are narrowly tailored and constitute a close fit for the goals the government will object is a protection of police all service and crime control this court were mean to the case in two thousand and eleven for the district to provide meaningful evidence not me or assertions that to justify its predictive judgments and after going through this period of discovery and summ judgment instead of providing meaningful evidence the district has provided the same data provided before in the form of your assertions without facts or data to justify that the one thing  sometimes on another cases where we've had these types of remain ends the case like turner itself the case actually goes to trial of the fact finding a full record being made and then the constitutional decision is based on that full record is it your view that part of the problem here is that summary judgment was wrong and there should have been an actual trial and fact finding or is your view that a trial wouldn't change remanded on summary judgment of the same thing there was a there were the expert reports filed we did those because they like facts or data they are base basically on appeal to authority the three law enforcement experts and basically discounted the facts that we set forth we had expert and that normally sounds like a summary judgment problem that's a summary judgment problem yes you and i will see where for example credibility of witnesses things like seeing them directly would have really helped reregister facts like that that in fact that's a lot of doesn't exist anywhere else in any state nationwide but the boards are really undisputed so i'm not sure that in terms of what the district court did here there would have been any further information in a nationwide there were two jurisprudential issues if i could mention very quickly one was the the the principle that the district that a governmental body has to demonstrate that the harms are real and that if in fact there were the means chosen to address those harms would alleviate the harms in a direct in the tour away and that's from turner one of the district says that's a straight phrase it's not the the tourguide requirement that they take a test in the district of columbia there was no real facts it justified it the second jurors credential issue that we have which i'll just briefly mention is the double deference theory that the  district court set forth in terms of if it's gun policy if it involves second amendment rights then we doubly defer to the to the legislature and in this case there was no justification that the will of deference theory if you the case here before and that's there's no special rule for second amendment rights that mcdonald case by the supreme court held that it's not a second class right and that one uses the same tools of interpretation as one would for the first amendment or other rights now do you agree event the fact that d c and is filled with lots of diplomats and government officials parades keep saying they have something different from every other jurisdiction that by itself does not indict it given its unique needs and concerns here right your honor there's a floor and that's what the heller vs d c case that by the supreme court upheld the district made the same arguments that it made here about its unique character and as a matter of fact the supreme court invalidated the handgun ban and it simply said this is not well it didn't do intermediate screwed it did it as a matter of wall but there's there's no narrow tailoring here there's just a disconnect completely between requiring law abiding citizens to register guns people who wouldn't misuse guns whether they will register or not and the requirement reasons why they think registration is necessary that the most critical reason that they set forth was also skin checks to see whether there might be a gun on the scene when they go on a call and it turns out that that was just a made up  reason it did not exist they impede it does not do that the other reasons that they gave in that list were things like that where you can arrest people for and registered guns and this court held that that was just a  they're people passing through town they're not criminals the district suggests in their brief that people who have one hundred guns are likely to be trafficking them or to be involved in robberies or things like that is totally unrealistic know what their jurisdiction nationwide requires all sharp objects so that as this court held in the original opinion long gun registration is novel it's not historical and there's no justification that's been set forth i mean judge well it's a question about the unique characteristics of the district a person who would misuse a long gun would not be of a person who would be dissuaded in any way by a registration wall and so there's just been no connection shown between longer we're talking about half the size of a constitutional right this is not a requirement for people who want to carry a gun on the street a concealed weapon this is basically keeping of the firearm in your own home the basic second and then the right and the require court found there was more justification for registering handguns and for requiring the burdens that do exist and there's less justification along guns his court said it might as well have been written in invisible ink in terms of the justification for that and we think you can distinguish between the burdens required for something that has more risk versus the same bird that might be required for something that has virtually no risk and in particular where there's been no so you say we can you can take account  to determine this is significant burden and then determine whether it's just the burden is the same in the the reason for the burden is a lot less in regard to long guns and i think that's what we got out of the first opinion and i think that's still the case now that it's it's a burden that in terms of lost employment experience there's a number of things that it's not a burden this imposed anywhere else in the country and it's for that reason we think that it just doesn't meet the requirement of narrow tailoring there's been no justification for it in terms of if we look at the rule of ever that seven and two for example people the witnesses for the