and hear the pain of simply cannot make that showing because his conviction was indisputably a serious crime and the best indication of that is the fact that pennsylvania has subjected his crime to a punishment of up to five years in prison and anoth law abiding citizen no different from one who had had an indiscretion in the past that those were factors that we considered in determining whether or no but it should be applied or or that it's unconstitutional as applied we are addressing or focusing on law abiding citizens of the individual as to whether he or she has that my right to bear arms is being offended by my classification here we imagine that what the court was saying barman would would be that if someone was convicted of a crime but you know it was making these sorts of the terminations bill based on the past before us is this individual going to commit a crime in the future or not and it's unnecessary because the second amendment right is subject to categorical exclusions and it's not you know the is not a law abiding citizen and does fall within that categorical exclusion the focus is on the punishment not on levels of violence or the nature of the offense itself i think the congress to further the judgment of the state that this conduct wasn't punishable the felony of the time of the found it but as the number of course i recognize the question isn't whether there's a precise historical analogs it's whether it's a serious crime as judged by current they legislatures and those of persons historically barred from second amendment protections they gave to the samples one example discussed a felon convicted of a minor nonviolent crime who might show that he is no more dangerous than a typical rabbi citizen and then the court went on to crime is that i think the court live in referencing the fact that night from two g one does not itself use the terms felonies and misdemeanors that is the statute applies broadly to include both felonies and misdemeanors and so people who might raise as applied challenges might come before the court with either felony record or a misdemeanor record either way it doesn't matter the court has to assess whether or not that person is presented evidence that shows that they are not the type of person who has traditionally been excluded from the right to bear arms and the traditional justification for the quick reference in barton and martin discusses this is some length go to dangerousness so we don't have and we do not make the argument and whatever else our brief of briefing is done in this case i think it's been very clear on this fact we do not make the argument that we must look to the framing eric to see exactly whether or not a crime was or was not classified as a felony where was or was not subject to disarm it rather the fell a misdemeanor exception only goes category that makes sense because people who have committed those crimes even though they're misdemeanors are dangerous and they can be disarmed now shifting over to it mr bindra has done here well nobody would approve of it it didn't involve violence it didn't involve firearms there's absolutely nothing in his record either in the record of conviction or anything in his life before since it indicates that he's a danger to society with firearms which is why and this is not minor point the state court in pennsylvania restored his firearm rights he basically a drug trafficker who was able to prove under his circumstances the good of the passage of time and perhaps other factors as personal life he was no he was now a law abiding citizen the government takes this very extreme position that once you commit a crime you want forever more not long by a person and and essentially the congress or perhaps some legislature can take away fundamental constitutional right merely by saying not you're disqualified because you violated a statute no federal has in there an aspect in taking away the right to a gun not only saying we want to keep guns from dangerous legal but is part of the punishment that if you as a citizen commit is also deterrent to other members of society who can think about well if i'm in it commit a crime i've got to think about if we are you are we would not think that for several reasons first of all this was a especially here we're talking about a right that's what secures a means of self defense for one and one's family and in case of a violent attack that's that there would be some a petty for our justice system to take that away from someone just because we disapprove of something we've done there subject of a great deal of the bait and you know it's been a wonderful font of all kinds of all of the articles that have taken the supreme court to task for not exactly explaining the history i think this court tried to do that in bar this bar was the case where this court went through the history and tried to see what the roots of this were and barton explained that going back to for example the proposals made by the very gratifying conventions where the right to arms has been poster people other than those who were not peaceable citizens this going to be motions to history in this records to regain position of again because i have become a good citizen well there are there are several ways that this is dealt with first because of the finding to the congress perhaps following this in other cases congress might want to revisit whether or not it's a better use of the government's resources to take this out of this record and back into the a t f and restore the funding if it doesn't do that relieve the workload for the govern the courts we can do other things for example we are still within living memory of a time when the supreme court would not have found that the commerce cross tolerates one twenty two g one at all so is the solution perhaps to say not expanded use of the commerce clause we've got a large federal criminal code and of course in the government are now in the business of applying it well we also have bills rights that's also part of the constitution it was ratified after the commerce clause and is a cure for certain fundamental rights of the people and people are entitled to come to federal court and get relief for those is there some better system that we can devise to resolve these issues yes there is and i would hope that the congress deals with that seriously but right now we're dealing with is a man who has been convicted of a very long time ago of a crime which although serious was not violent does not meet a traditional requirements for disarmament and that has to be taken seriously and the governor will not say that there's going to be some other  correctly if you're dishonorably discharged from military service you cannot you have the second amendment protection if there are that's correct now under your theory that person regardless of the offense that he or she has committed they make an application nation's secrets and interest of national security but they don't trust him to defend his own home and i bet that you know until this court clarifies for the government that this is actually a meaningful operative part of the constitution they're going to appeal the case i think perhaps they should not get that individuals convicted of serious crimes have traditionally lost the right to vote the right to serve on the period on carry and the right to bear firearms now i'm not aware of any analogous as applied challenges to that individual as challengers  of individual eyes determination for firearms is no reason why the action also extend to other rights that have traditionally been lost but there is no reason to do that because of course those civic rights have been subject to categorical exclusion and that's not because of individual it's a termination you know of some screwed dangerousness consideration it's a more there's more broad reason that someone's not one should not trustworthy not fit exercise this right now my pulling counsel said that generally which of course doesn't could misdemeanors that are sufficiently serious and indeed this court in gotten dealt with as a pod challenge brought by someone convicted of a misdemeanor and and said that individual was required by the constitution to create some exception for some group of people into which the plaintiff falls it does not mean that a new as applied challenge to the court should be making its own judgment a predictive judgment about to exercise your right to bear arms and that is certainly a reasonable judgment whether you find out on the first up on mars are all but there's simply no second on the right which i think is the most straightforward way to address this phase or whether you proceed to scrutiny and look at whether congress has acted reasonably here that is a reasonable judgment and what kind of hasn't done is identified some category of individuals into which he falls that it's unreasonable to apply them to so he