that are controversy like this because state court judges don't give us the remedies we want so you're telling us now that you are appealing the stick asking us to enforce the court judgment we don't we don't take issue with what the sixth district court of appeal told us to do because that's what we wanted to do all along we can disagree with how the state court reached its decision or in the both the court of appeal and the trial court fact is that lori actually then complied with what the court of appeal told her to do instead of going to court and what she followed law says that once she meets those requirements the city must give her the guns out rather than just may give her the guns while it's broader than that your honor once the guns are solely her property and not hers and her husband's and her husband's for purposes of this case is a prohibited person and eighty one zero two is a statute that addresses firearms own by the prohibited person now the guns only belong to lawry she has been cleared by the california department of justice to have returned to her she has transmitted the properties of the california california's law she is eligible under california federal law to own guns she has the state approved gun safe to store the guns and she could comply with the statute that was passed by the state legislature while this case was pending to deny her husband access to them the fact that she chose to go to federal court to enforce what the sixth district court of appeal told her to do it was a choice of hers it was her choice to form but so she she has tried to use this remedy they said there's a remedy she you're here in federal court surely the state claim this argument that you're in forcing a state court judgment if that's all you were doing there would be federal jurisdiction you're here because of the federal claims and we're here because the state wants to turn this or the procedural due process claim the court of appeal in the six district said your remedy is not going back to eighty one zero two hearing there's no jurisdiction if you own the guns you the court has no jurisdiction over you because you haven't been declared mentally incompetent or mentally compromised in fact once that transfer happened once the administrative procedures were complied with and the california department of justice authorized the return of the firearms checked laurie rodriguez out she's an eligible person she has passed the gun safety test she has a gun safe the guns all now belong to her that should have been the end of it the city of san jose continued to say no but that doesn't give you federal jurisdiction simply pursuing your california what you allege are california statutory remedies there's no federal jurisdiction for that or if it was a bicycle maybe but guns are constitutional are all facts i guess so we come back to the proposition i offered up before yesterday that issue comes up if at all as supplemental jurisdiction is the constitutional claim that puts you in federal court so it's not simply a matter of the city of san jose making this a gun case you're in federal court i don't know the court made that call you and i think the court was more concerned with the fact that that that her husband who was a prohibited person still had the right to exercise demeaning control over those guns community property both the trial court as we said in our supplemental brief had some concerns over the fact that these were community property he talked about the respondent which was lori's husband he's not glory in that case was the intervenor the school the state court or the court of appeal in the sixth dca also had those same concerns and then it it resurrected her ability to get those firearms back by saying you don't belong in court you belong in the administrative procedures that the state legislature has promulgated for resolving the return of firearms we don't need to be in court because the state has foreseen how to take care of this one of the things that happens while the court of appeal did make explicit reference to the second amendment and the supreme court's decisions in heller and mcdonald and seem to me to reject the claim by saying the second a memory doesn't extend to a claim to a particular firearm to be brought into a household where they had been confiscated previously because of the presence of a mentally ill person so i'm not sure i can understand the argument that says the court of appeals didn't deal with or render a decision based on the second amendment it clearly talked about it it may have talked about it but i think it was rendering its decision on the basis of the fact that well if your argument had been correct the bottom line wouldn't have been what it was would it if the court of appeal had concluded that your client had a second amendment right to get the garden's back the bottom line would not have said affirmed it would have said reversed remanded with instructions and so i just don't see how you can say the second amendment issue wasn't passed upon by the court of appeal well even even if the second amendment is a close call you i think the court of appeal rendered a decision with regard to your second amendment argument it may have been wrong but it rendered sation and if it did why doesn't that preclude the claim from being repeated here is the second amendment a rose again court in this case want to promulgated some idea that laurie cannot have a smith and wesson that has serial number one two three on it but she can have a smith and wesson this is four five six on if you disagree with that but you could have gone to the california supreme court or to the u s supreme court to make that argument on appeal from a court that ruled against you on that point we could not have gone to the california supreme court your honor we have to show prejudice in state court there was no prejudice based upon the d c s language that we believe that on the record that the of course you are brave is the court of appeals had affirmed it didn't say your client gets her gun back because at least one of the