facial challenge when the district judge below now circuit judge wilkins agreed with the government's strenuous or the complaints alleged only as applied challenge to section nine twenty two a not in any event  simply unconstitutional paragraphs twenty six and thirty especially complain that this section limits otherwise qualified american citizens and therefore violates the plaintiff's individual rights not everyone so you are bringing a facial parker and later the supreme court affirmed in heller the ability to act this one firearm does not mean that you lose all your rights to access to one hundred he's got a hundred years parents house in that and ohio well why should he be for self defense for those two days that he's here that's it the courts have split got the second amendment rights of allianz we have opinions about non legal talk about legal legal oh there's really not much case law rights attached to the general the government can prevent your cousin from worshipping from speaking to the same extent in most cases as american citizens are allowed to within our nation and so it would be elections i don't know what state he he has paid in and what district he's voting in i don't know whether he pay state taxes i don't know whether he goes in state elections now all of those factors  based upon the fact that mr dearth is and there is a record on is he did declare and the government did not challenge at all the fact that he is fully qualified is not prohibited from of possessing guns in the united states for any lawful purpose and in we don't know how many times mr turner has been in texas we don't know whether he's ever been back since and we don't know whether he travels texas or has plans that all that goes to the supply chain because none of it is on the record  are many states in which he could we have alleged that he would go united states what he's interested in doing is having a gun available to mean united states there's nothing that prevents him from buying a gun in a state and then having that gun stored at his parents home in ohio which is what the consumes weeks and weeks before you can go even if you are risen before you can go purchase a handgun that may be constitutional may not be certainly he couldn't walk into a gun shop in maryland intends to purchase firearms within the united states that's who are just sporting purposes which he would access for lawful sporting purposes as well as for other purposes so when i saw even that is in big news i don't know whether what he's saying you can be reasoned as well if b three is unconstitutional that a person can go ahead and mr berth or others american could purchase a firearm and receive it for a sporting purpose the government says that it's ok to take those firearms for steve for sporting purposes and use them in self defense we don't agree with your line of argument but that's what what if what if he says i have no interest in sporting purposes i don't sporting purpose but he but he is interested also sporting purposes there are some firearms of the government would know that the hypothetical i'm giving you is he's not interested in school he just wants to defend himself if he just wants to defend himself and he wants a gun and obviously limited to fifteen minutes and many make questions but if i may or are even if we are talking about a facial challenge i'm not sure exactly how far that advances the government's fall because we're talking here about the fact  grosser circumstances test or perhaps the test is used first circuit the second circuit the ninth circuit and just last month in man's which also which references the  it would be that's not a test it's a what is it is a test ask to see whether or not the applications are such that that there is a plain legitimate sweep through the statute and the fact of the matter is yours is that we do have necessarily raise the rights of of other people why would our own rights are not implicated if we look to see and present on heller and parker before that in this court there was no salerno test apply to those cases and we know absolutely that there are many violent felons and mentally ill people dangerous individuals who have no business possessing handguns and nobody would ever claim that those individuals should should have handguns yet those laws are struck down as a facial matter and the only way that we can reconcile salerno with the with the pla language of not just the supreme court in heller but this court and parker which those are official challenges and there was no as i question all those cases the only way we can reconcile those is to is to is to either go the ninth circuit route which says sort of an odd way of doing that is what he did in these started by saying no the circumstances but then focused only on the fact that law abiding sponsible citizens were impacted which is exactly the situation here i made my great users there is on anybody's radar it was a long ways away from from being discussed and when the supreme court had a chance to discuss the second amendment in depth they told us what i think everybody agrees on which is to say that this is a right that it is not going to be enjoy by everyone that there are going to be dangerous people who are not going to be able to make these claims that doesn't mean you don't have official challenges and in the second minute there's the court was aware of salerno i am certain in however the justices don't forget about that case there is a wherever it is  this court wasn't suggesting that question this order but the fact of the matter is that salerno this construct is not compatible with the second amendment and maybe that's why circuit where half the circuit court is going ahead with the plain legitimate sweet task but even if we're going to apply salerno to it right even if we're going to have salerno governance case the question then becomes are there any circumstances where be lawful to tell people that they can't acquire a gun for the purpose of self defense excluding forty percent of the visitors to the united states in the year two thousand and twelve kenyan for less than ninety days without a visa so it's a large it's a large population and i think it's a stretch to say that they're entitled to  additional issues that may not impact say alone some more temporary aspect which is another top of the government's customs but the fact of matter is if the government has determined that someone should be able to acquire