we'll hear argument st this morning in case eighteen to eighty of the new york state rifle and pistol association versus the city of new york mr clement mr chief justice and may please the court text history and tradition all make revised regulations that any such transport be continuous in uninterrupted are premised on a view of the nd amendment as a homebound right with any ability to venture beyond the curtilage with a firearm even locked in unloaded a matter of government grace that view is inconsistent with text history tradition and this court's cases the text of the nd amendment protects right to keep and bear arms that latter right makes clear that the nd amendment protects rights that are not strictly limited to the premises and there is no historical analogue for the city's prohibition on transporting firearms to places where they may be lawfully used to the contrary the  nd congress required the militia to take their own firearms from their homes to the training ground and the regulations on limiting where firearms may be discharged were training may occur that the city invokes both underscored that the general rule was that firearms could be safely transported between and among places where they could be used in discharged this court recognized as much in heller both by recognizing the long history of handgun possession outside the home and by recognizing the government's interest in limiting possession in sensitive places not every place outside the home the city of course has struggled mightily ever since this court granted search rory to make this case go away but those efforts are unavailing and only underscore their continuing view that the transport of firearms is a matter of municipal grace rather than constitutional right the standards for mr mr coleman the city has now been blocked by a state law on the state has not been party to these proceedings the state is citied not enforce the regulations so what's left of declaration that the transport van is in ours was unconstitutional but we would also be entitled to an injunction that did three things one prohibit future enforcement of the transport b and nd prevent the city from taking past conduct in violation of the paying and into account in licensing decisions and rd an injunction that safeguard our right to transport meaningfully such that it wouldn't be limited to continuous an uninterrupted transport the that's actually not correct justice ginsburg if you look at paragraphs one hundred and twenty one thousand five hundred and seventeen of the complaint at pages twenty eight and twenty nine of the joint appendix all three of the individual petitioners allege that they regularly went outside the city of new york to firing ranges in outside westchester basically and in new jersey so all three of my clients are on the record as saying that in the past they engaged in conduct that is inconsistent with the like that that's the representation they made to this court well just to sort of i were in their latest letter they were very careful about what they represented they represented that they wouldn't try to prosecute somebody from past conduct if that past conduct didn't violate the current regulations so if the past conduct happened to involve a stop for coffee and not continuous and on iraq you have transferred to with the current law and that hasn't been decided by the court below that that's something that's a complaint about the limits of the current law and not the limits of the old law you're asking us to mix apples and oranges now well i don't think so just to sort of my or i think what i'm asking you to do is exactly what this court did in the knox case no mr clement what you're asking us to do is to take a case in which the other side has thrown in the towel and completely given you every single thing you demanded in your complaint for relief and you're asking us to all pine on a law that on the books anymore and one that's not on the books not because of something necessarily the city did but because the state a party who's not a party to this litigation has changed the law and prohibited them from doing i'm really think what we're asking to do is exactly analogous to what was before this court not in knox the thrust of the underlying complaint was that the supplemental fee assessment that the union imposed on the members was unconstitutional that's what the complaint framed and then what you want now in terms of the contiguous we don't even know whether the study is taking the the position that you can't stop for a cup of coffee presumably if you leave your gun in the car i'm not sure how they would know you were traveling with a gun but well so before i put it aside let me just say i think we do know the answer to that because in subsection seven of the new regulations that they promulgated specifically to try to move this case they made clear that the kind of transport they were allowing at least within the city of new york had to be continuous and uninterrupted i don't know what continuous and uninterrupted means if it doesn't if it does it means that you can make stops for coffee and i assure you i think the right way to think about this for article three purposes is if we had been successful in the lower court and proposed an injunction a guarantee the words continuous and uninterrupted would not be in our proposed injunction if the city had offered their proposed injunction and included that limitation we would have said we don't accept that we think that's inconsistent with the right that we just prevailed on and that dispute would be a continuing dispute that would render the case not moot just like in knox there was a continuing dispute about the sufficiency of the refund notice that the union offered poster sharara in its effort to moot the case the dispute that was still live between the parties about the sufficiency of the refund notice wasn't the exact same dispute that initiated the litigation but th still alive controversy for article three purposes and this court decided both the question presented and then also addressed the refund notice this court could address the question presented here and leave the question of continuous and uninterrupted for the and then research or consideration of the new laws interpretation