done within that sometimes you find certification isn't really official so what was the reason you did not catch him before the district court your honor there were two reasons one we didn't know until we got the opinion on the motion for summ judgment that the court was not going to apply a state law that the court below would only rely on federal law and the second reason is because we thought that it would be more appropriate to have  that they've been unsuccessful in the district court before they decide that certification looks pretty good your honor i'm aware of those cases but also those cases that i'm aware of or other circuits the third circuit cases that we rely on the cones case in the s case have almost identical procedural histories where a motion for summary judgment was filed there were federal plains and state law claims and the issue on appeal was only a state law point and in those cases the court in particular sheaffer court said that just because there was a lot of time and money already spent is no reason why certification should not be granted and let me ask you this question why isn't remained one of the procedural possibilities that makes the most sense for you the certification from our standpoint is we send that into a black hole and you know it comes back you know months years later the the circuit law around the country i wouldn't say that it's uniform but there's certainly a lot of support for the notion that with cases we've cited have have on almost identical procedural grounds order that same procedural question to have the trial court remain back to say course especially when we started in state court notion from our circuit so i think that judgment goes thinking about the new jersey turnpike case ok so the new jersey turnpike case as you know because i'm sure you're up on the sides to a seventh circuit case international surgeons which cites to another seven some cases very harken and the take away from both of those is the language used in new jersey turnpike which is there's an exception absent special circumstances now that harken talks about  and say judge despite new jersey turnpike this is a special circumstance and invoke they hearken or do you have another argument well your honor one of the cases we cited on decision there is no state quick decision on point and another case that we rely on was the oscar wilde case that former as you know for retired supreme court justice o'connor writing for the second circuit dealt with a case very similar to ours where there were two case there were two issues on appeal the only issue for the court of appeals in the second circuit to address was a state law issue and that state law issue was not addressed by any of the state law courts and justice o'connor said it's not addressed by any state law courts the court of appeals shouldn't be deciding it because any decision the court of appeals made would not be binding on other state question that's a follow up in the same area but not directly related to waiver and that is whether in order to get mean and result you are advocating the alternative would we have to find that the district court abused discretion in deciding the state law issue war would we have to find that this report decided the state law issue prematurely at least  the trial judge rendered his decision on most of the summary judgment we didn't know that there would be number one no more we didn't know that he would only rely on federal precedent to decide the state laws so that's the probably main and maybe even the only reason why we didn't do it earlier but to get back to your question i think it's just a matter of now that there is only a state law issue there is no longer supplemental jurisdiction so i don't think it was an abuse of discretion there's i'm not sure that i agree with that that is that the court below or this court lacks to restriction having obtained that question is whether it should as a matter of discretion declined to exercise it because it's now the only basis for the need to know which way the last time come out because it's funny you know rise and fall you know on the issue and there's a certain urgency to it here we have two plaintiffs who don't even have guns have no gun licenses and the impact on the urgency i'm not sure it's there because as i said another kind of tomorrow could could file based upon the delaware section twenty in urgency let's get to the merits what is it that leads you to believe and we could decide that the district court should have looked at gryphon and not look just at federal the way federal court would interpret the provision and still up hold it based i mean driven involved you know the right to bear arms and had the feeling interests which is what occurred here a countervailing interest of the housing authority how do you how do you think that dell or the dollar supreme court could come out differently what line of reasoning would they apply that you know of that would lead to a different  would really be in what impact here it's broader in the language that says that the right to bear arms to protect the home to protect oneself and one's family and one's help so by definition if you have a given that we have a least provision that sets forth certain rules that presumably the tenants sign and do you doubt that there is an interest on the part of the housing authority to have common areas free of violence recently anticipating the possibility of gun violence you think that our supreme court would not recognize that  answer to your question the most direct answer now i'm happy to supplement is that there is already an existing comprehensive federal and state regulatory scheme that addresses that issue there are very extensive rules and regulations and chutes that govern the use of guns in public areas and in common areas so the question is gratian perhaps you know there's there's certain state regulations but there really isn't regulation that governs  public areas for the state you're on yeah well there is to be very specific if you want to carry a concealed weapon by example you have to have a license and there are certain areas that you're not even allowed to bring a a school for example or courthouse for example so there are very there are existing regulations that are very specific about what you can do even if you have a license to carry a gun not places not  well if a school or courthouse i mean those are specific places that leaves a vast area does an address it does but you're not even allowed to carry a gun concealed for example without getting a license which is a very specific and court would be the more appropriate court to rule in plus there are plenty of cases where the dollar supreme court said the dollars because to some provides much broader protection a much more extensive rights than the federal constitution that's fine on the right side but what gives you a basis for saying that they are supreme court would not recognize housing authorities interest here well the two reasons your honor beyond whatever the constitutional and entering the field of firearms regulation is not what plenty point out it was removed the plane just fell to her many complaints both of which raise state law issues at no time during those proceedings they asked a state where to sort of why the question to the delaware supreme court would they say that there was the courts or the client supplemental jurisdiction based on novel issues of state law that have raised here so having litigated it that far they now come to this court drop their federal claim and say we man the case or  the majority of circuits have said well first of all waivers discretionary is correct your but second of all the majority of circuits that address the issue have been invoked waiver is an impediment  losing party below raising the issue when it comes to the public court so why should we i think respect you're going to believe that the authorities we said we do say that not waiver i mean i'm not saying it's a legal way that say what special circumstance you're not arguing so is your point that you want to invoke the new jersey turnpike and the special circumstance is somehow