firearms was in her name to begin with fine and give the rest of them back to her and keep the smith and wesson fine but that's the question we're we're trying to pose to you is how is this not precluded by the fact that the court of appeal rendered a decision on exactly the same argument you're trying to put to us because it didn't render an opinion on borys guns or rendered opinion on community property guns well at least one of which was laurie's to begin with to exclude that on the rest of the exclude that cut because it was in the case you're telling us well let's disregard the fact the court of appeal didn't treat that gun differently but it didn't treat the gun differently and so it seems to me that the court of appeal decision can be taken to be a rejection of the argument you  the harm is different here well that issue preclusion so so as i read it the state court decided this issue she doesn't have a second amendment right even to her gun and you don't agree but why isn't that an issue that was decided and thus we can't decide it again under issue preclusion doctrine there would have been no way for her to to necessarily even get to the u s supreme court because she would have to go through the california supreme court first and again in the california supreme court she has to show cia said she can't show prejudice until she complies with the administrative procedures well there are two problems with that one is that she didn't get a gun the second is the california supreme court doesn't hold veto rights over what goes to the u s supreme court that's u s supreme court takes lots of cases from the lower courts and states if if the state supreme court declines your view for whatever reason so there's nothing that i can see that would have prevented you from petitioning the california supreme court even of a declines review then petitioning the u s supreme court for search none of that happened well your honor but the the more efficient even judicially efficient process was laid out by the sixty follow the claims procedure or the administrative procedures process that the state of california has that the california department of justice bureau of firearms is not a plaintiff it are not a defendant in this case because they followed the law they checked laurie out they said she could have the firearms back they transmitted the firearms they said she could have the firearms back we followed what that six dca told us to do we went back to the city of san jose that is a new harm that is a new claim her second amendment right is resurrected at that point because they are her guns and she complied with what the court of appeal told her to do well the court of appeal said that as it understood the supreme court's decisions and how learned macdonald there's not a second amendment right to claim any particular fire and apparently there's not a question in this case that your client can obtain firearms and can keep them in the household they just can't she can't keep or get back this firearm whatever the merits of the distinction drawn by the court of appeal it is a distinction that turns out to be relevant in this case to is but the but the burden for that your honor falls on the city if the city is going to say these are magic guns and she can't have them back because they're different than a gun she could go to the market to get it's their burden to prove they haven't done that you're just disagreeing with what the state court said no your honor your honor i am trying to i am trying to do with the state court told us to do and that follow the administrative procedures for return of the firearms that statute also contemplates further court action if this if the city doesn't comply that's why there's an attorney's fees provision in that statute so i ask you a couple questions  a different topic on the fourth amendment claim yet is there any indication in the record here or the materials we have about how long it would have taken to the officers to get a warrant and whether they definitely could have done that before  warrants could theoretically be waived in this particular case mr rodriguez was already in the ambulance was already on his way to the hospital there was plenty of time for the officers to either get a warrant or perhaps present laurie with a consent form if they want to do that they didn't have those forecasts how do we know i mean so he was in an ambulance but i don't know how far away the hospital is i mean how long would it have taken him to get released and get back compared to getting a warrant do we know turns out it was two weeks he was in the hospital your honor but did the officers know that was going to be the case it's a seventy two hour hold fifty one fifty statute is a seventy two hour hold and it was guaranteed to be a seventy two hour hold the from the time it was put i am let's go t to be a seventy two hour hold or not because he hadn't been evaluated yet at the time he was in the ambulance right that's true so we don't know yet at that point whether it's seventy two hours that's that's what the statute calls for a seventy two hour hold but is it based on a doctor's evaluation when he gets to the hospital or what is it based on my experience in these kind of cases your honor sometimes based on a physician's assistant or an m d so they don't know at the point they're putting him and i ambulance whether he's going to come back in fifteen minutes that's true so how do we know that the officers had time to get a warrant because we have telephone weren't available the city of san jose i don't understand what you know there are telephone warrants available in the city of san jose for exactly these kind of circumstances so you're saying in fifteen minutes they could have called something i don't know the exact timeline that might be a question better directed to the city or could you explain if you're seeking damages in this case and if so on what claims the damages would be on are actually having to bring the state suit if necessary so i think in your opening brief to us you say you're only seeking