for the lower courts i don't know how that doesn't constitute mootness on the issue that's before us what w and you agree that everything by the continuous and uninterrupted has been resolved and that you've gotten everything you wanted as demanded in your complaint you can travel to a nd home you can travel to any lawful firing range that's all your original complaint demanded if you got all of that that is the issue that was before your question is whether and you could read we should leave that to the courts below what continuous continuous and uninterrupted is that happens to go to the new law not the old one with respect just sort of my or we don't think we've gotten everything that we could have gotten if we prevailed in the district court including continuous and uninterrupted but also we would like with all due respect given our five years of history in this litigation with my friends on the other side we'd like something more than their representations to protect us against the use in the future of past kind i haven't licensing to i have one question is she trying to give you a lifeline by saying you could get damages but i read  your representations to court and you said we could get damages i don't see your requests for relief either damages are nominal in your complaint and you don't say we want damages in your submissions to us did us for damages nominal or we asked for all other appropriate relief in our complaint we did not make a specific request for damages below i'm happy to affirm that we'd like damages but i also think that you know that we are circumcision to amend your complaint to see that we would have to do that but with all due respect to the solicitor general we were happy that they recognized the case wasn't moot but we didn't really feel like we needed a damages a lifeline because we think we had ginsburg perhaps might my colleague from the u s g s office will have one since that was his suggestion but we think we have plenty of cases from this court that are analogous to this situation and indeed with respect i don't think the practice of getting the recognition areas granted that a search grant may not signal anything good for the defendant i mean that's quite common practice if they then come up with an idea to moot the case just if you think of a couple of recent cases not just knox but trinity lutheran and parents involved all involved late breaking efforts often by government entities to make the case go away in each case this court said no that's too little too late and if this court starts accepting these kind of posts it's going to be very hard for the court to continue to have you have this think it's bad when people who have an argument settle their argument and those three are no longer is one so i wonder if you should i ask them this question you say this case is the law because the city of new york might prosecute one of your clients because they stopped for coffee on the way to a firing range i think i'm going to ask them that and i have a suspicion they will say no we aren't going to prosecute that particular individual so then we truly do should we have it as you think they will they think they will right so that suggests to me that we have the kind of live controversy and if the standard for movements is whether it is possible to provide effectual relief i guarantee an injunction backed by contempt that enforces those promises is going to give my clients more effectual relief and do keep in mind what makes this case quite different from a lot of others is this is a discretionary licensing process where the city makes judgments about good moral character there are seventy nine officials in the lights unsing department of the city of new york where are they going to look for guidance they could i think look for guidance to a court ordered injunction i'm not sure they going to pull the transcript from this argument let alone a letter from the city to the solicitor general's office for this so we think we're entitled to that kind of meaningful effectual relief we think on the merits this case is actually quite straightforward because there is no historical analog for this kind of transportation restriction as i suggested if you look at the nd militia act passed by the nd congress they not only understood that you could transport your firearms from your home to a place where they could be lawfully discharged but they require it of the members of the militia if you look at the history and traditions of this country there are very few laws that tried to do anything like this and the few that tried to do this were invalidated by the courts to comment is as i understand new york scheme new york has two kinds of licenses it has a premises license and it has a carry license and you're attacking the premises license scheme on the grounds that it doesn't allow you to carry so why didn't you just attack the carry license scheme if you want to carry why didn't your clients get to carry license well justice kagan i think what my clients wanted in this lawsuit and plenty of other lawsuits out there challenging kerry restrictions but they wanted the right to transport not the right to carry on sporting is a kind of carrying you take your gun and it goes with you someplace that's a kind of carrying i will agree with that i think it's also a kind of bearing which is why i think this is such a straightforward case i think it's pretty well i'm asking is is is there's a premises sc and a carrying scam and your clients want to carry which suggests that you should have brought a challenge to the carrying scam if you thought that that was sufficient again with respect to my clients for years had at least two of the three had what the city for a while called a target license and it didn't give them a full right to carry but it did give them the right to transport their firearms to new jersey and other places probably would have allowed a nd home though i'm not sure that issue squarely present it my clients did not insist on getting a carry license either under the before this lawsuit was filed or in this lawsuit what they wanted is to restore rights to transport their firearms between and among places where they could be lawfully used that's different from a license that says i get to have this