a firearm legally the people who are at least on my hypothetical it did by somebody here for two days it's hard to make that my cousin part of we the people that are where you are the fact the matter is that if we look to be the government's thirty years we're going to apply if we're going to what is this where is the relationship between smuggling and self defense or residence and smuggling these there's not a single shred of evidence in the record anywhere just to support these these these assertions which  enjoyed by your cousin in italy that's the that's the fifth amendment can't be goals right then american citizen actual basis review for that right no actually live you russ the circuit city structure scrutinize the right to travel to strict scrutiny right and  know it doesn't but my point is simply that if you're talking about his burden is not a matter of construing his greetings liberally he has he actually has a burden of coming forward with evidence and so if you know sort of reading between the lines of the complaint you know when you can take you so far but alleged that he doesn't have an ability to possess firearms for purposes of self defense in the united states so i think that is a big problem whether you conceive of this case as a facial challenge or as an as applied challenge for his argument here and his argument essentially is that no matter how many guns he has no matter how much act as he has begun the second amendment confers on him a right to acquire additional guns and another point i just want to clarify about what he's alleging here is what he's talking about is purchasing he's saying now on appeal my problem is that eighty nine is unfair because it limits it just sporting purposes and it doesn't allow it for self defense first of all to the extent that he's saying all right i give up i don't get to purchase a gun i just want to rent a gun that's not the complaint that he's brought that's not the claim that he's made the claim is made that he wanted to purchase a gun the other problem of course that he has is that he doesn't want to use it for sporting purposes he says so that's one of the few things he does say in his declaration on page thirty two and intend to purchase firearms within the united states which i would store securely and i am on thirty two of the joint appendix which i don't store security at my relative's home in mount vernon ohio and which i would access and he doesn't distinguish among them for lawful sporting purposes  trains i mean i think you would need to know more and we don't know a lot on this record about you know how they were stored and whether if you if you sort of gave them to someone else and you know and then got them back person's i mean there are there are rules about how you how you do that it's not so you know prohibited he has an alleged that it's those rules that are causing him a problem and i can't speak exhaustively to what you do and don't have to do we think that the case can just be resolved on this basis alone that his allegations really is and we heard it from the podium too that his allegation really is i have a right to purchase additional firearms regardless of my circumstances whether i have access to guns or i don't arm you know and and we just don't think that that is correct as a matter of second amendment law and that that's his claim and that's the only evidence that he's put forward with respect to the  bring him as apply a challenge on behalf of self and he say says and this is actually what he's done he says the only facts that i'm giving you about myself is that i'm a law abiding citizen who lives overseas i may have guns i may not i may bring them in i may not i may you know rent them i may not not tell you any of that i think that those circumstances in those circumstances alone entitle me under the second amendment to purchase a gun while i'm in the united states if a court were to agree that with that we don't agree with that obviously if a court were to agree with that then he could prevail on that claim he wouldn't get the relief he's asking for in the complaint he would get you know an injunction of the second man that that this the relevant statutes could be applied to him in the circumstances that he's described here we don't you know for for reasons i can go into you know from what i've already discussed we don't think that that states a good second amendment claim arm and i just want to touch the time we've talked a lot about the limb the limitations of his right and his claims i just want to talk also about the interests served by the government's restriction here obviously you know these have been discussed in the in the briefing but just to make sure we're clear that the government has strong interests here we're talking about here is people come in the case of in the case of b three people who may reside in a different state of the case of a nine people who don't have a resident in the united states or we're talking about people who are not where they where they normally live acquiring firearms and the allegation of this complaint is that he wants to do so permanently and the federal government has an interest in making sure that somebody who is either visiting somewhere who is trained the entry doesn't have a current home or was home is not in the united states that they can just go to whichever state they they choose that has them the most permissive firearms laws purchase a gun and then take it to wherever they're actually going and the bad with that in the case of residents that's of the united states that's a competition actually to determine that in case of rental  supporting purposes that the government's interest is largely a net be more some weapon it isn't he's purchased because the owner has an interest in following it right it's less likely to disappear into the smugglers right right and so what is the possible did so having in mind that the core right of the second there is the protection of the individual ability to defend with more not claiming that at all what i'm saying is that we're not asking this court to defer to congress's judgments about what the second amendment didn't require we would be asking this court to do that even if the statute was passed yesterday well the point is that congress made certain determinations about what was likely to happen predictive judgments what was appropriate subject for a matter of legislation and if i could just to engage in sporting