concealed weapons and the court concluded that they stated a cause of action that they have been tonight the right to carry concealed weapons subsection and we also says you have a right to carry concealed carry rate you have to meet to brief you look at the dish of course you look at what they are starting to us the ultimate right to carry is not being played the right to an identification is not in fact in their first brief to us they said the statute allows states a limited measure of discretion over a leo ship eligibility in that the state agencies make shoes or not to issue the identification cards necessary this record said i am not deciding the identification issue the fight here is whether they meet the what criteria with respect to qualified retired law enforcement officer and put no eight or nine there about this court makes it absolutely clear that is all this being decided because it was a dispute over that going up to the circuit it came back down and confirming they now have the certification that was required by certification i am not deciding identification issue the other side has said we haven't made that claim it's not an issue and if we have to go to the d c courts and seek relief fund that's the end of their brief that we have to go to the d c court and seek relief war and agenc but all this light i don't know why you're fighting this all this fight is as far as i can see on what came to us initially went back to the district court and what the district court did is whether or not they satisfied the qualified retired officer criteria that's all and they did but if you carry one your honor the court cited paragraph eighty four of their complaint which says that in which they allege they have been deprived of their right to carry concealed weapons they were and i mean there are certain elements of their claim that they have to prove in order to establish that they are entitled to carry concealed carry rate under the laws they are to require that they're qualified require w or may not choose to give an identification we're not putting that in play we understand was an implied because they said they had the i know they said they had an idea but i'm reading what they said the states have a limited measure to grant or not whether what they have is good enough is a different question the real fight as far as i can read this record is over qualified retired law enforcement officers because the city's initial position that they're not really law enforcement officers and i guess and you lost it yet the court sent it back and said get it straight we did not decide the identification issue and the district court was explicit beyond the pale in saying i am absolutely not deciding identification issue i don't have to decide this is only about whether they have an enforceable right now they can go and try and exercise that enforceable right but that's all i see before me this whole disk or dead so let me make sure that was not the usual result by the district court so what what is it that you lost in the district what you can now appeal well we have a judgment against us that we violated their rights under real so that to challenge their claim to qualified retired law identification and it's unfair because they have no basis to they can't do it without being able to say we are qualified law enforcement officers on the ocean here's the judgment that proves it and so we now have a right to ask all right they are thinking that i don't know what you think you have to bring to us given the way this case has been litigated and given their concession that states may or may not issue and they say it the only in their brief because they understand the dilemma that they face having made that concession we've got to find other ways we understand on your definition which is separate from meat these of these requirements you will have a defense or you have a right which is which is really basically only important if you were ever challenge or or  or something or hearing and so that's one thing here but i think that what we said in the very one it articulated the way it was that that the district can't interfere with their ability to obtain and exercise their right to consume here in to the extent that the district so the teacher kate well i mean that there are two elements qualified retired law enforcement officers and that they have the i d s and those are both necessary for the ultimate right to carry and can i read again this is going for plan in the brief to us in the brief in the prior case the statute allows states limited measure of discretion over the ocean eligibility in that state agencies may choose push came to shove in summary judgment back in the district court they made the same concession and wi you barry one he said did you know those those requirements work before us and more you want guess what you're what you seem to be arguing is that the only way that they can their exercising their right was the district's interference with their right to get a five string with the district was saying they're not qualified officers aren't working so the court said no they're qualified you cannot deny that they're qualified retired law enforcement officers of and they said that violates the statute because that fuse is that we only have to fulfill the same requirements of active officers and we want the clarity of warri relief correctional officers are qualified to current law enforcement officers but we don't give them the i d s they need under videos and therefore we don't think they're qualified underneath those places have moved to say that that violates the cour can and cannot do that may come into play wait around the league before us i just finished by reiterating the legal you are forcible rape is the right to carry it is not a right to be qualified as to be labeled a qualified retired law enforcement officer under one of two criteria under the law the right to carry requires both being a qualified officer and the i d s and they just simply  about this the step back notion that we sort of step back and and the claim that the district is still making which is unfortunate that we've that you know we said we had these ideas this ific leader you know how what we said earlier about about the complaining to the court went back and looked at our complaint and pulled a particular thing and it says they have the has a photo identifier we have photo identification card saying is a retired employee citation the paragraph fifty six and that's what paragraph fifty six of our complaint sa employee it doesn't say we have cards that say the magic word officer on it it says employee and then it says had the authority to make the arrest in africa and act in one person that's you that's the title twenty two cards and then there's citation to the relevant paragraphs of the complaint that talk about of the language as far as i can tell degree one got this fairly complicated nuanced point got it right ok there's the current idea that employee is the old lady that said powers of arrest ok and we've never said that we had anything other than your position i don't see the complaining consistent but you're being cute in the complaint in that you're saying we have an idea that says we are an employee but that's not the question so you never really and when you push came to shove and do very one you said to the court states have the discretion in this case because i was trying to figure out what you're looking for in this case at the end of your brief you make it very clear sure we'd love it if you say what we have as an idea is good enough we understand that may not be the case because it doesn't use the magic words but we just want the affirmative so that we have a declaration that we have the rights and we have to take the d c courts will do it if they agree with one hundred percent with that and i think that's absolutely correct and  you know to some degree this is the issue that there isn't it there is this is that you did not put in place some sort of overarching federal authority that issues these types of i d s so you know we are dealing with a context where it falls to the individual to carry the id as of the communication and which we think they are resisting the conclusion of the court on the eligibility question is not thing getting it right he is not saying that they can't state the truth of what are you know they can't state what they were stating otherwise it's going to the fact that we think that they were communications that were made that were resisting the factual conclusions made by the district court you're not in this for anything more this court s disagree with that does not solve any of these important problems by the way because it doesn't that that wouldn't answer the question of whether or not there's a federal bar to having a firearm when another person you can work for five years or ten years or anything like that you doesn't solve these problems there are these problems and to some degree the reason why all these states d c is included i believe i started issuing leo's a specific order just trying to address all of these problems but there is there's always going to be some measure of concern about yet a traffic stop where you status and i mean i think i heard in some of your comments earlier that it does open up other options but actually as of now right it also provides and if you look at what happened in maryland and our position here is that the ideas that they have  identified them as a police are sufficient because in any case where you're presenting an idea it's not necessarily the end of the matter there's going to be some like if you get pulled over and you provide your driver's license or an arresting officer they will just look at it and get it back to you they take it back to the patrol car and then you know he potentially to get it to get improved i d or to get one of these supplemental assurance kind of leo's the cards in the future so we have it does provide a lot of concrete relief and frankly you know it's already provided a lot of  causation they don't they have not established a violation of a federal right they don't have a right to carry under leo's or without the i d s they don't have the i d s and they don't get to define what the rate is by saying one thing when they were to what was at the motions of the smallest of age and not move from it and understand the cases character has completely changed their views from the perspective that your reason you can't keep going back there will just say that they have not