firearm with me at all times loaded ready to go what they want is to restore their right to transport firearms locked and unloaded between places where they can be lawfully used that's what they asked for that is what there is no historical analog for and if i could emphasize i think it would send a very important signal to the lower courts to say that when a regulation like this is inconsistent with text and has no in a log in history or tradition it is unconstitutional full stop the way the lower courts have interpreted heller is like text history and tradition is a one way ratchet if text history and tradition sort of allow this practice then they'll uphold the law but text history and tradition are to the contrary then the courts proceed to a watered down form of scrutiny that's heightened in name only and i think this court should reaffirm that text history and tradition essentially is the test and room or a shooting range outside the city limits consistent with nd amendment new york now you're going to hear in one minute there is no new york city or transporting a license law and a loaded hand n to a home or other place out i think you'll hear that now what do your very brief response there's a question presented they say there is no ban and you say you can finish the question that mostly briefly thank you mr chief justice i thank you so my answer in a in a nutshell is knox my slightly longer answer is every time this court robbery maneuver to try to move a case it almost by definition will try to take away from you the question presented that's what happened in not the question presented concerned the constitutionality of the special assessment it didn't concern the adequacy of the refund notice but yet this court decided both thank you thank you counsel mr chief justice and may please the court one point on the merits and want to move us on the merits tax history and tradition all condemn new york's transport ban such bans have been rare and commonly struck down precisely because the right to keep arms and keep and bear arms must entail and has always and hilde the ability of a law abiding citizen to carry a firearm unloaded and locked from one waffle place to another on mootness petitioners pointed below on this federal fifty four dollars c which says the prayer of relief binds on a default judgment but it doesn't bind when you've litigated on the merits and so the question for article three purpose now great that there are questions about prevention questions about whether under the rules a court should allow them to inject the theory and it would have to weigh that against the city's tardiness in changing its theory of the case as well but for article three purposes the question under mission products and knox's is it impossible for a court to grant a factual release it is not it is possible f merits before the city suggested moodiness and we felt compelled to explain to the court our view one movie didn't it come up and john green oh is that the name of the case and it was decided the other way that the court said no we're not going to allow that to happen so i think judgment stage of their economic harms no to be sure there are focused on damages what they wanted was to engage in the conduct they wanted an injunction i mean what yours has done damages is an understatement they practically want to take damages they've had every opportunity to say that they want damages including today and for whatever reason mr clement has you know basically said this case is not about damages that's not why we think it's not moot and that's not what we want so i heard mr clement say i'm happy to a clients want damages but we don't think we need that lifeline from the solicitor general we think are the series of good we will disagree on some of those other theories but i think the the question under knox amission products it is is it impossible for a court to war damages here there is evidence in the record of economic harm if they get a declaration on the merits that they're right as a matter of the nd amendment there is no barrier to their receiving an award of damages from a court which you remind me what complete we are in the complaint they said sure so i think the best of harm one is the competitions they were not allowed to attend with the firearms and the other is the cost of dues and membership fees to the in city ranges which i think implicitly they're suggesting are higher than the out of city visual i mean they filed a complaint they filed a motion for summary judgment they brief this case before the nd circuit they filed a cert petition then in response to the suggestion of glutenous they filed another brief there and in none of those places did they ask for damages damages has been injected into this case because of the solicitor general and you know very late breaking three page letter book  future consequences and say that the city's representations have come to lead it has an express scheme that allows you to consider the i thought that in your brief in your letter brief you specifically rejected every other theory of of why this case was alive we do think that the court credits those kinds of assertions by government a litigant a did in the few minutes the facts here are a little different you have a scheme that expressly allows you to consider the conduct you don't have any acknowledgement from the city that its former conduct was unconstitutional and you have a representation that comes as m it that you rejected mr clements theory about this continuous travel and stopping for coffee i think it's a close call on our view that's a new controversy that arises from the new law and not the old controversy over all but i think it's a i think it's  relief that would allow them to take their firearms law safely to a range and stop along the way for a cup of coffee or a bathroom break and that that is still being denied under the if that's a proper reading will last new york about that i'm sure but if that's still a proper reading of their existing regulations why isn't there a lot of controversy remaining that would seem to be a dealt a relief that has been denied them oh i do think there is a alive controversy potentially now about the meaning of this continuous an uninterrupted requirement i just think