but listening to you now you don't really strike me very much as the enemy. sometimes it is by ukraine especially as you speculate so my question is who are you and more important what you see your role in life today? thank you. >> but i am worried about this is the most important issue. i do not support the policy.

then he would just be one of us. i am trying to understand. [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] and that justification the only journalists but is publicly criticized. i've wasted on the next day and it was a shutdown.

[inaudible] >> and who canceled the flight because the situation isn't that clear.

[inaudible] thank you. i'm from the united states institute of peace. i wonder if you could reflect a little bit about this russian narrative and what it means to be russian and how has this changed since the that changed since the end of the cold war if it has in various parts of russia. it might vary from one place to another. but how has that idea involved, and how does that affect the internal debate and discussion in the potential susceptibility to the disinformation and propaganda?

[inaudible] and it unites everybody. and we care that people stop this. this is the defense of the majority situation.

because on the level that is recognized for russia in the different regions. >> local researcher. several months ago putin was asked a very poignant question. at a press conference putin was asked about claims he was calling people fifth column and it was call amanda was creating a bad atmosphere. a strong answer to the question basically there is a loyal opposition that the traitors are the people working in the interest of another state. and against our state. so it seems to me actually

being a faux isn't quite as bad in his view as what do you think about the answer? >> the perception doesn't depend on what i'm doing. it was at this press conference. >> [inaudible] there is a legitimate and illegitimate it might be the

local level or that regional operatives. if i remember the concept and the second part is in the interest of the foreign powers. but then fund. there aren't that different approaches. that is what you can do.

>> we have time for three more questions i would like to group them together. if people could be quick and identify yourself and ask the question. there is a woman here on the isle. >> i am with with the department of state. you described the media space as a bit of a circus and i wondered if wonder if to. it's more of an assessment of what you feel has changed with you and your colleagues in the media space in russia in the last several years. >> i would like to ask about the russia and georgia relations. they try to reduce tension that we are fortunately seen major improvements. i would like to ask how do you see this in the future? thank you.

>> one last question here on the right in the very back with a woman on the floor. >> thank you. from the atlantic council. a question on this information always one or you know since we have the russian public that gets their news coverage from television what would it take to reach the public from the perspective of the media in the russian language and to convince them of the alternative narrative?

>> [inaudible] gradient vacation and russia due to this attention. for example, [inaudible]

the most important issue [inaudible] [inaudible] when he raised a generation of some journalists covered this and take the responsibility for the information policy and some

are different from the media outlets and mostly via websites responsible relieved [inaudible] and we are talking about policies in the account for the social networks to become a proper journalist of this

information that takes over everything and it is going to spread. [inaudible] they are not allowed to run ads in the broadcast [inaudible]

there was nothing there. there are 100 journalists that supported the story. the markets go down. later they found out from the press.

[inaudible] and then it took a long time first of all supermarkets. [inaudible] the continuation is impossible to hear. [inaudible] it is from one profession to another.

they have a high level of mistrust to the part of the government and by president putin and they made the call because this is what happens in russia [inaudible]

so these are good issues. it is to diversify and to be available to everybody to create the different points.

>> thank you very much. [applause] one more time, congratulations and we wish you the ability to have the impact that we've been having. >> thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] this program will be available later today on the website because c-span.org where you can find other programs dealing with russia and ukraine. during this break we will continue our congressional interviews with four conversations tonight starting

at eight eastern a nebraska democrat john radcliffe texas republican and the homebuyer was a democrat and compares selling cars to being a member of congress. a lot of people asked over the years how i make the transition from car sales and car service to politics. and i said truthfully it is a pretty shortstaffed. a lot of the skills are the same. being able to walk up to people and find a way to be friendly and open and find something that you have in common, elizabeth was sales. mostly it is about meeting people's needs. we serve 65,000 cars over the years and i remember pressuring somebody into buying a car and that is the worst way to do

that. it's to say what are your needs and priorities, what works for you and your family and how can we meet that need. and politics is the same. what are the crisis in your life what are the things that don't function in our society and how do we move forward to listen. >> 's complete interview can be seen tonight on the conversations with the new members of congress as we share their personal stories and reflections on being the members of the house of representatives. again that's tonight starting at eight eastern.

