i'm here today representing two law abiding responsible citizens of pennsylvania in this challenge to section six thousand one hundred and five c four a pennsylvania's uniform farms act ill can recover to the point to have the right to have a firearm and it's there and the federal government has said we will recognize a pennsylvania determination so what are we arguing about whether to think about a st of all the cases not birch makes it clear that you have to have a pre deprivation hearing before deprivation of this magnitude so that along is the case is not moot because you know that this is an emergency determination of what someone needs three days hospitalization for mental illnesses as a threat of harm to his self or to others and how can you have a pretty detention determination when it is an emergency or to others for the person is temporarily detained pursuant to three hundred and two during that process it is determined that he is not in fact a danger to himself or others if he walk then the government made them petition for further commitment pursu section three or three to three or to last for up to five days of one hundred and twenty hours you are yes that's correct it's either one of our one of our point of never even when he went to hospital and left he never was detained at all but i want to it's very important we've got to address the potential danger to himself or others the prominent taking away of the nd amendment right that follows however is not an accident circumstance the case of to stabilize on national news ments makes it abundantly clear when you when would you have that he certified committable under three and two they get those as soon as they're entered right yes ronna tell us once the p s p as that information about john doe on a john to another john does ok what do you want them to do while the way ahead of ourselves here you want to because that whole aspect is irrelevant because sixty one of five c four acts immediately the moment according to pennsylvania  are no due process protections for if we are to come a team therefore you cannot take his rights away therefore sixty one of five c four you want to take it out altogether i want to write three o two out of section sixty one of five city to the act that a person is found not to need further one hundred and twenty day hospitalization does not mean that during the original five day period he was not in fact a threat of danger to himself or to others and could not if he were put in a similar situation become a threat again that's one of the reasons that this applies to people who have had mental health problems that they can become so upset that they're going to kill themselves so if i may you're saying one is upset wants upside for evermore and that's not the law and that's not it's the medicine and that's not the fact and the supreme court is very clear ok ok but it is a problem that can persist and if after it does not mean that during the five days there was not an assessor the hospitalized that person to treat them and now that we have the remedy under pennsylvania law and now that we have the remedy under federal law isn't there is there not a sufficient post deprivation hearing to satisfy the constitution not government has said ok when we when we have a hearing and determine that this person is no longer a threat we will recognize that pennsylvania determination yes strong a bit but again importantly that's a matter of legislative grace it is not a restoration of nd amendment rights there's a question outstanding in both of those cases let's suppose that you do have your rights restored pursuant to this post operation remedy i don't want to have my rights restored and then the law changes again in pennsylvania and argument because what you're saying is once or three or two the government could go in and take all their weapons they could say ok you're going home in five days we're going with you because if you have any weapons there were taken that's what your argument essentially is w i understand that that there may be an exit circumstance which would allow you to have a temporary deprivation of your rights group to use your right of liberty is a right to enter into a contract you lose your right to st me fundamental liberty you must have been about the debt pretty deprivation process and the magnitude of this deprivation it's permanency and it's an alter your ability without any due process of law means that you must have meaningful due process and it must be prior to that deprivation and to be clear we're not talking about the detention of the person for purposes of mental health evaluation we're talking about a collateral and permanent consequence of an m restorable loss of nd amendment back to judge russ st question it is a moot exercise that cross my mind also at least as to these individual plaintiffs it would seem to be moot because they have the ability to go through the process and get their state and federal rights restored if they go through it there's a separate question that these individuals didn't even take advantage of the process that exists which they contended as i recall in the state proceeding excuse me the district court proceeding that it wasn't sufficient because at best all they could get was their state rights back that's not really the commonwealth's falter pennsylvania legislatures fault but now the federal government has decided that somebody who succeeds through that process can get their federal rights so i think movement is a tricky issue i have nothing else for recent u s supreme court to debate about the new york case tells us that it's not totally black and white but i i tend to agree that i'm not sure what these people are complaining about anymore since they got de facto from  they said was missing and if that means it's moot then it's moot but i think councils made it pretty clear that it is a constitutional objection and three or two protocol because you don't have a pre depravation right to hearing they did say i heard him but i was a little bit surprised that he was saying that he was challenging the three o two reference at at all because throughout their papers below and in this court they have made it clear they're not challenging the mental health procedures act and they're not challenging their own three o tuesday so if they're not challenging their own thirty dollars tos or the statute as a whole only the uniform