that arises from the new law and the promise i think we have why doesn't arise why isn't a dispute still alive from the old will if that's a form of relief that would have sought and i still despite the new law being denied them isn't that a classic definition of relief that's was sought but now still despite hercules in late breaking efforts to move the case still alive  if the court wanted to say that i don't think it would harm the united states is interest so you're not aware of any president would for clothes and in fact that's pretty much what knox did isn't it well except that knox was in the government a little good so i think the presumption of voluntary association worked a little differently but to just of course it's just to go to the question i think in the district court the fight was about whether they could do the thing at all and now we have a what strikes us as a different fight about the manner in which they can go and the legal restriction is different the legal restriction now is tied to the new law but no i'm not aware of any fairly dreaded words relief they have granted but not total relief that the plaintiffs sought you to agree with that i would agree with that i think there is still a controversy about the manner in which they can go that seems somewhat different to us from the controversy that was litigated below in that this court agreed to hear but i don't think there's any case that would keep the court from going down that road if i could turn to the merits for just a minute i think all of them petitioners are asking for is a fairly modest ask is for the court to reiterate what it said in power that the lower courts have been correct in starting with tax and history and tradition but they have created as mr clement said the sort of the symmetry where they find that history and tradition can give a thumbs up to a law but not a thumbs down i'm sorry can i go back to that question in what other area constitutional area the st amendment in particular have we'll decided any case based solely on texas history and tradition this seems sort of a made up new standard and i thought how it was very careful careful to say we don't do that we treat it like any other constitutional provision and i analogize this to the st amendment which is what heller suggested we should do this seems to be to be a time place and manner restriction it may not pass any of the standards of scrutiny but if you're looking at a st amendment right to speak it's never absolute there are some words that are not protected when i have a different fight about that at some point are there some weapons that are not protected just like there might be some words that are not protected we know that under the st amendment that there are time place and manner restriction is that a government can close on the basis of safety and other things on the basis of safety you can't have a demonstration at will you need a permit and you have to have certainly quick meant in certain protections and certain things so if i treated in that way we might have a fight about whether texas history and tradition permits a time manner and place restriction of this type but i don't know why that's a freestanding test so two points just are sort of my the st is i understand manner restrictions i understand the requirement that you carry the gun on mode or that you do it in a locked in teener but a ban is not a time place or manner restriction and in determining which category falls into what's permissible heller said you start with text history and tradition and the court commonly does that even under the st man with respect to categories the th the member for search the th amendment for the jury trial right hell er just as you start here and starting here i think this is a straightforward case there is no historical analog in a contrary tradition thank you thank you counsel mr chief justice and may it please the court contrary to how they're presenting it now petitioners framed this case narrowly they argued that a premises licensed premises license specifically must allow certain limited transport of the licensed hand case is moot because changes in state and city law have given petitioners everything they asked for and indeed more than that petitioners suggest these changes should be viewed skeptically but it's a good thing and not a cause for concern when the government litigation resolving matters through the democratic process this is solicitor general agrees that all the objections actually raised by petitioners to movements are unfounded but suggest that the court could proceed to the merits of the constitutional questions anyway because petitioners might be in the future be able to add a new claim for damages that they have never asserted and still now only most reluctantly embrace the court has never adopted that kind of reasoning under article three and it should not begin with this case and the nd implication of the case is framing is that if the case weren't moot the only question presented on the merits would be whether it premises license must as an adjunct there to include the implied transport rights sought by petitioners the petitioners now invoke a general right to bear arms outside the home a premises license is not addressed to that purpose opin premises license is instead issued for possession in a particular place and petitioners never challenge the separate new york license that is addressed to carrying weapons outside the home which is to carry license those broad questions are not properly part of this case turning  st to the issue of and i'll go straight to the question of coffee stubs there are two levels to this response st is there is no dispute on that question the city's enforcement the governing standard is provided by state law here because the state in akron pre amps local law the continuous and uninterrupted language cited by a friend is not in the state law the city acknowledges that and the cities and foresman position is that coffee stops bathroom breaks are entirely violation of the nd amendment and suppose that after that one of the plaintiffs had made a trip to a firing range in let's say new jersey and while there decided to stop to visit his mother for a couple of hours to take care of a few things for her