witnesses to testify that was all there no i'm saying is that if you're telling us these are the six standards and you have five years for a felony and related items that if they grow thirty years to look at  meet the standard and then also put forth whatever evidence they have the board makes a decision then the courts review it under whatever standards appropriate fairly erroneous manifest when you know it is just dangerousness a perfect word of course is not a perfect word but it the first the first we have to do this and it commits don't we start with the agency saying ok here's the standard now let's get all the proof we can we get the proof from the objecting agencies right because if there's no junction in the board isn't even doing anything the being is just to resolve these objections so they get no traction and say ok now we've got this under the new rules thing thankfully we'll turn to the can say ok now it's your turn what do you have for us and then let's test put together they say does it meet dangerous does it need threat to public safety the problem is that the why isn't there how this is working any different than how many agencies because the threat to public safety in these situations is a standard without any of the allegations include beating someone with brass knuckles threatening to put someone on which shipman bury him six feet under ground correct break their legs do you think a reasonable person knowing that that is in their recent past not three years agency doesn't make a finding affect the allegations when they fail the internet i guess they do it by an internet procedure or they don't say we're filing these facts that the tru words they use pose a danger of its own says if this standard was lifted from that line from hagel so if if they are saying if we have a stack a standard here that says people who are deemed to pose a danger don't get guns and you're saying that's not a  experience as federal agents of some kind and at least one experienced licensed clinical physician or psychiatrist you don't think that they have the ability to determine whether someone is a danger do you think that they have the best standard is just completely lost question of whether security people are using a standard that a person who cries can understand the conduct and personally i agree that there are people we respect and i don't know the it be this person is a good judge or a good justice or a good administrator my point is simply they all have experience with the concept of danger and threats to society i mean what's the problem is th to decide that standard me that you automatically have to pass from the state police background check the second thing may never happen because a law enforcement agency may never object it's only if they object to it we even have a conversation about posing a threat and the question is when they that the thing is a first layer of hearsay in these documents which is present because the police officers are not being card before the board to testify in person but that level is excused because the them even if the parent is available the applicant is is alleging that he has a constitutional right to carry this these weapons that the burden to determination that he was unfit to carry a weapon without making a finding fact you know he's you know any restriction on the right is subject to intermediate scrutiny if the board is not required to make a finding of fact how can we be certain that their decision how can that decision be review carry to carry a concealed weapon you agree that's a constitutional right in the abstract right yes ok and then here comes this process where there is no life testimony there is there is nothing but hearsay evidence just a bunch of reports one conviction in his background think eighteen arrests one conviction and it's criminal damage to property and it was in the early ninety's i think everything else are just allegations maybe true maybe not documents and nothing else it's not quite as bad as that because there is there's a number of factors that make this evidence reliable running is the number of allegations involving violence or threats of violence and this is a period of time standing there it is as he said in which he has been if not exactly consistency at least i have been allegations against him i have balance of threats of violence to hold in person hearing when it's necessary it just wasn't necessary  likely it's going to be that you're going to be considered a danger and  constitutionally necessary that they do so because because it was sufficiently clear because it's presumed to be considered all things that were before them and it is reasonable to assume that they  i mean we usually expect agencies they mean active every reason they might not say we're all the way and we see this on the other hand his therefore we think we'll get x y z but they usually spell out this is all we have a list we consider and then sometimes they give very detailed findings sometimes you heard five things but here we don't really have anything right and we've got we can see what the objection was they said ok mr jacob if what your side you didn't really say anything and then they said you may have he was just told this is your chance to give us your evidence this is true but that with the letter could be read in the context of the entire act in the regulations which don't specify that there will be a later hearing and he was counseled and counsel should have been aware of that we believe the standard to satisfy because the test under it intermediate scrutiny is usually characterized as whether the government can demonstrate that the challenge restriction is substantially related to an important government interest is an important government interest here that's clear