filed immediately it was run immediately but that's the way the thing happened in the court could decide that it is not moot of the court could decide it's moot and if they do gosh it probably r but it has the trial hasn't been heard yet i don't think i'm not expecting a continuance it's in a night i'm forty three years i've never had a client say once the judge says your own bail bond i never had a client say what about my gun and never had it happen well that's that's got nothing to do with the trial setting yes or oh you need to let us know immediately when trial began so that if we haven't written an opinion by now it's moot because once you're in trial it's no longer pretrial bail as i think it would be until the verdict comes down well ok how many years to thank th life a whole heck of a lot of difference regardless i nods that he may i even pick up guns before the trial starts if the court but that's another moving this point the only basis you're arguing here thanks a few months off that's what i put on the original motion argued the st day but that's not the issue and i had become educated to understand it i don't own a firearm i'm read about nd amendment now read heller and i think i have a basic understanding of the reasons why people feel this way when hiller came out as the court knows became a fundamental civil right just like freedom of speech freedom of press and so it's important it will be important to other in other cases to such should be ruled on and it should be granted and you are you seeking some sort of categorical ban on pretrial prohibition of farmland no you couldn't be doing that i'm not doing that well that sounds like what you're trying from heller no i'm just saying i'm just i didn't decide hiller mind to sit my my intention on it is irrelevant mike but heller has made it clear that it is a fundamental core constitutional right to give  same dignity and respect as the bond element in th amendment th st nd rd whatever it's a core constitutional man and i do other core constitutional rights like the right against searches and seizures that people often have to give up when they're under criminal charge him salute your honor and if there were one iota of evidence or reason then i would yield in this there is none none whatsoever this  me ask you the magistrate rules then it gets appealed to no go to the district court the government files in the if you want cohen appeal but in the review by the district court the government submit an article talking about your client's activities in perceived hostility to federal law enforcement then the district court rules and says she's going to keep the condition employed she doesn't give any reasons that i see can we rely on that article in looking at what the district court decided it's hearsay but i think you could in an in a bond hearing i think you could look at the article if you do look at that hearsay rules don't apply to volunteer  getting more i did did the district court actually rely on that no idea i've no idea what the district court said discrete didn't say so if the district court relied on that then this is err i mean there's nothing in there that politicians don't say over and over again in both parties but it's not i will revolt revolt i will disobey the law i will do this it's an expression in that article that  federal government has gotten out of hand in places and that's what he told the voters when he was running for office that would if you could rely on conversations with the pretrial services personally if so was that evidence in the record no there's nothing in the record whatsoever the only thing in there was blind speculation in a footnote in the government's a brief suggesting that that may have happened there's no evidence of it and my client spoke to the pretrial officer and he we were told by the court to talk to my client talk to him ask if he objected he said absolutely not john so they're on a st name basis he has no problem with it we don't know where that came from so man with no criminal record there's a basis for change and so we say well he knew at the initial appearance about the bears the need for the gun setter no formal motion this is just presented in a handwritten notes so we rely heavily the say well it's not new well i think they can i think i mean the district judge can rely on anything that she she chooses to rely on as long as it makes some sense and it's rational well perhaps if she's one of the relying on statute or regulation i mean that's just put out the head i mean it says that in the language if information which was not known so i'm just asking you is that directive here applicable or do you have a case that says yeah that's true but reason for core constitutional right matters and my reason i was sitting there outside the court room with him he had just come back with a case that had returned these rights to someone that had been convicted twenty years earlier believes the seven circuit case which has now been reversed but a district court had given it to them and i realize that i had erred in not listening to my client because i i i had not asked for that so i  handwrote in addition to go before the court and i ask him one of the reasons why you need it i was in there my original motion briefer in air you don't have to have a reason for having a core constitutional right you have that right it cannot right i mean you got to let the judge know why the judge needs to rule you can't just keep making stuff up on appeal well what happened to caring is that they pretty much told us he was going to get guns were you going to be limited and told us to negotiate and have a hearing later in the hearing later never came so i had no opportunity to study it or anything else after that but the court i understand it yes if that's this issue that you need a gun for bears that's what i raised so that to me i can't recall the exact words or language that i had and there would be permitted i don't mind answering any number of questions but i'm down to fourteen and