would there be any law that would violate that would be i think i'm not certain that it would i think that would have to be a question now to be litigated under the state law with no no no we're back without the new laws city or state would that have been would that have been legal conduct if that happened prior to the changes in after a judgment that the old law was unconstitutional prior to the of any new law i don't think it's at all clear because that question those kind of questions were never put it issue or litigated in the case and so what you don't know what you don't know whether there's any city law that that would violate if there were a judgment that said that our have obtained as a result of the new city ordinance and the new state law is a rule that says yes you can take the firearm to a firing range outside of new york city but it must be a direct  include an hour spent with your mother i think that the answer is that article three analysis is always focused on what the plaintiffs asked for not speculation about what might have been an injunction here and the in the only thing that was ever put issue here and  you can see this by looking at the actual injunction that plaintiff's frame was permissible categories of destination shooting ranges and nd homes outside where is the injunction the plaintiffs rant it's in it's in a number of documentaries and i don't remember the numbers off hand but they're in the summary judgment in both motions for preliminary judge injunction motions for summary judgment across several different docket numbers injunctions were repeatedly proposed by the petitioners that basically verbatim identical in what they say is they wanted injunction restraining the city from enforcing its old rule in any manner that would prohibit or preclude plaintiffs from traveling to shooting ranges and nd homes i'm like why wouldn't that include a non direct trip here are the issue of directness it was never ever litigated as part of this case it was never in the complaint we have no idea but what the answer to that question might be if it had been litigated but it is not what plaintiffs the article three analysis focuses on with plaintiffs asked for and what they asked for dealt with permissible categories of destination and that is more than fully addressed by the state and city law to turn to now to the question of future consequences we are we would as i've said the issue about coffee stops is that entirely thing in dispute we would not undertake any any prosecution or action now based on that or any other vile relation of the repeal law point is there any way in which any violation could prejudice going to not that not that i can think of the city is committed to closing the book on that old rule and we're not going to take it into effect is or any way in a finding of would prejudice further options available to the petitioners in this case for example seeking damages i don't i don't think so i mean the they have they do have a time bar on on on damages but it depends it would depend on the allegation they made that never made any allegations related to damages and i think we have to assess that based on the allegations they make i think the other key point on future consequences is there's really no factual basis in the complaint for that mystical meant for the st time today suggests that the complaint may alluded to a possibility of past violations it certainly did not allege that these petitions had violated this the  rule in the past and the most important thing to know about about those paragraphs of the complaint is that the petitioners would have been would have had their licenses renewed at least twice i now see how simple i just make sure i understood stood you correctly earlier i understood you to suggest that there will be no collateral consequences to anyone for violating the city's prior ban any kind of collateral consequences no basis to think there would be you know i'm i'm wondering you're  and so i'm asking the city representative here that the city will that woman there will be no collateral consequences from the city two individuals who violated the prior absolutely correct there will be none or any and they like making that  representation to this court on the record on behalf of the city of new york i'm not going to because i want to be careful for you and for society you're not representing if they shot somebody with a gun that you're not going to prosecute them for that correct you're just not going to prosecute them for any violation of this old law of the repealed provisions of the law that's right if if there were other potential acts of loaded guns violent acts that that's different but the repeal provisions of the old law we will not prosecute anyone for i guess my my question and some of the others went beyond prosecution the question is whether they would be prejudiced in any way for example with respect to qualifying for a premises license under the new law with the fact of a violation of the prior law be used against their will not absolute will not end and i think a deeper point is there is no reason to think there are there are such violation there are such violations if we refer back to the complaint as i noted before these petitioners have been renewed their licenses have been renewed twice at least since that complaint was filed do you have a way do you have a way mr dering and i take it these licensing decisions are made by the office and office and the new york police department do you have a way of communicating to that office what they are not permitted to do given your representation absolutely and we consulted that office there where of this we will communicate to them that there are no such consequences are are to be imposed in the event and in the extreme leon likely and i think not going to happen event that that anyone thought that that might have happened they should bring that to the attention of a lot of harm and we'll review would make sure that it's a trust i do though want to just put a slightly finer point on the lack of factual basis in any event for the claim of future consequences  the petitioners only now have made this allusion to their complaint they've been renewed twice since then the court of course ordinarily presumes