activity with firearms in places other than with it and that includes both people who live in the united states and then want to travel somewhere else we did the united states engaging in sporting activity whatever that may be said if that's what you're doing because there's a lot of people who do that and we don't want to make a federal crime that's ok and you can get a gun and you can rent did or you can borrow it and we're not going to criminalize that now that's the reason congress an act of the statute they did i'm not aware of evidence then or now that there are a lot of people who said i do want to travel briefly in the united states and what i really need to do is i don't want to do sporting purposes i don't even want to do target shooting in order to practice using the gun that i've just borrowed in order to purposes at all and they want to borrow my understanding of a hypothetical they want to borrow a firearm just for use for self defense while they're visiting the united states  thought that the gun that he wanted for sporting purposes and the gun that he wanted for self defense were two different guns and that he didn't want to purchase he just wanted to rent or borrow then we submit that he would have to put in a much different decoration from the one that is written by me again  exclude it they didn't even clued it in the end and it works as an exclusion it does work that way but i guess the reason i'm drawing that distinction is that congress was as i mentioned congress was trying to address a circumstance that was coming up to account for particular circumstances and whether the statute is insufficiently tailored because they didn't account for people who want to visit the united states obtain a gun i understand a hypothetical to be temporarily which is different from  don't want to use it for sporting purposes again different from mr and whether you know the failure to account even if you accept that that such people have you know would have this tech this sufficient second amendment interest in doing that that this is some congress might have been thought to want to account for whether the failure to do that fails as a matter of intermediate scrutiny and intermediate rooney is about a reasonable thing and so if congress accounts for this you know for the run of congress accounts for those large categories and then there's this other category that again the plaintiff in this case is not in we're not aware of anybody who's come forward either before congress or in court who is in that circumstance and then if we have a case we would say you know ok it's reasonable for congress not to have accounted for this particular narrow set of hypothetical facts that i hear you correctly earlier the on the face of the these missions in the fog of war do not make a distinction between circumstances but but the distinction but under b three you can in some circumstances purchase a long gun in it in a state where you're not a residence as long as the purchase would comply with the laws of both state as for handguns it doesn't work it work because one of the reasons one of the core reason is to have the residency requirement for people who are buying guns relates to where those guns are going to end up and also if something happens with a gun be billeted to trace the gun by going to the residence of the purchaser and figure out you with what's happened to this gun it makes perfect sense if you're talking about someone who's visiting the united states temporarily and doesn't have a residence here to distinguish between people who can buy up to letting those people borrow those guns and then give them back before they go back to wherever they're going for i don't think it means that one is more important than the other it's me i mean i think that the reason that the language is in the statute is that one is much more prevalent than the other and that congress was addressing the circumstances that had a it could be i think i mean i obviously we would be speculating i don't i would be surprised if i think that the scenario in which you you visit a place where that is not your home and they give the reminds me of something just this we have just said last week it is maybe it's not what congress intended this what they did they created this statute that has this effect that if you are a citizen of the united states and you're coming back to visit you can rent a gun to shoot at a target practice but you can't you know how this is ended up i'm not i'm not you're arguing that this is why congress did it right there as i as i think you have been in earlier colloquy in some circumstances there are prerequisites to acquiring a gun including that you you know go through training or other proficiency if you have people and this is what is in the legislative history that if you have people who are doing sporting purposes who are learning how to handle their gun you know that is is it likely to be a safer population than people who just say i don't understand why congress would be gain i'm not saying this is what congress had in mind but you're asking for why it would be legitimate to say someone who's going to take a gun and you know who range and use it for target practice and what are our safety concerns there versus somebody who's going to take a gun  any intention to engage in any target practice in any intention to operate the gun in any circumstances other than an emergency when it when they think they're in trouble one could reasonably expect that congress would want to you know to distinguish the that's a sporting purpose the training that the state requires where you can handle see a firearm is is i believe it has been read that way and i recognize that that's a broad reading but that only underscores the limited scope of of the provision poorly of of of guns the government is a great job of telling us how the statue of off it didn't presenting evidence and actually justifies it under even intermediate scrutiny there's no evidence that residences in italy you can receive a farm if you're licensed by the federal government to get a state and you and you're a resident of italy coming to the united states even when everything is said and done about this logic of getting arms from some other country the law does not allow them does not allow americans to bring back a firearm unless they have a lawful sporting purpose and there's also reference to a shooting activity that has the right to get to give back