earlier this month the ninth circuit court of appeals in san francisco considered whether to strike down california's concealed weapons carry regulations while the judges heard challenges to restrictions on the gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public and california citizens only carry concealed weapons in public with a permit they must present good

moral character, take a training course and establish good cause largely of the county sheriffs and police to determine what constitutes good cause. the regulations are being challenged in san diego for the courts decision could have implications statewide. all rise the united states

ninth circuit is now in session. >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen we are here in the consolidated cases of the members of the cabinet in richard versus the county. i want to remind everyone to turn off their cell phones so we don't interrupt the attorneys presented the case. you may proceed. >> chief judge thomas may i please the court for the

appellate in the case and i would like to endeavor to reserve three minutes for rebuttal if i could. this case involves a challenge to san diego county policy as interpreting good cause to require applicants to demonstrate that they have a particularly acute need for self-defense, which distinguishes themselves from their ordinary fellow citizens. my client's complaint here is not with the california statutory scheme because the statutory scheme itself can be interpreted to respect the second amendment rights. indeed it has been so interpreted and the majority of california counties that allow good cause to be interpreted in a way that makes much more permissive and allows people to get concealed carry permits for self-defense purposes. and that includes california counties like sacramento county that are quite populist. that's the source of the difficulty here isn't with is that with the statutory scheme but san diego interpretation of

the good cause standard in san diego policy that's striking down the policy would not invalidate any statute in the state of california and to the contrary doing so would save the statues from constitutional doubt. now the question here i would also emphasize is that whether there is a constitutional right to concealed carry. rather, the question is whether there is a constitutional right to exercise the right to carry arms for purposes of the self-defense. the answer accident on densely clear is yes it cannot advertise the second amendment right. they would try to suggest the second amendment is somehow a threat that does not extend to carrying arms outside of the privilege of the home but only

extends to keeping the arms in the home in the first instance. >> is it in terms of the procedural status at this point since the sheriff chose not to appeal and now the state will have to intervene. is it a different vehicle and the surrounding cases and then we are held in the advance kennedy decided the same without the sheriff? >> it can be the same. that might depend on how the courts resolve the motion to intervene. we actually don't have an issue in the state being here to intervene to defend, to get involved in the case. we do take issue with them being here under rule 24 dot justifies

them being here as of right because of a federal statute. we don't think that it is properly understood in the challenge that calls into question the constitutionality of the four debates are statute for the reasons i think they've already elaborated. we don't have a beef with those statutes if my client was fortunate to live in sacramento county there would be no objection to what the state has done. so the objection is to the counties with policy and the policy and the way the county interprets the good cause. >> do you think the recent denial in california has any bearing since they don't seem to like to talk about the second amendment very often coming years go by without it. can we read anything from that? >> i suppose that might make that decision all the more important. but other than that, i think that all denials are worth about the same which is in the scheme of things not terribly much. it's important to the client in one particular case but it is

over but we've been struck the time and time again not to read anything into the simple denial. >> can be required to safety course and completion and that kind of thing? spent absolutely come and something like the safety course would be much more tethered to the interest that is being asserted by the county and the safety. we are not here to take issue with the idea of the licensing regime generally. as i said, we don't really have a beef with the same as the licensing scheme is administered by the majority of the counties in california where they require a certificate of training. they require of their background checks to make sure that they are eligible to possess a firearm but we don't think that whatever else could cause to be interpreted to me. and maybe there is a case on the road as to whether the county

can have a slightly more restrictive interpretation of the good cause but the only thing i don't think it can be is that you only get to show the good cause if you show you have a better reason for the firearm and felicitous and when it comes to self-defense when the supreme court in the decision said that every citizen to the people, one of the key words in the decision and its interpretation of the constitution to the people have the right to possess a firearm for the purposes of self-defense so it seems a little antithetical to the basic thrust of the decision tuesday the only way that you can exercise your second amendment rights is to show that you have a better basis for exercising that right in your fellow citizens. >> you are unhappy with the competitive nature, but he's undersized for touchstone so candidate requires someone to demonstrate that they required it for self-defense regardless

of whether it is compared to anyone else's need for self-defense? >> i suppose we want you to satisfy the good cause it was articulate for self-defense is your good cause and eventually articulate why it is that you feel you have the need for self-defense i don't think we would be here objecting to that because as we say it's not just my client that is focused on self-defense it may be that you need to explain the basis for the self-defense. i have an acute need for self-defense that distinguishes me from my fellow citizens.