individuals follow the law even before this case our practice was not to ask people to disclose past violations unless it had resulted in the arrest summons revocation or something like that and there is no suggestion that any petitioner has had any of those events you think it's really fair for you at this point to  look for specific allegations in a complaint to defeat a claim that the plaintiffs had no reason whatsoever to anticipate until after we granted search rory and the city decided to try to move this case this that just confirms that the plaintiffs got everything they asked for in this case there's nothing in the issue of potential that i distracted from that they got everything they asked for if you say well they didn't ask for a nominal damages they didn't ask for actual damages they didn't specifically allege that they violated the old law you really explained didn't allege that they wanted to make a non direct trip how could any plaintiff possibly having to support that until you took quite extraordinary step of trying to move the case after we grant review in st the state legislatures passed a new state law yeah and did the city have nothing to do with  enactment of that law the support of the law as we do with many many potential bills and most of them go no where the state legislature and the governor made their own decisions make their own decisions about what to enact of course responsive to their statewide constituency and that's what happened here when local governments respond to the constitutional constraints that are suggested by others in litigation but it does seem a bit much doesn't it to fault plaintiffs for not having a specific damages requirement in their prayer for relief and a complaint that was framed years ago this litigation i think is taken five plus years and that has become relevant only at this late stage after the city and the state have an act of the new law why isn't the prospect of allowing damages to be added to the complaint enough hold people to their prayers for that if why isn't there at least a fair prospect that a district court on and would allow an amended complaint to seek actual damages with two answers one is that not how the court is approaching this questions into a decision on the merits that question is a jurisdictional one and the solicitor general is mistaken that it can be deferred to later and the merits reach anyway but the prior point i think is equally important which is that it's not a matter of faulting the plaintiffs but the plaintiff chose the case they wanted to bring as plaintiffs to demands for relief are taken very seriously there crafted carefully in the one of the reasons they're crafted carefully is that litigation demands are meant to cause a defendant to consider whether to meet that demand and in in this case this demand was crafted not just in the prayer for relief but the numerous paragraphs of the complain that the case was consistently litigated in accord with that structure of the complaint and in fact even after the mutinous question arose the petitioners in their in their length think comprehensive response never suggested she think it's totally irrelevant that the state has at this late stage sought to move the case when we're assessing the prospect and the interests of the plaintiffs in seeking damages i think it is because of the reason demands are made in litigation is to prompt a defendant to decide whether to meet them not to decide later if they do meet them to to reinvent the case and make it something else and the clearest example for me because of the cases you agree that the at least be a fair prospect that a district court on remand might disagree with you and find that there is reasonable excuse for the plaintiffs introduction of damages at this stage i don't think so i'm not i'm not aware of any case for anything like that has happened in fact consistent decisions from the courts of appeals have said listen if we disagreed with you then what is still not enough i think because the the prospect of adding a potential live claim is not enough to sustain an article three  controversy now into allow the court to reach the merits for that claim is in the case and the clearest examples alvarez versus smith that is the case the that where the complaint sought to players or injunctive relief just like the complaint here but the difference a significant case fifty four i think is really a red herring here rule fifty four is a question that governs the district courts how were medial powers when the live controversy remains continuing before it it says that the district court is not beholden to what is included in the prayer for relief and can craft appropriate remedies but the court and lower courts do not look to rule fifty four in determining questions under article three the right place to look is the complaint the consistent litigation history in the courts that determine what did the plaintiff ask for and has what they asked for been provided and that has happened here mr dering are there are people in new york less safe and alice result of the an accident of the new  city state laws than they were before we no i don't think so we made a judgment expressed by our police commissioner that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule and to move forward well if they're not less safe than what possible justification could there have been for the old one which you have abandoned was a reasonable as we've outlined in our brief that was a reasonable implementation of the state premises licensed carry license i think and we've explained that there was a verification benefit to the way that rules set up verification vacation benefit perhaps not played out as much in practice as it had been predicted and we believe the police can work harder and makes it so you think the  nd amendment permits the imposition of a restriction that has no public safety benefit i think you have to look st to consider whether the type of restriction how the restriction accords with the history of the nd amendment before we answer that question and so i think i think the right place to start and for our purposes maybe starting with shooting ranges the first key point this must be viewed as an adjunct to the premises license this is not just a