injunctive in declaratory relief but i had quite a hard time figuring out whether you were talking about all your claims are only so but it seems like you are saying you're only seeking injunctive in declaratory really seeking actual money damages for the value of the guns if they're of their ultimately forfeit your honor well they have been forfeited the position was that your client had the opportunity to resell them through a licensed dealer actually your honor what happened in the state court was that she could sell the guns and then take the money and go back and rebuy them from the same dealer that's what it's such nonsense why this case so she could have gotten money for them she could have sold them and still can still can so are you want so are you seeking damages for anything other i mean if that's the damages claim it's not a very good one are you seeking damages for anything else short order of partial forfeiture of property belonging to or rodriguez after finding an eighty one zero two proceeding there that it would pose a danger to ms rodriguez to her husband into the public generally to return that particular property to the rodriguez household  the plaintiffs in this case that's a conclusive finding that finding a danger is conclusive in this proceeding and plaintiffs don't challenge it here their argument and instead really comes down to the argument that the constitution requires the city of san jose not withstanding that conclusive finding judicial finding of danger to return the guns the property to her household so is it your understanding sorry go ahead what does the record show as to the husband ability to get into the lock safe so that the trial court stage trial court made specific findings as to that judge wallace and this is in the record throughout the trial court's finding in the transcript where there's a colloquy between the trial court and counsel court's findings were given the relative given the history of instability in that household has there been several domestic disturbance calls given the fact that mr rodriguez was a very large man use four hundred pounds given the instability that he had exhibited on that night in and other occasions that it was there was a high likelihood of danger that he would be able to overpower him as roger egos and gain access to the weapons independent of the fact that the weapons were already in his possession and his control they were in his safe he did the  records show that it was his unlocks a forest and it was near evidence in the record that he had a key so the evidence is that he had access to the key because the key was stored in a desk in an office that he had access to  there's one mild ambiguity in the record so i want to be clear it's not entirely clear so that the safe incidentally i want to say all of this was was part of the factual funny was considered by the trial court when the trial court found danger so it's not something that i think at this juncture e ms rodriguez certainly had access to the key in the code she kept the keys locked in a desk she kept the code also in the same desk in an office in the rodriguez household mr rodriguez had access to the desk and to the office there was never anything it's not clear from the record whether he had a key to the to the actual desk where the keys were kept themselves but he certainly had access to the address book where the codes were but the district court took all of that excuse me the trial court the state superior court took that on the consideration and decided that given the facts before him there was a likelihood certainly enough to meet the threshold that he was considering for danger purposes there was a likelihood that mr rodriguez would be able to get access to the firearms in the future and that's why that court found that return of the firearms to the rodriguez household would pose a danger so your position is that the woman had a second amendment right to the guns but that's trumped by the access that her husband has to work for which there is a ruling by the court that there's a high degree of high likelihood of damage to take place because of his mental condition et not not quite i think it's in the nature of that i don't believe that laurie rodriguez had a second amendment rights to not have certain guns forfeited under a valid law you always even go that far ok and that regardless of determination by the trial court of possible damage it could be called cause by the husband because of his condition is it do i understand your position correctly then and i sense i'm also going to avoid the word trump for different reasons and that i don't think it actually is trumps that it just means that you know it the second amendment is applicable so when i say that the question here is narrow it the question is simply whether when there is a forfeiture order and this is a partial forfeiture or i agree with your honor just clifton it's not a full forfeiture she can still she can still exercise some property based rights over this insofar as she can have them transferred and sold but it's a partial forfeiture of the right of possession to these become a second amendment case simply because the property for if it happens to consist of guns and you more than it would become a first amendment case if it happens disk consist of rock album something that you have you know a first amendment right to just to listen to and to access and to possess  inquiry there is whether you know there was a funding fairness accompanying the process accompanying that forfeiture under the court's ordinary due process well she is arguing that her second amendment rights have been violated that her one second amendment rights have been violated she's arguing that sure but that's a misplaced argument because the only basis for that argument is because the property that was forfeited pursuant to a valid statute consisted of guns my second amendment right was valid was was violated but that's not the inquiry your honor the in every case where this court has considered a second amendment question or undertaken any