>> but under your theory any self-defense should be the justifiable good cause? >> i don't think so because we take this case as it lies and the san diego policy didn't get my client and give my client any opportunity to say anything about self-defense beyond the distinct right compared to the citizens. so we were not denied because our self-defense argument or the articulation wasn't good enough in the abstract. we were denied because the county quite emphatically had a policy that requires the shoving it to be extraordinarily fellow citizens. and so -- >> the premise for the panel decision was that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry in public whether openly or concealed so that as i read of the three-judge panel so long as you are not a convicted felon or

insane or a child, that is the law abiding citizen you have the right to kerry either concealed or open and then it followed from that because california does not allow the unrestricted open carry but it have to be very generous or permissive in terms of carrying. do you share the premise of the three-judge panel ask >> we think the premise of the opinion is correct. >> your argument and stems from the then stems from the premise that any law-abiding adult citizen has a right to carry either concealed or open or one or the other. >> any specific shoving for the desire for self-defense i think he has a second amendment right. that doesn't necessarily follow that they would have an absolute and heilman to it because the second amendment like all is not a principle without some limits. >> so what limitations do you

see? >> i don't know that i see any particular obvious ones in this context but again -- >> that doesn't help me very much. you can limit the right to carry the can you don't tell me what? >> it is very clear that the states should have the option of how they regulate. so if one state wants to prefer open carry and another wants to impose concealed carry they certainly have that option. they may also have options in how they go about the licensing regimes whether they require training courses and the like. with all fairness to me and my client we have to see in order to understand if there's an argument that conforms in the second amendment or not. >> may i ask you than to go back historically to where the court

basically said that the right of people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by the law that actually prohibits the carrying of concealed weapon. that hasn't been aggravated by the supreme court, correct? >> i don't think they had the occasion but with all due respect i don't think that the aggregate. >> so, my question is with that kind of statement how does it fit into your construct and what would you have us do in that case? >> i would have you understand that the way that you understand the other references which is coming into this and this is the point i was trying to make the art here saying up here saying we have an absolute right to concealed carry. the way that i would understand that the robertson court meant which really was a myth as a 13th amendment case and they

have a peer graph they are making a drive by statement about six different constitutional rights. so i think you have to keep that in context but i think what they meant is on the assumption that there was open carry in that state that a concealed carry restriction would be consistent in the second amendment and i think that is the way that the supreme court in the decision understood what was going on in the states like georgia where the court specifically confronted the statute as it was applied to the firearms in particular for closed both open and concealed carry him and in that context both the georgia court in the 1820s were the team 40s said you have to essentially have the right to carry one way or the other otherwise you are dropping the tracks in the second regulation right regulation rights to the obliteration of the second amendment rights. so that's how i understand the victim in that same. >> if we assume for the moment that the right applies in this context, why wouldn't it survive

the intermediate scrutiny? >> i'm glad you asked that because there is a healthy debate for all of that but i don't think that san diego policy can survive any form of heightened scrutiny. and the reason i think that is because there are a couple of hallmarks and every attorney and first of all you relax the presumption that the ordinances are constitutional and then you shift the burden to the government to defend the law rather than the ordinary rational basis. then you require actual evidence. and if you look at the evidence in this case, it is all one declaration by the professor and this is the excerpt of the record for 04. with all due respect, that cannot be enough to satisfy. >> is countered by the declarations that into the plaintiffs. >> but here's why it can't. he doesn't even get to the relevant question. he makes two observations.