district one could assume that any any residents there could be a gun and as a matter of fact that kind of thinking that justification which i found from the point i'm not smart enough to think this stuff myself but that was in their report would that be a justification that with  or the ability to put on into minutes for it would not be it would not be a justification because the kind of people who would actually mis use a gun would not register the gun ban same argument could have been applied with a handgun registration that's no different because we started with  registration for handguns round by prior precedent asked him in a mess and the argument that criminals won't do it anyhow was rejected there and that wouldn't be any different here with respect to long guns i think you're arguing with respect to long guns was be long long standing in terms of the restrictions and to make a hypothetical that somehow all the police would know were an assassin was in a building because the motorcade might be going by and to leave you in this criminal status things like taking the gun to the d c police department where you're taking it on the street and you're taking chances of being robbed or maybe being saying problem in terms of if you're caught with a gun you might spend two nights in the d c jail or if you go by a gun free zone you're subject to ten years incarceration so we think the court should look at both that long  registration as a whole we think is novel not historic and should be invalidated but if it's a failed there are certain provisions here that we've pointed out that there's been no showing of narrow tailoring there's been no justification whatever for some of provisions another example would be the provisional registry more than one handgun within a thirty day period one of our plaintiffs wanted to register two handguns within a thirty day period and there's been no showing this or try to try to and you want to register it that it's required and otherwise if you purchase it through a dealer like that the there's one d c dealer then it's not required but my council can correct me on that if that's not correct and i'm looking at the registration can we just as a matter of law do we have to take their registration package as a whole or do we have the capacity to say name address ok bring it to the station  the gun to the station no longer required that the registration gets cancelled every three years that would affect the overall scheme so we've not made the or is there some ability cause anywhere in the law or how do we know that they wouldn't they would have wanted that all or nothing or they would for any jurisdiction that would have registration i believe there is a severability clause but on the other hand we not made an argument that by throwing out some of those novel provisions that would invalidate the other provisions by the same token if before for licensing which wasn't challenge as well as an object to is the following the national criminal instant background check system it's a federal law exists in every state you buy a gun you show is simply didn't case manners to make you come into the district police headquarters and get photographed and fingerprinted there so we are our contention is if we're looking at for a look at it narrow tailoring the photograph itself so that you have a photograph on your registration certificate so when the the police or somewhere i need to see a registration certificate they can see right away that it's you that is registered to have that handgun that's just the photograph i don't talk about the other aspects that the photograph is something you see had registration when there was a separate wall that you need a license to carry a gun even in your own home i think the district now exempts that from the licensee or form i don't think that that law is in place the more but you're in our positional knows you don't need a driver's license just to keep a car in a garage in your own home without driving in terms of gun traditional gun regulations one you know in most places need to  carry a gun concealed else out of the home and so the distinction is there the burden wouldn't would not be that different but in terms of narrow tailoring next is a tight fit all that between the early exercise in the basic right to keep a gun in your own home vs carrying it generally speaking nationwide you need a permit to carry a gun you do not need a permit to keep a gun in your home and it's the same with an automobile you do not need a permit it's not a crime to own a gun or a car without a driver's license you just registration to voting registration farm registration to vote are very these are different concepts i mean with voting registration you'd never allow a poll tax and we have equivalent to that here you would never allow   literacy test and we have testing here so sometimes that these comparisons just are the exact but in terms of the burdens in some cases the burden might not be that different on the car in the driveway th it that your clients don't just want the gun but they actually want the ability to use it if needed for self defense in their home in their own home yes you are and it's not like a gun is just an actually do plan to use the guns if needed and they want to be in a position to use the guns if needed in there even in their homes i mean people would keep guns for many different purposes for self defense is a facial challenge i take it some of your clients if not all of them would like the ability to use these gu so you can keep it in your home and you can transport and that's that's all you could think of your place of business your honor actually it was a preexisting law that a registered gun could be kept in a place of business and  just want to go to my house just lay around in the house primarily that will be the case but there mr scott one of the plainest owns long guns that one could use for hunting or for target shooting that would be done outside the district of columbia requirements and heller two for further consideration it held that they would pass muster under intermediate scrutiny if they were substantially related to an important governmental objective on amanda destress had left to governmental interests protecting police officers and promoting public safety challenge one