kind of second amendment analysis it's been dealing and this is true of all other circuits too that have been discussed in the briefing it's dealing with cases where we have statutes that effect some sort of ban or limitation on the possession of firearms or maybe ammunition or something that's fundamentally that's the role of a distinction but it also underscores a little bit the illogic of us even being here i mean if it's if it's a good knowledge that plaintiff can can acquire other firearms and can keep them in exactly the same place at some point i start to wonder why are we here and why are we taking all this time what is it that justifies the city's drawing a line between these twelve firearms and the universe of god knows how many millions of firearms that are available to be a is the superior courts finding that return of these particular firearms under the circumstances present before the court that made that call would pose a danger to rodriguez's and to the public at large is it any different from any of the other  acquired and stored in the same place i acknowledge that there is something of an oddity in the law and it exists only by virtue of the legislature in this case and the state having acted somewhat incrementally to address a much broader complex problem  possession by guns by mentally ill people what the legislator has determined is that within the sphere that it is acted here that of dealing with people who encounter law enforcement and these mental health disturbing mental health circumstances what what police are to do is to take of those particular weapons and to take them from the person who is mentally disturbed to have a judicial proceeding in which court will determine whether return of those weapons will create a danger and if how do those twelve fire i mean i understand that the trance atory situation but we're not there anymore do those twelve firearms pose any greater danger than any other firearm would pose so two response the first is what the question that your honor is posing as a question that was answered by the state trial court and that's that is conclusive here that court found well if i had those guns having those guns would be a danger but they didn't say they're more dangerous than any other guns true but that's not an inquiry discordant or each given that it would be a danger to return these particular firearms that shows that it fell within and they fell within the requirements of section eighty one of two again they don't challenge that so that particular part of your call carve out of the second amendment now has been decided as you say by the state court are you then imply indicating that under a rock or a film and we have to respect that under worker feldman and preclusion doctrine that of course as a smith and wesson as a smith and wesson a glock as a glock i know that if it's dangerous for the rodriguez household to have the particular weapons here it's probably also dangerous for them to possess any other  any other guns that have the same capacity presumably as the ones that were forfeited the reality is the law may get to that at some point and may try to find a way to get to that balancing the relevant interest at this point it has not but that doesn't again that it may be dangerous to have other weapons there doesn't mean that it is knox dangerous to have these particular weapons in the household and that was that was really what the superior court was struggling with what the superior court made its determination based on so there are record feldman problems with this case to be sure your honor i came in as a late juncture and i appreciate the court's opportunity for the supplemental briefing on this question because really i think there is no question what this lawsuit is about from beginning to end the plaintiffs in this case are seeking to undo what happened in the state courts they're certainly seeking relief that would directly undo the relief that the state court here granted so for record feldman as opposed to issue preclusion i had a question about sort of how the state law operates here when you when the city got the ruling under eighty one zero two that it would be a danger to return these guns does that hit the city from returning the guns are only allow the city to keep the guns it prohibits on your own and so that it's an order that the city shall not return the gun and what where do we learn that i didn't see anything that had that kind of mandatory language so it's a bit of a circuitous i think you have to take a slightly circuitous route you look first so the judgment the city sort forfeiture of the weapons a final forfeiture of the weapons where they would not be returned to the rodriguez household so just i think any time that relief is requested and the relief is granted if the relief is of an order forfeiture when the court says your relief is granted the court is granting a forfeiture but that the city wasn't allowed to destroy the guns because she could sell them so so how do we know that it's you cannot give them back rather then you may not give them back so i think that's going to have to follow just by inference from both the petition by virtue of the nature of the relief requested if you look also in the record at the actual trial so maybe i should have not cut you off what exactly about the relief requested tells us that it was asking the to the city was actually asking to have its hands tied well i can't imagine a city ever asking to limit its discretion or authority i don't know that our petition to hear the petition says the weapon should be forfeited i don't think the  order of forfeiture is subject to that sort of ambiguity whether it's whether it's a mandatory or preparatory i think that an order of forfeiture is a disposition of property that's final city giving it the city giving these weapons back would doing so notwithstanding the state court's decision that that would create a danger that would undermine the entire basis of the state court order well it might conflict with an issue that was decided but would actually like in