one, less guns less violence, and less concealed guns less violence but he doesn't ask what is the critical question which is if there are less concealed licensed guns how does that affect the level of violence? they have no evidence on that end of excuse for not having the evidence. >> should they have conducted a trial come is very factual dispute on the question? >> i don't think it is a factual dispute. this case went to the judge so than the county had its opportunity to marshal all of its evidence. the burdens on it and at that point it doesn't get a do over. if marshals would've was sufficient evidence. we don't think they got the job done under the intermediate scrutiny. and i think he finished with other thought i made before when the supreme court in the case like turner broadcasting talked about the predictive judgments that was in the

context where there have to be a predictive government. he. they never impose the requirement of the cable operators before so you had to make a guess. here the answer is in plain sight in sacrament -- sacramento county and i don't think there's any evidence in the world which is part of the reason it isn't in the record when the states adopted a more permissive interpretation of the good cause standard that the sky fell for the crime went up and you have such an obvious compared her and the state doesn't offer you that evidence. it seems if we that we are in intermediate scrutiny that doesn't get the job done. >> in the second third and fourth in the collapse and what was the other one? i forget the other. >> the court said there is a similar provision that survived in the intermediate scrutiny. >> they did on their own.

the most obvious thing we could look look to the seventh circuit and i think the judge had a fine opinion but i think the difference is all of the cases if they were taking the scrutiny seriously seriously giving advice was based on david and cheery records in those cases. and i think the situation in new york are examples radically different. there were a number of hearings before the new york legislature dealing with the particular provisions. and there was a much richer record that doesn't bear anything like the record in this case and part of it is this oddity that if you think about the state interest in this case it's not even an interest in public safety because they would be happy for san diego county to interpret this delay as the sacramento county. so in that in that compelling in a state is getting the discretion to the county level officials. and i don't think that is a good enough interest to satisfy and that is true about the

california regime and isn't about any other regime. >> but i thought that you said with respect to whether the evidence was available anywhere in the world that there was no such evidence. how can you say that there is a rich record in new york that supports what they are doing? >> i was talking about the record in california because i think that we have here -- people behave differently in new york. >> what i don't think you have in other states because the answer to this at the state level what you have in california that really distinguishes it from all these other states is the opportunity to have a direct compared her about what would happen if we had a more permissive view of the good cause compared to the policy that's being supported here and here there are obvious compared yours. you look to sacramento -- >> but how long have they been in effect? you can't look at something going on for six months and then

draw legitimate conclusions. >> i think that the -- each county is different with some of them have been in effect for years, so i don't think it is -- i mean because in fact all of the evidence has been cited that i see in the record and the amicus briefs suggest the jurisdictions adopt the policy of allowing relatively free issuance of concealed permit carries one of two things happen. it stays the same or it goes down. but i hear to tell you that if you apply intermediate scrutiny and i'm wrong about this empirical question and another jurisdiction exceeded her case that will be the consequence in that case. that's a good thing about intermediate scrutiny. it's not one-size-fits-all and then we are done forever. it advocates that the possibilities will be decided differently based on the record in the particular case into the particular jurisdiction. i would invite you to take a look at that declaration because

i think that you go see -- i can't think of another context where that kind of declaration would be enough of the evidence year he basis for the jurisdiction under the intermediate scrutiny. >> chief judge thomas and finally i reserved three minutes of time for the rebuttal. spec nobody argues in this case and there is that there is no evidence anywhere that would suggest that people at a heightened need of self defense or somehow by that virtue safer from firearms than the members of the community at large. carrying guns for self-defense is allegedly dangerous.

they should be able to reduce the danger by reducing the number of people that are carrying handguns. they believe it is too dangerous to allow. >> it sounds like -- i'm sorry go ahead. i think that the government is going to argue that because there are certain exceptions of people that can have concealed weapons that have somehow -- what would be your response to that for the retired people and military police officers, how does that factor -- how would you respond to that? >> if we have to defer to that balancing judgment that the sheriff has made they are okay to carry because the danger is somehow lessened, then the court would also have to deter in at

least three other areas. number one, the court would have to be sure to share its judgment that nobody can excessively exercised the right. if the sheriff says it is just a dangerous no one can have it cut the same deference insisting that. the second problem would be why he only apply to the airport of the second amendment? we heard the same argument in the case that but keeping handguns at home is unaccountable and for absolute needs of public safety the district of columbia should have been able to prohibit the use of handguns in the home. could washington, d.c. enact a statute that says we are going to only allow people with an exceptionally strong fear of burglary or heightened need perhaps a showing that somebody wants to burglar their house only they can see the handgun at home. there is nothing that would suggest that this type of of heightened self-defense interest can apply to one side of the amendment and not the other end of the third problem is if we