general statute or generally applicable statute it's an adjunct to the premises license now if it's viewed in that way could the city would it be consistent with the nd amendment for the city to prohibit any trip by a person holding a premises licensed to a firing range i think that would be doubtful in the end were and the reason the city went beyond what state law says about a premises license and  an authorized transport to shooting ranges in the city was because the city recognized that that training is does intersect with and is important to effective use of the handgun in the home so you are conceding i take it doubtful means that it would be unconstitutional you can tell me if you don't know the answer to that question but if it if that what it means you're conceding that the nd amendment protects the possession of a firearm that you need to be able to under the license holder needs to be able to undertake certain activities outside the home well if ill person is taking the firearm the handgun from the home to a firing range person is out on the streets of new york and  if unless a total ban on taking it to a firing range would be consistent with the nd amendment it follows the nd amendment under at least some circumstances protects the possession of a handgun alcide the whole isn't that correct i think i think that's a fair way to look at it that but but from our perspective the right question regarding a premises license is did the did the rule impermissibly verdant effective use of the handgun in the premises in the same way that to get a gun to a premises you have to get it somewhere outside you know purchased it somewhere outside your premises and bring it there that certain things that happen outside the home may may be integrity related to effective use of a handgun inside the home but when you look at a premises license and not speaking about the nd amendment at large or writ large that the premises license specifically the only proper lin's to look at the question through is whether the restriction impinges on effective use of a handgun in the home and with regard to training we have two related reasons why doesn't the st is to look to historical restrictions which were not themselves directed at premises licenses but are illuminating and historically the location where people were permitted to train was fairly extensively restricted provided that opportunities to train remained available and that's the principle we distill from history and when you apply it to the premises license here are the conclusion is that the ability to train locally in a circumstance where market forces are allowed to operate to determine how many facilities are present where there is no indication that supply was insufficient to meet demand and where the petitioners here actually in their summary judgment affidavits never even said they wished to engage in any form of regular training outside the city all they said is they wanted to go to shooting competition regional shooting competitions out of the city that on this record the former restriction or the former they conclude that text and history protect hey the texan history of the nd amendment protect particular activity is that the end of the question or do they then go on and apply some level of scrutiny i think i think st she looked we look to history and determine whether history answers the question one way or the other whether it's constitutional or unconstitutional and in a significant number of cases history will not speak with one voice or conclusively on that subject in the right step is to move on to an assessment of justification and fit under a means and scrutiny but if history says this is protected then that's the end of the question there's no resort to some level of scrutiny if history conclusively shows that the restriction is impermissible then i think as an heller heller's an example of that phenomenon heller determine without consulting means in scrutiny that the law in question sort of went to the core of and destroyed judges and some judges hold an opposite i'm aware i'm aware that it's very our our our view is that it is that history can answer some questions pretty that wasn't really contemplated when the rule was was adopted i still think though if you look historically in the right way to answer a question about whether was unconstitutional is to ask whether there had been some historical tradition of enabling individuals to use the same handgun to protect two different homes of course our rule never spoke to the question whether an individual could have a handgun in a row in a residence outside our jurisdiction that's something completely that we don't speak to we could never speak to and when you look at the question about about what happened historically there have ben incidental burdens that would have burden similarly that kind of conduct in the past and these things are difficult for you right i understand that in massachusetts historically al i believe at the time of the resolution revolution not in anybody's home and do we have a different law for most just i guess not what history did we look to and you did it one point where someone said i am a policeman i happened to notice there's a gun next to this person in the car who stop at the stop light i say sir what are you doing with this gun he says i am going to a firing range oh i see you're going to test it where is it now if he says it in brooklyn i can find it if he says it's somewhere fourteen miles northwest of utica in the adirondacks i have a harder time and i don't know who to believe and so it's tough so the more guns in new york what happened to that that argument that argument is the is the argument that is presented on the record of the detective it took the vast detective that detectives affidavit sorry  we of course took a close look at that question and the police commissioner determined that the rule could be repealed without a negative impact on public safety i do think the police will have to work harder to verify what's happening in those situations but we are confiden that they can do it and they will do it so i will i will they have to work harder somebody who lives in midtown is stopped and with a gun and the officer says where are you going i'm going to a firing