order to say we said she has a second abou right you've got to give these guns back would you have to go to the state court and ask them to lift their order or could you do that consistent with the state court order i think not i think that that would violate the state court order i grant that it's not that the state court doesn't have a definitive proclamation that the city shall not return these weapons but to say that there forfeited forfeited excuse me as a final disposition as to the property loss status of these weapons that would mean that rodriguez no longer has a property law right and for the city to return then notwithstanding that this trial court's finding of danger i think that that would be certainly defiant of the spirit although i take your honour's point that it wouldn't be directly contradicting any of the words it's just seemed to me that maybe it's more of an issue preclusion issue than a rocker issue because i don't quite understand i've struggled with this a lot so i could be wrong but i don't quite understand how anything the state court said really is mandatory  broader than issue preclusion it would prevent all of the claims that are that the plaintiffs are bringing here because under california law and the primary right theory the primary injury theory whenever there is an injury that gives th result of a particular state action that injury gives rise to a unitary and the words of california courts a unitary cause of action you have to raise every theory for relief from that injury in the one proceeding where you were given that opportunity here the opportunity was in the eighty one of two proceeding rodriguez certainly had a full and fair opportunity to litigate and for eleven of the twelve firearms there has been a factual change which that ownership has been transferred now to lori in her own name you're i mean i'm happy to speak about that because that there's some confusion i think about that there has been no factual change that as to any fact  was a predicate for any of the state court proceedings of the allegation is that this is fresh the claim that was pursued there at least as to the eleven is different because at that time the claim had to run through edwards ownership and were no longer is the owner laurie is so the argument being made by plaintiffs is that the facts have changed efficiently so that the claim preclusion that applied when edward on the wouldn't apply now because he's not the owner laurie is and that argument might work except that the basis for the finding in trial court had nothing to do with ownership so the fact that factual change would matter if ownership were the basis again i think of the state cry trial court's decision it wasn't it the court assumed that lori own at least had a community property interest and all of the weapons and that maybe she had one that was registered to her alone the court was well aware of that and also had no reason to imagine that she hadn't already gone through the state thirty eight three fifty or three thirty three eight fifty proceedings or that she was otherwise ineligible and anyway that was all irrelevant because what mattered was those weapons were in the custody and possession of rodriguez at the time of this disturbing mental health episode which defeats due process and takings and a lot of other stuff just on it's own right but yes the forfeiture is a final forfeiture as to these particular weapons rodriguez may not possess them again thirty three and fifty which is where it seems that much of this confusion is coming from both as to the work of feldman argued arguments it's also laced through all the due process and all the other claims your honour's i want to be very clear judge for you and i think your questions we're getting at this thirty three eight fifty doesn't create any entitlements at all it creates only obligations on a person who wishes to retrieve a gun from the custody of law enforcement regardless of how it came into their custody and it can come into their custody a number of ways it can be a t r o in a domestic violence situation evidence that's used in the case but then the case expires or just sometimes guns are turned into law enforcement as they're found on the street in any of those circumstances thirty three eight fifty sets forth a process a person has to go through to get them back it doesn't create an entitlement it just says here the hoops you gotta jump through no matter what it seems like it creates an eligibility and getting back to the questions about record i was wondering if now that she has that eligibility if the city could decide who will give her these guns my position on that is the same again the sort of difficulty of understanding the mandatory versus predatory nature certainly your honor i think what is clear is it eligibility never had anything to do with eighty one or two determination danger did it was assumed that she was eligible it was assume that she had a property law interest in all of these things that was that was irrelevant because of the the possession and custody and the danger that that court found so could i ask you about the fourth amendment these claims so do you think there's anything that we can look at to figure out whether there was time to get a warrant not on this record i i would submit respectfully that i think even if there were ample time to get a warrant that would make a difference the supreme court fourth amendment case law is pretty clear the time to get warrant doesn't mean that you have to get a warrant of otherwise the law wouldn't require it but doesn't there need to be an exit jency and once he's taken away what's the exigency so to two responses one is i think again we're kind of venturing outside of what they challenge since they don't challenge section eighty one o two as as constitutionally infirm that provision authorize a seizure of weapons without a warrant any time they're in the possession of a person who is there's probable cause to believe this has mental disturbance issues but the law can say whatever i want and wants and that