are going to have this sort of difference why stop with the second amendment at all after all we can imagine that the fourth amendment is probably the right but the sheriff finds to be most interfering in the police power that the sheriff can only exercise so much for some he might need to get a warrant. why not only respect those that have a heightened state of privacy or -- >> but that is an area in which danger please a role because the doctrine of the exigent circumstances interplay between the danger when it is a parent and immediate. if taken to its extreme on your argument seems to suggest safety concerns are irrelevant and that no sort of restriction is okay. if there's any form there is any form of restructuring that you would find in your view constitutionally permissible --

>> yes, your honor and it's not an argument that no restriction can be tolerated. rather this is a very narrow challenge. it exercises the thought of there is no challenge in the case to any restriction to share this might play for the time place or manner if you want to enact that there are no restrictions to be placed at all and there is no challenge in the training requirement. we accept that and we can probably imagine could probably imagine other types of regulations that would pass precisely because they are addressed in the actual danger rather than a regulation that can't be tolerated because the sheriff disagrees with the right. so it's not like the fourth amendment situation were to make the exigent circumstance and they can say we have a fleeing felon. we have an evidence he destroyed, we have a kidnapping

with a ticking time bomb. we can imagine all these exigent circumstances but wouldn't it be much simpler for the sheriff to say as he does in this case generally speaking overall this idea that people should have the right to demand a reasonable search, whatever that might mean that simply has a high burden on public safety and so i am only going to be concerned with the rights of people who i believe are a special need for those rights. that wouldn't fly in this court remanded to doesn't fly in the speech cases. we know it doesn't work in the abortion cases because it is there to be warned about in the state of arizona they decided that in its police power and it has the power to regulate medical decision unquestionably it determined that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks and therefore it balanced the ability to access the services at the time in the need of the medical necessity. and this court. properly set no regardless what one might think about bush and

the fact is that the right is recognized within this timeframe and it is the woman's right to choose whether to have the procedure, not the doctors right to determine that it is medically necessary. >> is your suit premised in the law or is it when your client was not allowed to concealed permit. >> it has not. >> but just a minute. it seems to me that if i am to apply the law that existed as to the kerry open carry in that existed at that time when the time of your client was not given this concealed permit at that point your client could have open carry if you will and

unarmed weapon and some ammunition to put in the weapon. now, it is that it can't carry either. does your case live or die on exchange. >> at the time why is it stronger? i'm just trying to say can i apply the facts as they were and are you suggesting to change the theory and apply the change in the law and if so, why not go after the district court again whether you are right or not. >> the opinion didn't really turn. >> i think it did because if i look at what the district court did i look at pages eight and

nine as it relates to what it would be that would be available in this particular situation. that would be nodding your client's opinion but that would have been impeached have your opinion. it seems to be based at the basis of the law was. >> the basis of the time that it was filed in the complaint is unchanged, and that is that the people have the right to be armed and ready in case of confrontation. >> that if but if i am going to apply a intermediate scrutiny to this particular matter and the wall doesn't say anything about the fact that you are allowed to carry whatever you want unlimited ammunition doesn't it seem that is a pretty big basis to suggest on the intermediate scrutiny that it survives? to

>> no your honor. first let's take the wall as it was at the beginning. the ability to carry an unloaded gun is useless if it's not dangerous. >> i don't know whether it is useless or dangerous because we had a similar case in jackson where our court held that having guns in the closet and ammunition there was equal to anything that was needed and the supreme court did not take any chance to undo that. >> your honor, nowhere in america nowhere in the american tradition of people carried unloaded guns for self-defense. that is simply not purchase the sixth >> where is that in the record? >> that may be your great argument but i didn't find that in the record anyplace. >> the second amendment states people have the right to carry -- >> the amendment talks about the right to defense.