aspect of whether or not this pretext police officers and they said it was a central focus of that of the record but it was not in both the two thousand and eight and two thousand and twelve legislative records the council numerated several reasons and this is a j also think that there is a sufficient justification for protecting police officers you know trying to figure out it seems like in almost any case where you're challenging regulations the government's going to have going to win the interest side of the balance because erica they're always going to be able to say public safety health health and safety law enforcement safety and then these fights are always going to be about about how exactly this would would or would not advance an interest and i'm just wondering why summary judgment would be appropriate didn't seem like the discourse was taking the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs in making these same well doesn't matter it doesn't matter if you determine whether or not the second amendment interest is burdened if we are looking into intermediate scrutiny in determining the how the interests are weighed there was significant ample evidence in the record about registration  the harms that long guns cause so we have first in the two thousand and twelve report this is j one seventy seven to seventy nine an extensive discussion by the council about the unique nature of the district in acceptability to violence by long gun on the national rate is about four thousand deaths and so is the district through out its own experience as the site of some government to have particular concerns about motorcades political assassinations things like that but that is you can also rely on the fact that long gun violence does cause four thousand deaths absolutely thank you for talking about that judgment this notion that only law abiding citizens register guns is a red herring and under that theory municipalities would be limited from unhappy only those firearms laws that everybody would abide by and that's certainly not the case also there detract from the fact that the council had good reason to empower the executive branch to undertake those checks should they think it necessary to tension i don't believe some of the constitution permits a wide range of policy choices and so the council here was allowed to s policies are and she testified i believe that the title of a firearm is largely irrelevant for purposes of our destruction in that all firearms pose a threat to the public and therefore all firearms should be registered similarly you also have linear hersel testifying in this is it j ninety six and ninety seven about how long guns are more dangerous and so if a handgun requirement our registration requirement it doesn't impose on the constitution then as well a long gun requirement now if i can turn to the requirements of a background check thing or printing things like that plaintiffs don't take issue or argue that background checks themselves are unconstitutional they just prefer one form of a check over another they want this next check which is that the national instant criminal background check over the local checks of the district and docs but there was extensive testimony on that local checks are actually more effective and jurisdictions that have local checks have lower rates of gun violence then ones that just rely firearm to the register my understanding of the way that it works is still distant with mr holder is that if you are buying a weapon through federally licensed dealer and therefore you have a third party that's verifying what that weapon is there's no need to bring in the weapon but if you are falsely and they accomplish nothing at that point they have complied with registration requirements here not going to do if you're going to violate the laws or don't come in and all what do you have any evidence that anyone is when trying to register a gun falsely there doing their fingerprints they're getting the photograph taken but i'm going to give you the wrong serial numbers of all register a handgun and not a long time what have they possibly accomplished at that point well certainly i have nothing to point to in  materials that they're supposed to bring with them when they're registering a weapon in addition to having a firearm in that case since you know concealed in the ways that it's those to be what keeps them from getting shot on the way and if they've got a big you know long gun you can't hide  seen walk procida the police station and understandably in this modern world police are going to at least become acutely cautious and protective of someone's approaching the police station with a long judgment that don has to be disassembled and carried in a case in order i think to take advantage of the state are provisions of this isn't a chance a choice of someone you know getting off the metro shotgun in hands they are coming in with their gun disassembled in a case they  present their information to the n p t when they get there and say i'm here to register my weapon i have my weapon with me i mean it's no different then when law enforcement officers with weapons come into any security checkpoint and say to the security officers there you know i haven't gone i am lawfully authorized to carry it for this purpose and then registration was ineffective there was testimony that thousands of registrants had moved had died to become eligible to register weapons or even lost those weapons and hadn't notified n p t of that fact and so a simple common sense way to approach this is to have a regist requirement every three years where an individual who still resides in the district she was still able to purchase possess a gun will tell the m p that they want to continue having a registration permit for that weapon in the district  and from the district and then you can complete that paperwork online in that way it's much like renewing your registration for your driver's license or for your heart and so it's a process that takes care of the real and considered problem of the council identified and does on a way that i out especially for political jobs and so you know the district to be sure could every three years run checks on everybody in their database but they wouldn't need to because of people that have moved out of