i'd like to be permitted to hold some for reb or go back to that article you say it's just normal political views and you think it's not even a st amendment issue here it's the nd amendment but the question is whether there's a reason to believe this person could be dangerous with a gun while on pretrial release and it's as part of a group that says sheriff's have the right to arrest federal officials and resists federal laws and as the magistrate said there's a concern about pretrial services officer so why isn't that a my bigger question is why isn't there are legitimate concern that this is someone who who might be hostile to some federal official coming to his door that's that's pushing it i mean i guess the judge didn't say that i mean if the court feels that the that someone can get that from that language then the courts have said that in the order i think the court is required to give their specific reasons the only specific reasons was the general fear that a parole officer officer checking the house without call fine is a fairly common it's not automatic but it's a fairly common condition of pretrial release in your view what does it take to allow a magistrate judge to impose this condition i don't think he does the person have to have a violent criminal history no i don't think so it would be an example of a white collar criminal who could have this condition like color code will as a general rule i think most white collar defendants would be intitled to maintain their gun but if the white collar person has  a bunch of traffic tickets or hit and run or something like that or if the white collar person says i'm not going to be in order or has a history of disobeying an order something there's got to be some there's got to be something otherwise this is a blanket elimination of arms rights for everyone who's arrested there's a creeping thing that keeps taking more and more rights away from people while they're presumed innocent and our goal is to take the fewest rights away from someone who's presumed innocent until convicted it's long been the case that felons after that who have been convicted camp possess firearms what do you think the greater nd amendment intrusion that the lifetime ban on felons possessing firearms or the temporary ban on people possessing firearms while they're under indictment well the lifetime bans a greater intrusion but it's justified by the law the temporary ban a temporary ban on free speech a temporary ban is as is as you mentioned earlier in the th amendment for example we can eliminate th amendment just seems to me all your arguments look he's white collar he has no criminal history why wouldn't that apply if he's convicted at the end of the month when those same arguments apply to the ban on him possessing a gun as a felon since he has no violent history the bender up decision seems to indicate it's a possibility that was an back to the court to say well if you really rely on pretrial services say so as you've been asked you know the trial is there many ways the specific relief you're seeking just tell me in one sentence vacate this you're asking us to make a policy statement as opposed to a ruling in a specific case would a specific question and some of your arguments of we get that but that's why i asked well what is a relieve us and point in this case you know this amendment is the th amendment and before because there is no reason given and we're being asked you're being asked to speculate now so you've seen the reading in judge coast as is reasonably speculating on what mi v bagley on behalf of the united states bagley out we're always happy to have the department of justice rice's courtroom what why are you here as opposed to someone from the u s attorney's office in texas this  being prosecuted in the northern district of texas by two attorneys of the tax evasion so i'm handling the peel because the case is being handled by our in our freshman recollection why it's being tried in dallas as opposed to in utah a coconspirators reside in the northern district of texas and the conspiracy was carried out in that district there's nothing special about the nd amendment in this context the bill reform act permits a district court to temporarily restrict the defendant's constitutional rights if it finds that that's reasonably necessary to assure the safety of others so the question before th court is did the district court abuse its discretion he answers no i'd like to start over you well when you say did the court abuse its discretion that implies that the fact they waited until a nd motion to seek the basis being in utah that we would give it the same standard of review as if they had raised him in the st bail hearing do you do you do you not district court for reconsideration so i think that's relevant particularly to the magistrate judges finding that there was no new information that was relevant to the conditions of release which the district court agreed with because it over d the defendant's objections on that point but i think what this court is reviewing is the district courts don't know the determination of the issue and your understanding  that's correct as of friday afternoon when i checked the docket and with the prosecutors and in the last about a month a week i think that's a fair estimation and is it your understanding that once the trial is over not when he summons but once the trial is over pretrial bail ceases and then they've got to see a new form of bail that's correct he would then have the conditions set for if he saw it released pending appeal or pending sentencing but reviewing seems right the district just made a minute entry order it wasn't us and it basically says she agreed with the magistrate judge so what can we assume the ruling was based on we can assume particular those those additional things use of it to the district or can we can we view those as part of her does that susan yes you can st of all this report how that information in front of her we presume she read the parties submissions the