and all we are talking about now is the difference between self-defense and loaded or unloaded with ammunition. >> neither now or then did my client have the ability to carry a functional firearm for self-defense. right now today they certainly can't -- >> what you mean by functional? >> a gun that if it is not the disassembled its actually loaded and ready to be used. >> voted and functional are two different things. so the main functional or do you mean loaded? >> i guess loaded is the lesser included aspect. we are talking about functional. we have this issue where people are not allowed to render the arms functional. they had to be disassembled or locked up and the courts to courts if this violates the amendment because there was no exception as in jackson. there is the way people could use their guns in self-defense

but i would also like your response to the question received earlier about robertson versus baldwin because the answer is contained and we have to look at how heller defines the second amendment and this is critical they tell us to bear arms as it is used in the second amendment is to wear, bear or carry on the command of clothing or the pocket for the purpose of being armed and ready. those are two separate categories of carrying upon the person that is open carrying or in the clothing or the pocket that sounds like concealment and so heller recognized in the terms of the concealed carry could in fact be one way of exercising that right and of course as my colleague argued earlier the opinion made it quite clear earlier in american history in the manner in which guns are carried into because

the state can regulate the manner in which they are carried and they don't have a claim we are entitled to carry any particular manner. my clients will take what they are given by the legislature if the legislature says you can't carry in any way shape or form we are not going to allow the open carry and for the concealed carry we are going to give you a license which which was not entitled to because they don't recognize of defense and generalized interest as a reason for the license. then that right has been effectively destroyed. >> your colleague referred to the seventh circuit opinion. but in the seventh circuit opinion was looking at a flat ban correct? and in that opinion the court actually contrast the flat ban which was an illinois situation which for examples in new york

it seems to me the good cause provision very similar to san diego county. maybe you can can enlighten me on why you think that the seventh circuit somehow lends credence to your argument and why these other circuits when we shouldn't be looking to them for what has been held to be constitutional in terms of the good cause. >> it wouldn't survive under. the opinion goes on at length to discuss how they have the same right to have the gun for self-defense on the street as much as in their apartments. the opinion goes on. >> we don't have a flat ban. of course they would oppose that

we have the bandwidth a proviso. >> the same self-defense interest that secures the right to keep arms in the home is the same interests that underlines the right to bear arms outside of the home and this good cause scheme would be applicable to the right exercise in the home. >> and i'm not meaning to exclude the home because they are talking about outside of the home at this point. >> if it is the same -- if the interest of the lungs to the people generally is the same inside as well as outside then there is no way that a law like this which starts in the presumption that population at large is disabled from exercising a fundamental right could survive.

>> ..

and in the state sat on its hands and lost and here you are. suddenly suddenly why should we let you intervene at this.? >> first of all, we appreciate the ability to be here today. whether we are permitted to intervene or not we appreciate that. we think that we should be permitted given that these cases have what now becomes

an adsense or in essence a challenge that destitution only of the california public hearing scheme. there are ways that the court can and should resolve cases that would not have those applications. two things happened. the criminal opinion address the issues in a way that has brought significance potentially for california law and the sheriff decided not to seek rehearing on bond and we made the decision to ask the court to take a second look. >> if we allow you to intervene what does that mean for intervention in general? obviously my understanding of the governor and atty. gen.'s office, they, they are supposed to defend laws that are constitutional. no one seems to want to weigh in on these political issues, as it were. now.

now why isn't it too late? >> with respect -- >> if it were another case there would be no way parties would be able to intervene. >> i i highly agree the circumstances here are unusual and rare. >> when i was a district judge there was some obligation on the district court to certify to the state or attorney general that either a federal or state statute had been called into question. did the district court make that determination to the state adjourned -- state atty. gen.'s office? >> i would not want to rely on that. what i want to say is that both of these cases as they were presented in the complaints and district courts provided a couple of different avenues, avenues,

and one could have been a broad view. more particularly they were focused on the individual discretion of the sheriffs including allegations that the decisions were being made an arbitrary way or favoritism. those were not issues without the state had compelling reason to get involved. as it turns out the cases been decided a much broader legal grounds. >> is there a way this could be interpreted to avoid any kind of challenge to the state statute? the local interpretation? as i understand, challenging the interpretation of good cause by the sheriff. >> i heard him say that. >> the way you could interpret the statute to avoid the problem that we have here? >> i take it i take it my friends would be content with an interpretation that good cause is satisfied by an assertion of any law-abiding individual of

the need or desire to carry in self-defense which is not the interpretation. and it is possible they might be some intermediate ground where sheriff could make a discretionary decision. i was was not clear what the grounds would be. greater than i would like to carry. >> out as the state anticipate in this context? >> leave this up to the individual clicks the state of california has no view? >> the state statutory structure is to commit the discretion to find good cause and give the the responsibilities to find it cost to local sheriffs because conditions may vary from place to place. they may be the policy to make sense is different from county to county.

