we'll hear the first case on calendar libertarian party versus yesterday you seem to have the misfortune of losing clients along the way and one of the moved away one of them died that is correct your any other casualties the libertarian party  is no longer a viable party i was persuaded by the arguments of count so i believe that we will be making a motion to dismiss ginny rober who is deceased i'm trying to get in touch with her stated administrator with respect to well with respect to michael koos mom he was in the on licensed category he recently became h it's really a if you challenging the licensing statute and we are in my clients believe that if the supreme court under heller in mcdonald that the right understanding is that the doctrine is quite flexible but we have a right here that if it's taken away on like the first amendment you can you can be killed we said the complaint that there's several hundred americans killed in this in americans killed by police officers there's certainly thousands of americans who are on the street so i think you have to look at the nature of the right when it comes to standing and the type of challenge to the statute this is a fundamental right it's a preexisting right that's why it says the right to bear arms it goes back and you're going to be on the people who don't pay taxes standing well i think it's a different issue again this is an issue that undergirds the very nature of a democracy because if the people don't have the right of sovereignty as exercise in the declaration of independence how are they going to keep that sovereignty you could say well we have elections well what if elections were canceled a lot of countries have at elections and elections cancelled now we haven't had any of these things in this country and we submit well we do have to write we do have the right to bear arms now there's been categories of citizens point out in the brief who are in categories of people who are not considered citizens and oh my gosh they were treated very harshly throughout history you know so your view that this yes you're the individual who is planning to  give a speech that is restricted by the government doesn't have to give the speech or doesn't have to be as you have to even start giving a speech just can think can plan on know that they would not be able to speak if they if they spoke out and therefore they would have standing to it that's an excellent question your honor and i i would go back to some of the scholarly works i've been reading which say that it really goes application of as applied and it was more of a facial facial challenge but again your honor if i think the analogy would be if we license the first amendment right and if you license the right to bear arms which is absolutely fundamental and  creation of our very existence our country how can you campaign finance laws you have to you have to do various forms of registration you have to do various forms of reporting limits to what you can  limitations well there is a limitation there it's a different if it's a different right if you it's fundamental and i i take your point your honor but let me throw let me throw this out if i can give whatever two thousand to a candidate i'm not going to die the next day if i don't have the right to protect myself i might be dead the next day because by the time you call the police it's too late ninety nine percent of the time so i think that squarely the issue of licensing and even if the even if the court is going to hold that new york can license the new york regime which is treats the right to bear arms as an absolute privilege unfettered discretion there's almost no reversals it takes years to get a permit in some cases it takes thousands of dollars to challenge it that right however you going to be some overlap between that case and this case i'm roughly familiar but if i may be in my remaining sac and say intermediate scrutiny here's my here's our problem with intermediate scrutiny just as prior  a a balancing test that i think was actually even more favorable so the gun owners and justice scalia rejected that furthermore intermediate scrutiny is not if you look at the verbal formula  of relation to a compelling government interest where is the where is any value whatsoever given to the right to bear arms whether it's the right against governmental tyranny as we discussed in a very for the right against private crime it's given zero weight it's a formula that's pre determined to find that any particular law based on some loose so called and careful studies will be valid so i think that's our problem with intermediates really it's not consistent with plaintiff left in this case that nothing nice or best says about the scope of the second amendment right impacting the law there or the methodology for evaluating second amendment claims would affect the outcome of this case because this case now only features a person who is not law abiding and responsible and nicer but concerns the rights of law abiding whoever saree points out this is a person who has never committed a felony not just of this person examples and not exhaustive examples and that's why multiple circuit courts have upheld prohibitions on other categories of individuals such as domestic violence in the stimulants and in this case mr tare was denied a firearm because a licensing concluded that his repeated failure to follow federal and state court orders constituted good cause to think that the current cases pending in the supreme work which bears upon the licensing system regulate in this area and that that that that is important