fire arms act and the problem that they identified has been resolved then we only have to look where we only can look at the facial validity or invalidity of the provision of the uniform firearms act necessary one question i want to ask you the with a three and i think what what the focus should be on is the language and heller macdonald themselves which talked him out the presumptively valid restrictions on felons and the mentally ill without elaborating on what that meant the fact that it doesn't elaborate i suppose my learned opponent would say means it's meaningless at this point but i think in light of the historical references that are mentioned in the years and in light of the fact that in fact restrictions on the mentally ill oh mentioned in the statute that we're talking about here as opposed to mark  adjudicated is magnified in this conversation because it appears in the federal statute the federal disqualification statute but the pennsylvania statute doesn't contain that word the pennsylvania disqualification rod i don't remember the date that the mental health procedures and it was in that era that the three o two was developed under the st and then health procedures are right but it but that is the beares case reminds us there were certainly an awareness in society as a whole that some people were mentally disturbed and were not able to have access to firearms even before whether it was through the process that we now know is three  is what triggers the disqualification and there is no practical way to stop dead maybe bodies tracks and have a hearing man because the commitment occurs and the information reported and the individual who is affected presumably knows but perhaps doesn't in any case it's not even an issue the person who walks out of the facility i suppose who's super duper concerned about his nd amendment rights might want to assert those rights and apply for relief through the pennsylvania system that exists to eliminate  disqualifications for people who have had them imposed there are three as we discuss in our brief three different avenues one of which is especially relevant here where somebody can go through the process position that if somebody does that will quickly they leave the hospital every single situation where you have to have process so that if we have recognized to the extent that we have recognized that a constitutional right to liberty interest is at stake here it does not follow that pre destination procedures are essential post deprivation can be acceptable and did in many situations including matthew's itself the challenge procedure which was a post a probation procedure was found to be satisfactory given that situation and our position is that the same is true and this is a person the three different statutory avenues to get basic restoration of rights through six thousand one hundred and five f one which we've talked about to some extent already there's also a proper process available to challenge the accuracy of the commitment records the records show all how much that process is used you mean as far as statistics how many times does it record in this case show how much that process i'm not sure whether it does or not and that just to be for completeness the rd is the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence from the get while you the nd or rd processes i know the st process comes no i don't think so but i'm not certain i mean i do recall citing in our brief reported cases where those processes were in books and we know that they are indeed used to some extent but how many i can't tell y but the bottom line is as i said assuming that the constitutional right is at stake here the process is that exist are adequate and the main thing that seemed to drive the plaintiffs argument that they were not adequate up until recently was it's meaningless because we can't get our federal rights back but now that option does exist so as far as their due process right it is impossible to say if this statute is unconstitutional in all its applications which is the very very demanding test that must be met for a statute to be considered unconstitutional on its face we think the judgment should be affirmed unless the court has through the questions thank you very much thank thank you your honor of but to make a few points the st point is that the three hundred and two process has been applied and past seven years to over one hundred and seventy thousand pennsylvania process now do my question is with rio two a physician has made a determination that a person is a danger to himself or to others and having done that whenever whenever the state decides this person we believe this person is a danger to themselves or others so we're going to have a hearing where the burden of proof will be on the state right you are then saying at the hospital emergency room when the physician says this person will be hospitalized he is a danger to himself because he has a gun at home and he's going to shoot himself at that point there needs to be a hearing no if that at that point there does need to be here because we're going to take if you're going to do if you're going to  circumstance because the legislature gives you sixty days to hand over your firearms after you've been through two you could have any hearing you needed in that time period and then if the determination of the state meets its burden of proof it's constitutional demonstrate that john doe three is in fact a danger to himself or others that's what three or three or four or four that's why those exist so that sixty day window would be the time to have this pre depr physician and the burden of proof is on you that's in a lose there's no due process at all just because you get to go stand up and be seen long enough for them to throw the book at you is not due process the the nd is simply saying hey i was never committed my records are wrong won't be i'm not you got the wrong guy is not is not the process either but the one if you're the wrong guy is what's out if you're the wrong guy i agree but we're not talking about people or the wrong guy we're talking about people who were who were certified committable implicated strongly in beers an inventor up cannot be restored legislative grace is not the same thing as restoration of rights and it can't be compared to the felon restoration felony restoration process because if you are you that when you have had a trial