doesn't mean there isn't a fourth amendment claim for a federal purposes i certainly agree with that but i do think that that is not something that they have raised so i think they've raised the fourth amendment as i understand it she says her fourth amendment rights were violated by this incident and i think we have to figure out whether that's true which i think to it depends in part on whether there was exigency that explained why the officers didn't get a warrant or maybe i'm missing something so i don't want to hear what i think her argument is that it's a problem because she owned them not because they want to is invalid under the fourth amendment but i'd like to defend he wanted to and i don't think there's a facial challenge eighty one of two i think there's just i think she's saying the officers came in and took these guns without a warrant that violates the fourth amendment so what's wrong with that argument i think she's saying what the officers did here violated my rights because they didn't get a warrant right so a warrantless warrantless seizure is authorized under the fourth amendment the supreme court has made this clear this court has made this clear in martin versus city of oceanside emergency circumstances ndertaking a purpose that's unrelated to investigation or evidence collection but instead is serving one of these law enforcement functions that katy recognized law enforcement have to undertake every day this is i think a perfect example of where here law enforcement are serving or enforcing a law that is meant to preserve community safety and act in an emergency or circumstance but what's the emergency circumstance i mean once he is gone he's in the ambulance and they're asking her now ok where are the guns  what's the combination why don't they get a warrant at that point so the ex i think the emergency circumstance your honor is that your questions began to get at this there is no way for law enforcement officers to know at the time that  they take someone they detain someone under fifty one fifty of it's well fairness situations code how long they'll be it can be minutes it can be very brief it can be that the person gets to the hospital is completely calm down there evaluated very rapidly and then returned right home i don't have an answer about how quickly a law enforcement can get a warrant or whether sent as a particular phone procedures but i think that certainly the question whether law enforcement it's reasonable for law enforcement without a warrant to cease fire arms under circumstances where there's a serious mental health episode like this and even though they're committing someone and that person will be transported to a hospital for some indeterminate amount of time it's reasonable pursuant to the community care taking exception for them to take possession of any weapons in the immediate possession of that person that would pose a danger was the defense who qualified immunity to officer valentine raised in the trial court it was the court didn't have occasion to address that since under the first prong of the address that since he found no constitutional violations in the first place your honor but we raised it that there are no damages although i think that's also been somewhat unclear from the briefing maybe nominal and said today he said the only damages were the the forfeiture of the guns if there actually forfeit not any kind of damages for fourth amendment or anything else yes and if that's true i think your honor is right there are no damages at all because the full market value is recoverable through a sale that rodriguez has to be able to control that sale with regard to the damages your honor number one we don't we've never inspected the weapons we don't know if they've been damaged while they've been stored so it's possible that there is some money component once we get the firearms back if mr rodriguez was taken to the hospital immediately released i think that's a pretty good find if there was evidence in the record that this was not a domestic disturbance or domestic violence situation he was to have a previous domestic december as a previous call for a mental health and or welfare check on mr rodriguez so that is true the  preclusion by the city has been waived has far as i can tell they did not file a counter appeal or cross claim in this appeal and that issue was not addressed in the district court so i don't know that and claim preclusion is not jurisdictional your honor state court did issue it's found in the excerpt of record at page eighty and eighty one and skimming over the boilerplate language is hereby ordered that the city's position petition for disposition of weapons is granted the city agrees to hold a weapons fight pending final disposition or resolution of this matter in accordance with its general principles i don't read that order to mean that the city can't give the guns back once mr rodriguez complies with the administrative procedures that the district court the district court of appeal combination this rodriguez change the combination to the safe she knew what that combination was the key only unlocks the dial the dial itself requires more than a million or a million or fewer combinations in order to open it it meets the and like the stick or thought there regardless that he could force her to open the safe that's how i understand the concern about the day that's no different your honor than mr rodriguez walking into a sporting goods store and forcing somebody to give him a gun or walking next door to a neighbor and telling t have a gun there was some discussion here the city wanted to talk about maybe the policy in the future will be that people who live with prohibited people can't have guns that's not the policy it can't be the policy end of the second amendment and the did and the state of california already addressed that with its safe storage law on the law that was passed while this case was pending when you live with a prohibited person the proper way to deny them access is in a state approved gun safe that's what this case is about thank