the district or people who sold their weapons there are people who have left the district and is that training in safety requirements and this is one where yes there was it's common sense that someone who wants to possess a gun should know how to use it should know how to keep it safely and that is because a gun is a dangerous weapon and all law enforcement agencies that require or used to be that there was a requirement of five hours of training you had to use an approved person now it is a free horse available online to take swim thirty minutes in an hour to complete that coverage with the district things are the important things they would reasonably assume  my understanding is that the one hour course covers everything the district wants you to know about gun laws and and gun safety and also the registration process itself was found by both the council and the expert to increase awareness about the gun laws in the district so that requirement that guns be registered generally promotes people to understand what the laws are and then there is this one hour free online course that people can do the required to do it once but they can certainly do it at  reduces illegal trafficking of weapons and that bulk purchase is our thirty three percent i want to play being i mean it seems to me it's a difference between regulating commercial sales which is what it purchasing requirement is or specifically said we're not saying anything about the ability of government to regulate commercial sales but the registration requirement regulates how many you can possess in your home  registering you know multiple weapons when there's no need in the fact you know protected second i guess it doesn't mean our celebrity bans the whole justification for registration is we want to know what guns people who maybe where they live with those guns of a motorcade going by we want to know we want to make sure people are conscious of the gun laws have gone through the training if they have them all of those were in favor of rushed her all the ones you have and don't have to do it piecemeal overtone i'm just seems to me now if you're saying registration is a means of stopping people from having the guns all together you know certainly you can run sure all of the weapons that you have this may li purchase to one of month because that's what you are allowed to register but i don't think the district's interest in reducing the number of guns in within the cities jurisdiction is somehow suspect as long as they are protecting the individual right to have a gun for self defense and i guns in the home because under intermediate scrutiny the district is allowed to carry out a gun policy that things will increase public safety as long as it's not doing so in an unduly burdensome way this doesn't need to get the least restrictive alternative it just needs to be something that is but different types of long guns for different purposes and different types of hunting whereas a pistol in the home for the right of self defense out there you know it is a handgun and so there might be reasonable restrictions on limiting those one every thirty days whereas long guns  i don't know i don't want to question what we'd argue that we're one per home i think that here it's we don't need to get into that much closer question it's just about a thirty day requirement and doesn't limit the total number of weapons that one may amass of the total amount of weapons one needed to the district which i don't understand that i am to have because you just i thought you just said that yeah we could limit it to i mean that is protected by the second amendment that if you have a right to have a weapon in the home for purposes of self defense that a legislature could if it had a sufficient basis to do so and you saw that there was a problem of the too many guns they were getting lost at a higher rate still in a higher rate and you have been you know illegal circumstances that they could have a basis for articulating a requirement of only allowing this record you said it's a trans am place someone moves in here they're only living here for thirty days they're working on a temporary special person in coming in for some senate hearing thirty days they're out their entire life in d c there's thirty days they're limited to one gun for self defense yes and i think the record to prevent the misuse of firearms especially when it comes to children and i think that comes from drones as testimony and they're also vince's testimony both of its own studies and on personal observation and that limits on purchase and registration are one of the most effective methods of disrupting a legal they're not used to determine who committed a crime and from chief lanier on page six fifteen they're not used to solve long gun crimes except for possessory offenses and then one other site seven sixty three of the appendix point that and i think police departments generally recognize that nobody checks nobody assumes the registration record will reflect that there will be no gun at the same do you would you put in the record if anything to dispute that fingerprints allow them to run a more thorough check of the local records than simply the social security number and the national check first of all the the nics the national check also checks local  about the reregistration they tell us they constantly check records of the registered guns and when they say that makes it more efficient to have reregistration so they can check for to see whether there's a legal disability that's come up we've never seen an answer either the research today how that somehow makes it more efficient when they're checking records all you do you dispute the evidence that they had in their record that fingerprints identified a lot more folks that shouldn't have guns than just a national check based on a social security number there's nothing in the record that discovered more people who shouldn't buy guns those were theoretical arguments that were made in the declarations but there was no evidence  for a longer period of time something doesn't work just keep trying it more i think that came from abraham lincoln that you know there's just no nexus between registration and the crime in and i think with longer and registration that's that so more horses more men thank you