to our decision if this court were being put in the position of having to construe some aspects of the second amendment right or  some aspects of the methodology for evaluating second amendment claims yes but this this is now an easy case with mr maher tare because the kinds of restrictions that operated against him the fact that his circumstances showed good cause for a denial that's entirely consistent with the way that heller itself defined the scope of the second amendment right and it also clearly advances substantially advances the interest in public safety but the court doesn't have to reach that you're maybe jumping the gun a little bit because your adversary is attacking the entire regulatory system and you're assuming that there's a valid system can be that can be valid and in many many because of the argument he's made in don't we have to listen to what the supreme court says and also there's intermediate intermediate scrutiny applied they may have you know that's going to be a question before them even if we just look at the scope  historical right that heller focused on it was focused on law abiding and responsible people i mean if the this court has any concerns that the nicer case may provide helpful guidance the defendants would not object to the court holding the case and if this case is still pending by the time the nicer by case is decided then we'd appreciate the opportunity to submit supplemental briefs but on the current posture this case simply consists of a non law abiding and responsible persons challenge to new york's requirement to possess a license in order to possess a firearm and new york's requirement that no license be issued to a person as to whom there is good cause for a denial mr retiree doesn't even have standing to challenge the good moral character or proper cause for public carrying aspects of new york's regulatory scheme because those were not the reasons why he was denied a license and in joining those aspects of the scheme would not result in him getting a license  well my my friend on the other side made some reference to the fact that this being in enumerated right in a particular kind of right it's inappropriate to license it or regulated in any way heller itself disposed of that claim and that's yet another reason why the nicer case is not going to provide necessary further guidance for this court because the principles that this court would need to resolve this particular case were already laid out in heller heller itself recognized that the second amendment right is not unlimited it was a preexisting right belonging to law abiding and responsible people and it is a not a right the belongs to anybody whatsoever to do anything whatsoever and just very briefly want to address plaintiff more tarries challenge to the good cause requirement and that challenge can't state a claim regardless of the level of scrutiny that this court might apply or whether means and scrutiny does apply because it's a longstanding provision that together with the good moral character requirement is designed to keep firearms away from people who are not law abiding and responsible and that's exactly how licensing officers and new york courts do read those terms they read them in light of the statute which makes clear that the criteria that licensing officers look to are characteristics that indicate whether somebody will comply with fire alarm laws and use firearm laws responsibly finally my friend on the other side has suggested that means and scrutiny is inconsistent with heller because that was rejected by the supreme court in heller and that's not correct the d c circuit explained why that was in heller too and it's that what justice pryor was proposing was an interest balancing approach that looked to proportionality whether the degree of burden on the second amendment right was proportionate to the degree of benefit that the government would get for the regulate from the regulation and heller specifically noted that the problem with that approach is that it wasn't even similar to any type of means and scrutiny that courts ordinarily appl constitutional rights so heller itself expressly distinguished between standards of scrutiny like intermediates on the one hand and the interest balancing approach on the other hand if the court has no further questions we would ask the court to dismiss the appeals cuthbert the person who moved outside of new york state as moot miss raper the person who died her appeal should also be just as missed is moot and then the remainder of the rebuttal just just briefly heller does have a list of factors and indicates that it's not exhaustive but it would seem to be have to be of that level if for example someone had a bunch of court orders that they did not comply with would we take their first amendment rights right away we take the fourth amendment right away their fifth amendment right away  would also like to point out that mr manji elo we believe has standing for at least damages because his license was suspended  without just cause without any notice and there was a considerable delay which i think is pointed out in the complaint which obviously must be deemed correct you value the damages i think that would be love to get that in front of a jury your hon unless the court has any further questions i believe the problem of the intermediate scrutiny and i don't deny the the description of council is again at the end of the day it gives zero w to the value of the however you define it zero way to the value of the right to bear arms and that's inconceivable thank you thank you reserve decision