particular circumstance and this court has already recognised that in the case of violent felons for example there is a contempt the government has used a means substantially related to its interest in curbing violent crime in preventing  but that's not the same as reflecting a risk for violence and it's particularly on for white collar criminals because frequently a sentence will be based on factors that are unrelated to whether it's appropriate to regulate the exercise of second amendment rights again unrelated to the history of violence we believe that the district court may have gotten there the wrong way but had to feel dirty recognizing same for a couple of very important first that hurt recognize we argue here that it is application of the band to mr cantor was constitutional and they have not done so if however the government believes that it has that specific to mr cantor that it can proffer and this part believes further factual development would be helpful tradition than that and it's so it's always been so long been understood that a felony conviction can result in the forfeiture of certain rights the second amendment is one of those rights now plan number of decisions where the court upheld but that shoot as applied to violent felons now the fact that the court found that you know relatively easy helpful discussion of not context doesn't mean that it suggests that there's a problem with respect to the broader scope of from starr and regarding the scholarship on the traditional understanding of the felony probation as a reason to move on to step two but the important point is that williams just like the other case it was dropped in this simply didn't rule on st  can be disarmed and i think it would be appropriate for the court to engage with the first step and here you know as a core recognizing yancey the traditional understanding is that the right attaches to purchase a defense and certainly the understanding that the government didn't come forward with evidence that it found persuasive that such individuals were going to be violent in the future but it's sad that the government has a strong interest in preventing people who already have disrespect individuals who would have been disqualified from exercising second amendment rights during the founding and the nonviolent nature of his federal felony does not return him to the risk status of a law abiding justify case by case exclusions by evidence presented in court why is it a trait between you know the goal of discouraging dangerous people from having weapons increase over what the law abiding responsible citizen what they're missing and therefore it doesn't satisfy intermediate scrutiny which requires a reasonable fit the way i think about it is a little bit like an expected value equation you multiply the likelihood of something happening by the harm of that that and in these cases involving firearms they are sometimes fatal harm is very high  air for increase the three hundred percent or five times one of our studies journal of the american medical association shows that the relative risk of someone with a nonviolent constitutionally problematic as my colleague mentioned the a t f program which aims to conduct these individual dangerousness determinations where a t f a t f agents would go interview friends neighbors family employers parole agents and try and assess whether this particular valid was no more dangerous than a law abiding responsible citizen resulting in too many mistakes and the united states individual characteristics would matter with marital status matter just number of children matter why should these characteristics matter how much weight should they be given as a result the district court here he is what governs second amendment right but this court has actually rejected the notion that somebody is moral background or whether they are virtuous that instrument is the determining factor in whether the second amendment applies applies in the united that no as applied challenge can ever succeed even if the government is unable to show any connection to the government's actual interest in preventing against armed violence and this is inconsistent again with this court's recogni that the government must continue to prove the constitutionality of the application of its ban in schooling and in williams both of those cases the court held that those particular plaintiffs were unsuited because of their personal characteristics to bring in as applied challenge mr sawyer was held to be a poor mr williams was not the proper plaintiffs to bring a challenge because of the violence in both of their past but mr cantor has none of we are bringing in as applied to mr kantor circumstance because we recognize there may be other risk factors in a person's background or there may be circumstances surrounding and as a surrounding a particular government you rely