>> the second amendment is not -- >> we don't believe there is a baseline. clicks the second amendment does not change cap to the county. >> we are here to defend the ability, ability, the constitutionality of the sheriff imposing the kind of standard that a sheriff can impose. >> is of the county's view that the right is not apply? >> i want to be careful how i answer that. it is not our view the second amendment has no purchase anywhere outside the home. we would like to define the right recognized as a right to a right to do exactly what they want to do which is carry concealed weapons

on the streets public spaces in san diego or davis. that we davis. that we do not think hell are sense for. let me give you a few reasons for that. one thing that it makes clear is that restrictions are concealed carry only the weapons, especially in cities and towns. a rich tradition that does not conflict with the basic second amendment right. >> i just want to note here. it is the state's position that the helen wright can apply outside the home the core right of a law abiding irresponsible citizen for me -- to use of a firearm for self-defense can apply outside the home yes or no?

quakes yes with the qualification, which is that we think there is -- the supreme court has not addressed this. the come away with the fact that there is no purchase of the second amendment outside the home. i think it is easy to read and necessary to say that the second amendment does not confer a right to the concealed carry of handguns especially in cities and towns. >> supplemented by equal a total prohibition. what is your position on that.

there's a long and rich tradition of public regulation of the ability to carry dangerous weapons including handguns. we think that history has been elaborated. in part we would say there is a very good argument that categorically we are allowed to regulate open carry along with concealed carry the we are talking about the public spaces of cities and towns. >> the numbers were perfect embodiment of concept and also the louisiana case chandler. both of those were in public

spaces, where they not? >> i don't know where the defendants were arrested. my recollection is the statutes applied statewide without a distinction. the south is representative of the rest of the country i don't know the record allows us to establish a categorically that a categorically that we could ban both open and concealed carry but i do think there is a rich tradition of regulation. regulation is not a band. in unincorporated areas outside of cities and towns.

you are free to carry open unloaded at your business your place of business even san diego. >> that was curious from me. it was adjust my -- justifiable homicide narrow circumstances where you were faced with a life-threatening situation. public aid is not immediately available. i think it's significant. other ordinary activities

firearm ownership's outside the home purchase purchase training, sports shoes, camping, all of these are accommodated by california scheme. downtown san diego downtown davis does not mean that you have a right to carry a firearm. >> does this argument assumes the change in law that now there is no for absolutely no carry that is not concealed with prior to this change one could carry the one could not carry a loaded does your argument

apply to both situations, or are we only dealing with the situation which be front of these plaintiffs? >> i have been arguing in terms of the current law which i believe is harder for the state because the law now imposes greater restrictions on unloaded open carry. >> is that in front of us? quakes given -- >> i did not find in any of the fact situation where that was the case which fronted the plaintiffs to bring the suit. >> i agree at the time that these plaintiffs out their permits and the permits were denied that was not the law. the decision to denial on that basis. given the reasons stated here we have

not approached the case on that basis. >> i asked about intermediate scrutiny, the record in this case. how do you respond to his argument? >> he said is not really worth much. >> the affidavit as an aid in the voice of an expert who is a long-standing and very experienced professor a variety of statements which to support what's that i i want to get to about the degree of danger. the record here was built at a time when the law was very different as to unloaded open carry.

i mean,, that's the main difference. i don't think it would be appropriate on the basis of that record. if the court feels the record here is not sufficient to support the state and county positions for ways that the cases i suggest the next -- the right thing to do is reverse the summary judgment for the development of a greater record. >> the evidence is sufficient, the affidavit in front of us we should as i understood, grant him some regulation. >> i believe that is his argument. i argument. i don't think that is the right answer. i'm not sure there would be a right answer.

very broad significance. if they issued a ruling on broad significance than you should do so by taking a notice from the same source of facts. most of this about the risk posed by these weapons a matter of common sense and could be subject to a judicial notice. if the court will issue a broad ruling it should be done on the basis of the record. if the court was to resolve the case in a narrow way that applies only to these plaintiffs and gives them their permits but perhaps leaves the share free to i suppose that case would be open to the court. >> are her time has expired. thank you, counselor.