government stylists the article in the defendant's statements in its motion and certainly this court can affirm the district court on any grounds supported by the record and the in this case the district court had before it information indicating that the defendant had no respect for federal the federal government and believed it was appropriate for local law enforcement to intervene on behalf of people engaged in armed conflict with federal law enforcement officers and that alone i think would justify the district courts agreement with the conditions of release that those conditions were necessary to reasonably assure the safety of pretrial officers who were was we do not know the content of that conversation we do know that the magistrate indicated that she wanted to speak to the supervising pretrial services officer when the defendant st objected to the condition we know that she repeatedly stated their recommendation would be very important to her it's not in the record but we have reason to believe that conversation happened but the important thing then is that the mag found that those conditions were the least restrictive necessary to reasonably assure the safety of pretrial services officers it's my understanding that if you said we could affirm for a new basis that's in the findings as well as the additional information that was before the district court and we don't know whether the district court had any conversation with preacher all services there is no indication one way or another in the record on not only now the procedure that was followed or the nd motion counsel it's sad that the nd amendment wasn't raised well i was just checking the hearing and it looks like the magic judge does refer to he amendment she just on her part of this is that the hearing does not refer to heller this new basis is fundamental right places group them as you judge keeps the bail conditions as they are the pretrial conditions they object goes to the district judge how was the argument couched to the district judge in the objections about this fundamental right so the defendant didn't discuss and the nd amendment in particular he relied on the ars berger case which as we know in our brief is in opposite because ours are good dealt with mandatory conditions of release certainly this is not an out of the welsh amendments case this grounds because it was a mandatory condition i'm certainly in this case there is no real difference between the due process and the nd amendment grounds because i just report is permitted to restrict constitutional rights provided it follows the procedures laid out in the bail reform act which the supreme court has already held are out of which to satisfy due process all right so it's raised the fundamental right is raised in objections district judge fundamental right wasn't raised to the magistrate judge though was it not it's not their way to new cases cited in the defendant's initial motion objecting no ma'am i'm talking about the nd motion where they had the hearing with the magistrate judge correct for that hearing with the matcher judge was this fundamental right under heller point raised i do not believe so now reference to the nd amendment oh it's so it's raised for the st time before the district judge correct why would that be waived i know if you if you if you fail to object be waived and that's because the district judge conducts a denumerable review and can even take additional evidence because the district judge is that is the court of original jurisdiction so i am not prepared to make a de statement about whether that would constitute a waiver or certainly we did not argue below that he had waived that issue it's our understanding that the district court in conducting a do no review  held an additional hearing and should we please set the standard review not the pardons critics and we always welcome the parties advice and we in fact required in their briefs that they say what they think the standard view is but we said it we think if we think the issue think it is an independent ground for affirming the decision below because it's not so much that he raised it late it's not a timing issue the statute requires that there be some new information that's relevant to the conditions of rel and there wasn't any in fact there still hasn't been any because the question before the district court of the magistrate judge is what conditions are necessary to ensure the safety of others not why the defendant doesn't like those conditions but what conditions satisfy the statute and in this case the defendant didn't raise them at the initial appearance he didn't provide any new information to the magistrate judge and the magistrate judge said i found before these with the least restrictive conditions necessary and i find they're still the least restrictive conditions necessary and so and and as a sort of matter of fairness it's not unreasonable to require a defendant to make timely objections and to provide all the information i had to the court and if you're asking the court to change their mind to give them some new information certainly this involves a constitutional right but again they're not special in this context defendants can waive constitutional rights by failing to raise them through the whole course of the trial and so requiring the defendant to make a timely objection to bring information to the before the court as quickly as possible and to provide new information if you're asking the court to change its mind it is reasonable in a sufficient grounds to affirm the decision below in addition based evidence of this defendant supported the firearm restriction before the not just right what was particular to this defendant that supported the firing restriction unfortunately i think the record isn't clear because the defendant didn't  record to support i think it's it's not clear what whatever the recommendation of child services was which which isn't there i mean in my experience they just typically list a bunch of conditions in the pretrial services