not particularly controversial congressman to disarm quote risky people unquote and in traitor this court described the public safety concerns that underlay this interest in terms of as crime prevention the prevention of citizens and when we talk about fun more like the virtues that is not the same as virtuous as for example we know that people who suffer from mental illness are not necessarily going to be responsible people who would never see it the are two parts to to the answer the first part that i would look at is what motivated congress what is the reason the congress had whether they thought about the second ever or not what is it what is the statute intended to do it on this point the courts are uniform everybody including this  the statute exists now when we look at the second amendment as to what where the line is drawn between people who can have a gun and people who could not have a gun then we look at cases that such as what this court decided in  some of the descriptions by the government of our brief there is no facial challenge tonight when to do what is a categorical matter congress can legislate broadly for a nation of three hundred thirty million people but as as as courts uphold as a basic feature of our judicial system there is room for as applied challenges when it comes to as applied challenges when a person comes before the court and says this is generally applicable law should not be applied to me because in my case it's not constitutional the question then becomes abiding responsible citizens to defend themselves and traditionally it's been interested since the time of the framing the framers understood the concept of disarming dangerous risky people they were people were were although they did not have  ratifying convention which described you know as propounded by individuals whose views i gather were minority at the time of the front of the constitution but were persuasive and they had i was a little bit surprised that your reliance on it because it has the disjunctive the danger on the one prong and then the other problem is for crimes committed and there is also in heller discussion of not history and the precedents if you will just bear with me and and accept the notion that maybe the constitutionally permissible design and is not limited to people who pose for dangerousness people who have a disrespect for the law or people who are scofflaws and who have you know disdain for for the rules of society probably are not trustworthy with firearms everything goes back to dangerousness whereas  r responsibility on trustworthiness judgment and it here is to the socialist compact i mean i guess one thing is the person himself could be very peaceable but if he doesn't keep his firearms in a way that's responsible others children outlaws might get their hands on them so i mean i share you pushing back toward dangerousness and saying all these other things are proxies for or or concerned with where do you what makes you so confident that that's the only disabling condition you give them what we see and in the precedent in the history that is concerned with the separate law also says that the supreme court in heller taught us quote that legal regulation of possession or carrying legal regulations of possession or carrying that are longstanding including bans on possession by felons or bans on carrying their sensitive sites reflect limits the amendment yes well they're saying it just it's taken out of second member coverage altogether you know your idea that the problem with with going to that extreme is that if if congress can define anything at this that's a felony is therefore exclusion from a fundamental constitutional right then converse of that court has the power to define scope of a fundamental right which is of course not possible otherwise but it does i mean that's assuming a level of kind of capriciousness and bad faith on the part of congress that a felony is a serious crime and if you had reason to believe that congress was expanding the definition of fouling to things that were trivial because they were trying to disarm the people you might have you know claimed to process disproportionality what have you but it's a it's a pretty stable and over said he responds the lifetime disability argument by saying you know the avenues to deal with bad are through pardon or expunge around or restoration of civil rights and that your client who you know man in fact able to make his case as a model citizen should seek a pardon well your honor while he should have access to seek a pardon that's not the exclusive way to vindicate likes people who come before court and file a judgment under a legal system and say i am i have a constitutional injuring fact the government enforcing a law against me it's not constitutional and get a judge me thinks about the constitutional issue to decide the case rather than of a lawyer a pardon  w that is not an unusual decision it's no different than what this court said in shrader where this court said that the federal farmstand will remain vulnerable to properly raised as applied constitutional challenge an individual who despite a prior conviction has become a law abiding responsible citizen entitle and i'm going to back that we're entitled to use forms in defense of her thin home now what shrader tells us with this formulation which is consistent with formulations in the seventh circuit the first the eighth or ninth circuit the third circuit of course the boppin been dropped approved of as apply challenges this court's usage of the word entitle to think is is telling because it tells us that this is a one person is a law abiding responsible citizen then there cannot be a step two because the government has no into yes there's no tailoring this possible that would allow the government to disorder a person because that's step one we've proven that there's no interest because  i'm curious mr gurr in the cases that suggest the parish there is a right to a case by case as applied challenge and also in the third circuit which from america in the challenge i right that all of those cases were in the situation of a state law misdemeanor today are there any cases that have and i'm just curious why this is there but it seems to me that there's no cases  federal felony conviction and the court said case by case let's look at this person after the passage of in your client's case decades and peaceable life and no further offenses three  and no court has adopted the sort of standardless holistic individualized approach that plaintiff asks this court to adopt here to the contrary several courts for example most recently the fourth circuit while leaving the issue open in prior decisions when actually confronted with the question have rejected the approach and so on hamilton the flows to the fourth circuit held that an individual convicted of a felony offense permanently forfeit their second amendment rights and they're not  an individualized encourage but determine whether they're dangerous in the future that's not a prerequisite for the such an application and indeed such an approach would pose all kinds of problems as underscored by congress's experience with section  and is simply not required the historical understanding underpinning that is that firearms rights have historically been subject to categorical disarmament of individual to outside of the virtuous citizenry fall outside the virtuous of the right and so it's certainly not the case that a felon who has been disenfranchised can come into court and say you know please about the way my individual circumstances now is such that i should be entitled to   that some second amendment scrutiny applied here we would conduct an intermediate scrutiny analysis which your briefs are hansack but if we're looking at the individual as applied it just seems like that's it i don't see how that matches up with an enemy this could now since the very nature of which is to say you know that and there doesn't have to be an exact fit between the class of regulated so medina wins or out of the second amendment no means and scrutiny medina loses permanently no matter what an angel he becomes i mean this court of the traitor definitely adopted the two s what this court adopted intermediate scrutiny so so the government has to you know what i'm trying to get you to do is play for the record what you mean by intermediate crude right so the law has to be appropriately tailored to a compelling interest doesn't have sufficiently important interest here and in doing this court upheld the statute as applied to common law mr nansen shrader so that so that conclusion of course also follows for felons the real question than the plaintiff is presented  here is whether he's entitled to an individual lies determination of his own dangerousness to it this point it would seem to me that we are looking in partly for it whether it's appropriately i don't think you get two for  misdemeanors that actually made the crime the report of the crime becomes one more than two years and of course here we're dealing with someone convicted of a federal felony so that's not congress who's being non arbitrary if that's a year under federal law and so what congress wanted to do was for that specific area because only a handful states and middletown at that time provide for uniform treatment now that's entirely different when you're doing here with fraud that has been a federal fel i'm no longer dangerous as such you should no longer apply to me but that has no basis in the historical understanding of the riot it's not required by images for me and it would create all kinds of problems of ministry billeted and that really courts have no reason to them now there are no further questions thank you is that you're talking about the desire by the congress to disarm people and if the person is a law abiding at the end of the day a law abiding response a person who is not dangerous and there is no interest at all involved in disarming that person then there is no possible tailoring that's why shrader used the word intitled in that second part that was not a two step analysis shrader had a two step analysis with respect to the kind of court will challenge the first part of frater  asserted challenge and said as a category people convict of come along misdemeanors should be exempt from one through three g one because there isn't any sort of statutory definition of the of their crime at all in the court rejected that on a two step analysis but then when it came has to end there so the question becomes is this person before the court a law abiding responsible citizen and it's not simply for congress to decree the bounds of a fundamental constitutional right requires a court in the first instance to analyze  question and make a determination and that's what mr medina is entitled to even if it's expensive even if it's uncertain courts make decisions about people every single day in a myriad of contacts and we're talking here about a fundamental constitutional right this should be access