range in jersey city which is to to look into then yes i'm going all the way to staten island well still that is still what happens in staten island is within the police departments jurisdiction they have access to records immediate access to records they have that range is subject to the to maintain a roster of individuals to use it i agree with you that it's not that it is in forcible as to the jersey city or as to westchester and that's part of the reason the city is determined to change the rule even ignoring the fact that the state came in and preempted it but i do think it is not it is more difficult and that that the judgment previously with was that with respect to premises licensees of course not a carry license which is not at issue in this case has never been challenge the target license that mr clement referred to was understood to be a kind of carry license and if that was the heart of the complaint the claim should've then that the city needs to reinstate that carry license that was not the claim in this case the claim in this case was necessary to allow the full exercise of the right of the fence of hearth and home in the home they accepted the premises license framing and the entire case has been litigated counsel can i just want to circle back to the direct and continuous travel requirement of the current and justice leaders question about visiting your brother now the city's position that any reasonable stops are permissible that is our unfor little unclear about that well the controlling standard here i'm giving you the enforcement position of the police department on the questions we have considered but the controlling standard here i should hasten to add is provided by state law we do not offer definitive cannot offer a definitive construction of that law and i think the question about what that state law means is one that's going to need to be litigated probably in state courts but before there's any dispute here ripe for constitutional adjudication the meaning of the law is going to have to be determined so we have no representation to us as to what is direct and continuous other than coffees ok coffee what i know what i what i can represent because because it's come up before coffee restrooms food gas the kinds of things that you ordinarily would stop for in the course of travel consider the mother a mother in law example before i think that's going to need to play out in the state courts the more important point here though that none of those issues were ever part of this controversy this controversy was about two things as repeatedly emphasized by petitioners throughout the understand that you're asking us to say that there is no controversy now so i'm trying to just nail down exactly what is the delta if any remaining in the relief that might have been sought and the relief you provide but this is all i guess in short what i'm saying is mr if you just may answer in short what i'm saying is this is not relief that was ever sought there be a controversy here but it's a new controversy it would need to be litigated in a new case and the relief the speculation about what an injunction theoretically could have included is not the way this court analyzes questions in article three thank mr just chief justice just a few points in rebuttal st of all justice kagan we never got to the point of a proposed injunction in this case we didn't exactly succeed really well under the current nd circuit law so we never got to the point of proposing an injunction the only thing my friend is referring to are some allusions to the kind of relief we wondered in a summary judgment motion if we had gotten to that point we would have wanted clarity the kind of clarity that a federal court applying the nd amendment can provide you don't have to depend on a city's representation from enforcing this prohibit in from traveling beyond the borders of the city of new york to attend a gun range shooting competition or to use a law fully possessed and licensed firearm for the purposes of defending one's home person or property and you asked for clara tory relief with those same words that's right justice sotomayor i don't think we would have been tethered to those in a proposed injunction but if we're going to go to the complaint i think we should look at page forty  joint appendix thirty six where we ask for quote unrestricted access to gun ranges and nd homes on restricted i don't think at this late stage we are still being offered unrestricted access and i think it said stopping at your mother's when you say unrestricted does that mean i can carry my gun for three days do you think that a court actually would have crafted injunction at all with hypothetical situations it would have said you can carry your gun to the range and then would have left for further litigation specific applications of that general rule i don't think so your hon leslie i think what would have happened is the parties would have had their proposed injunctions there would have been a huge delta between them and then we would have disputed the same kind of questions that are still being disputed here but we would have to rely on the city's representation about state law because we could have an is we're going to allow your transport if it's direct it doesn't otherwise specify what's direct the city took it on itself in section seven of the new regs to tell you what they at least at that point thought would sufficiently direct which is continuous and uninterrupted now  representations that the reg doesn't mean what it seems to mean in the like and i would say that my client should have to rely on those representations they should get that in writing in an injunction that would be enforceable that would be effectual relief again i think the damages point was not our principal claim here but let's think about in real time what would happen to soon as we filed the lawsuit the city would have turned around dropped its clip case entirely and then admitted to the court that it served no public safety purpose then i think my clients who for years to try to comply with the law and restricted where they wanted to go would have immediately sued for damages i don't think they should lose that right just because the city's maneuvering happened post search thank