report they don't they don't justify each one and as you say unless someone's objecting it's not really a big issue someone has to object to make it an issue it just means we're getting close to saying every defendant automatically can have this restriction imposed if there's no individualized finding these dangerous or has a dangerous history well i think there's there's two points to that question st of all we don't think this condition to be automatically imposed that would motion to amend indicated that she had made such a finding so there is a finding an individual is determination the question of what information supported that finding the record is a little bit in part because there was no timely doesn't cite this articles you would think the defendant want to chance to respond to it if it was going to be key i mean i've seen situations where district courts could have a whole new hearing that didn't happen here of course i'm but that gives the defendant a chance and the government a chance to rebut what the other side is trying to produce that's new it just in there could be a lot of guesswork for us to say well she she has this short entry saying i agree with the magistrate judge but we're going to we're going to read that to say she relied on this new court is not satisfied with the record below then we think the appropriate remedy is to remand an os to just report to explain its reasoning more fully to permit more either simply issue it an order explaining its reasons or to or to open reopen the condition and we cite those cases in our brief indicating the thoughts and appropriate that's the appropriate remedy  remained to district court because of the incompleteness of the record or lack of clarity or whatever whatever through reconsider of these going back down would in the imminent trial proceeding the court to do that on and simply os the that is your port to explain more fully or the court could from the just reports order which would certainly be our preference but hum but that would be that it the the appropriate remedy i'm not a they dependents rationale of her for whining the condition changed i think is not particularly compelling certainly his survived one winter oh already oh without has his firearms but it's also not relevant to the question of whether the condition is necessary oh it's it's why he did the like that's condition it's way he would lake this condition lifted but it's not seven relevant to the question of whether the condition is necessary to protect for any did if it's necessary it's necessary regard lists of why it he would like to help a fire on i mean he did not particularly at any point a reason why it's not necessary that that was not before the magi at the very outset magistrate judge was aware of the crimes he was being charged with i think the point is if it is only reason for needing the gun is the winter then why does it matter if he has the gun over the next few weeks in september the final three weeks in which this is even the supreme court has held that the builder for not satisfies due process we know that courts can restrict constitutional rights in the pretrial context i'm including other very fundamental rights including a right not to be in prison if it if it follows the appropriate procedures which is an individual lies determination by a neutral conditional officer and the defendant had that in this case so there is no constitutional because the magistrate was indicating she was going our way so that was what was surprising she said get us some information before we could and also negotiate and we were negotiating with the government before we could get back the decision slam down and this and we don't know what what happened to change the mind of the court because it was if anything did or if she just changed her mind we there's no hearing so there were no arguments other than might be part of the confusion was you're waiting i don't believe it's much from judges fault this time on the way it was handled well and blame me you know i am i will accept responsibility for that i'm standing in the in the hallway i don't think we have a right to the weapon in it immediately and i also said your honor if the government needs time i suppose i apologise for surprising in my hand at them my hand written it's been so long since i had handwritten stuff that people didn't know how he is the photocopy machine down there i apologi hearing well the hearing in the in magistrates court evade the ruling did not go into anything except grayness materials or make an agreement with the government which we are about to have made which would have agreement would have been in it when we it's dunno though it moves to the district court so the government's position is they can bring up new things like newspaper articles that are unflattering for the newspaper that  that supported the winning candidate is still my client and that's hard core evidence and you can extrapolate what it means but we never got an opportunity to to do that and i'm up when he st appeared well i'm not sure this matters but it might matter it's not a hearing on the objections to a magistrate judge was report that the mobo comes in with the way the district judge happens to look at the record they didn't hold it you didn't have a new hearing before the district court did you know you didn't you just they look at the record and then if they look at the record then it's done no more review but again yes but again you're raising an issue for the st time before the district judge that wasn't even and wasn't presented to the master judge and that's why this is so confused but confusing and i did represent him in the very beginning and i don't know if i would have handled it correctly when i was not a lawyer st thing but at the initial bond hearing i was not the way i was the lawyer there mr cameron's was a lawyer and this to kevin's and i had we thought agreement on the issue i don't think anybody in that courtroom thinks he's a threat whatsoever and nobody expressed anything