different than the ones alluded to in those cases yes right and i think the court certainly has the authority to resolve this matter any way it would like and obviously the the we are going to even if that were to be accepted would not be binding on the court as a cork would always say in the circumstances we're not going to force a waiver what we're saying here is that having litigated this below and all these issues that i disagree with my colleague statement that the only authority cited by the state court or what federal court below were federal authorities the court and lies the delaware state law including written in allies deliver cases saying that the absence of like the result that's almost like seeking advisory opinion i mean that they gamble on the result then you dismiss their federal claim to come here and say well well then wouldn't it be more efficient to go to court now because if we speak on it it's not going to be the last word on could requirement to remain you know you're correct are and so what i'm saying is that the lower court decision here is binding precedent in federal courts if we have another federal plane brought in federal court with a second minute and and for example a state constitutional ra persuasive they would not be bound to follow what we should be counsels that should be kept in place what if if you don't think that the state constitutional issue of first impression is not would not fulfill the special circumstance of new jersey turnpike what in your view would you know we have authority so you below by the district court saying that the state court will follow the the state courts will follow the federal law on resolve constitutional question so it was not asking a situation where the court was just you know coming from no place in writing this decision had authorities to rely on it turnpike exception is absolute special circumstance right yes and that refers to two seven circuit cases both of which talk about a special circumstance the special circumstance being satisfied by a novel state constitutional claim you've argued that this is distinct from that i think i understand the argument but if you do not think that a novel state constitutional issue meets the absent special circumstance exception in new jersey turnpike then my question to you is what would satisfy the special question of state law i don't think alone is the only circumstance a court would consider i think in looking at a special circumstances you gotta look at the whole set of circumstances below where this was argued and and decided by the court and there isn't fact no burning issue right analysis regarding the level of scrutiny scrutiny which you all do lots of attention to everybody's arguments certainly and griffen doesn't have any reference at all to federal law or to the analysis that we follow in federal decided there was an implied exception to a limited extent to carry concealed deadly weapon in one's home but it also said that if there's a balance in there just like the federal courts have said that once the police officers there s the defendant for the weapon that interest was no longer there the interest in safety outweighed that so the scene the work of analysis but it was a criminal case that the analysis is so different from the way we would have i mean you think it they have to they didn't say hell or very so are you saying that with two questions first are you saying that the district court was correct and we can be comfortable in affirming the district court's  equally strong and my second question goes back to the combination of certification remained calculus and that is does it make a difference that the issues here are  if you will not limited to resolving a particular dispute of the parties before us but obviously have broader implications you know i think that this feud being limited to the parties to keep the decision in place because if in fact again and i know urgency does not address supplemental jurisdiction but if in fact there were some burning issue at the state level that needed to be decided the plaintiffs here or other players are free to ring  action again the district court decision is persuasive authority it is not binding we're not impede them in they're prosecuting that case at the state level you know we have a really a long well thought out in where i get that but the delaware constitutional issue is discussed in three paragraphs and all it says is there's nothing the state let's look at federal and let's look at the three same same approach we were very careful your honor we went when this first came up the n r a itself sent a letter to mr pradelle saying we think this policy violates federal law we said the board had a meeting and said well at that you know in your home your apartment certainly you have it right that a weapon but when you come to a common area we just imagine the idea of people walking into a t v room and dell is an open carry state there's no restriction requirement for for a gun so they can money the fact that there's a inherent conflict in what delaware look provides now versus what federal law provides so that the analysis of the delaware supreme court i mean the three of us could all guess right the three of us could all guess wrong any permutation of that based on the fact that there were it could say well consistent with our law our constitutional law it should reflect as you mention the open carry ethos if you will and that is clearly in conflict with the federal supreme court precedent so i don't know how we can just say oh yeah our take care of all this and i'm not saying that the district court did that blithely i'm sure you know there was a lot of what put into it but it's hard to say that that would necessarily be the way that delaware would go to clearly when you've just pointed out this inherent conflict where you look at the gripping case the grafin case that this point out this open carry issue would set up with the connection for the restriction or actual evidence i know there's been an argument between you about what the show needs and made i mean don't worry given the open carry it might require a heavier burden of showing that this is and the least that this is  result the fact is that the decision below is binding in federal court so that we have another federal playing this decision has value and it would be no applicable there after having litigated that between the parties that should stand now as your to bear arms in self defense is such a fundamental right that the us constitution did not grant that right it merely codified and recognized a preexisting natural right there are very few rights that were that exalted status and pedigree that the constitution didn't grant the right that everyone is born with that right and then our view is that just because you're a resident a public house and shouldn't mean that your rights to self defense or more are more should say to the district court either we agree with you or we disagree with you well we start out being co extensive but then the state constitutional right extends it brought more broadly but just the beginning part of the right is the same and then as the constitution in delaware broadens the right but the right to self defense is the same and turns of being a natural right that everyone is born with and then the state constitution extends it even further and i just wanted to say that should we should read the constitution section as permissable line to the extent you're you're this you've been fired upon and you're defending yourself leave the this court has recognized that the right to bear arms in self defense in the case of confrontation is the part of the natural right in the seventh circuit decision more vers to explain that the confrontations are not limited to the home and he explained that and i just want to mention quickly the more versus not in case and if i can just add another ten seconds because my time's up if i can i'll stop up quickly ten seconds with the more verse magic in case involved an identical situation involved a statute where someone was allowed to have a gun in their apartment but not in the common areas and judge