the next case on the calendar is act corbett the city of new york mr corbett the morning your honor may i please the court my name is jonathan corbett and i am an attorney representing there a few times like the present where the need for a nd amendment rights so obvious right here right now in the scheme and three ways and i'll try to very briefly touch on the mall st asked the court to apply real intermediates name to the question license application i really just meant intermediate scrutiny i mean that both the importance of the government's interest and the  between the objective and the means to which she has so called tailoring is considered by the court no one questions the importance of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people or below is happy to find that out was important but what i'm challenging is the loads nothing to examine the telling of the three questions that i'm challenging that was error the three questions asked are highly personal information such as medical information if you have irritable bowel syndrome you gotta write that down if you're using one of the that under the intermediate scrutiny test the district court on remand should at least consider what telling the constitution requires for these questions the nd components in my case is the automatic planning a proper cause for retired police officers if you're a retired police officer in the city of new york we automatically get a gun license they automatically find that you have proper cost as many equal protection challenge to that if the city rest of us yet the city wants to show that there is some kind of rational reason to treat all retired police officers differently the purpose of whether they have probable cause to have a gun and they should be able to demonstrate that the court those simply concluded without any explanation that i was not similarly situated to retired police because anyone must know that retired police officers are different from everyone else and i'm not sure that's rational once you need the police force you have the same rights responsibilities as everyone else to be that too similar situation to correct yeah this is that judge livingston could i ask you to to address the city's argument that we don't even reach these issues man to do that i don't think either of those two issues can even arguably apply anymore well as i understand it adding a request for money damages according to the city  isn't enough because you can seek damages in a hybrid proceeding and this in effect was a high proceeding both because of the f o i l release that you were seeking and because you were seeking a declaration in state court that the proper cause requirement to spatially unconstitutional my misunderstanding that well and even if some kind of damages are available in new york court and it doesn't really seem that there's a statute that provides that maybe there's some kind of case that provides for damages i'm not aware of anyone actually receiving them ever that the type of the damages are different there's certainly no damages available against the individual officers who denied my constitutional rights so that c circuits have struck down similar proper cause laws in their respective jurisdictions which means there's a circuit split here meaning some circuits got it wrong that's a good reason and have any tab in court get the matter another look to on taking them to ranges the overwhelming consensus in the legal community is that the nd circuit actually got that one wrong that they didn't apply the meanings and scrutiny test properly and that the supreme court would have overturned it and it seems that even the city and issues in this case will be taken up by the supreme court given that there is a circuit split and we're going to look to make sure the nd circuit got it right before it gets there and i'm going to listen to this to every ordinary law abiding citizen is the total ban that heller and understanding about the scope of authority in the state or state absolutely cabin as sort of a fundamental principle have the ability to review federal claims section one hundred and eighty three plans are regularly state court so for plenary action civil action and a plenary action you can get all of the range of equitable and legal relief available from within the supreme court's jurisdiction to grant and so in order for seven to proceed and they both issues and here that was exactly the case because there were there was not only article seventy eight challenge there were also speaking of basically covered under state version  that's a strategic decision made in the to avoid that by now saying that the article seventy eight is the only relief that he was and how i don't to sort of allow them the benefit  once the city is basically saying that i could have brought the gun license claim under both article seventy eight and ordinary directory but i didn't do that and i should point out that