>> good afternoon. afternoon. may it please the court. the county and sheriff i would like to begin by addressing judge smith's questions about the change in law. the law change after the opening and answering briefs were filed. it was referred to in a reply a reply brief as cementing a victory for plaintiffs. at the panel level we were asked i believe by chief judge thomas whether or not that would prevent the case going forward. and council agreed that it would not in both cases and in enriches the reason why i took the position was

because, as i read the district court opinion changes that have been made which i will address in a minute without a change district court's view. >> the richardson opinion where it seems to be that both district court's put a lot of emphasis on the present carry policy or carry law of california and suggested that that that was maybe some reason why intermediate scrutiny would not strike down the law. they had carry provisions which were allowed. simply cannot the ammunition with the gun. clicks because those exceptions still exist

albeit in less reform. her chest as they still exist. the way the current scheme works is different than the old. any old and current scheme you could carry loaded on private property business or residential with permission as long as it was in place a grocery store or restaurant as opposed to your accountant's office. under accountant's office. under the new law if you get permission from the property owner or tenant to carry you can only do it unloaded. you can still carry with you have to be unloaded.

under the old you could carry unloaded on you and a holster displayed, not concealed as long as it was unloaded when you are going to a public street. you cannot do that now. now it has to be a locked container. those are the two differences. in my view -- >> i understand the law you cannot carry openly anything what you must do is get the concealed permit. if you if you do not get the concealed permit you cannot carry it all. >> that is only for walking up and down a public street within city limits. >> i understand, and that is what i understand the sheriff's putting his regulations to. >> that is true, but the county is 95 percent rural. we are talking about whether there is a substantial burden on a fundamental right command even if we assume that historically the right to carry a loaded firearm in public was

generally observed, which we would submit is not the case but even if you assume that it was it is not a substantial burden if your inability to carry is limited to less than 1% of the county. if you if you can go to your relatives, friends, neighbors,, friends, neighbors, go to your lawyers accountants, your place of business and do all those things loaded and then when you get to the grocery store or bank and we will entertain the fiction that those places would allow you to carry again regardless of what state law is but less but let's just suppose the bank says sure you can come in. all that is left is the street, and people do not walk up and down the street just to walk up and down the street. they walk up and down the street to go in and out of

businesses. this theoretical burden on the right to carry will only be impacted if the business they are going to let them in the door with the gun in the first place. to me this burden being argued for clicks let me understand that. people walk up and down the street for a lot of reasons. >> if you are worried about self-defense you have strolling around in the late evening, circumvent the park do all kinds of things under your theory it is okay because if you were in the country there is no restriction clicks it is a a restriction, but viewed in the totality of where you can carry committee is a small restriction, not a substantial burden. if. if you can get 99 percent of the places you want to go and carry the fact you can't get a a 1 percent should not be deemed constitutionally problematic. >> do you take the position

that you start with the premise that howard extends beyond the home giving you that constitutional right but you are only narrowing it in 1 percent or a very small handful of circumstances. is that the construct? >> adding one layer, i do. the layer i would add is extending beyond the home and extending to carry in a public area of the city are not the same thing, and we have got extensive scholarly exposition by several of the amicus including the league of california cities and every town against gun violence that track the historical progression of restrictions on carry in urban areas all the way from colonial

through antebellum post- ratification forward. >> i guess what is unusual about your argument i am i am hearing you can see that heller does not restrict self-defense to the home. >> correct. >> everyone seems to be in agreement on that. you seem to be arguing that while yours is not restrictive, it is because you are in a rural area, and the danger is in the cities that are very heavily populated, that that seems to be the danger. but you are but you are saying you are rural area. why is this so dangerous are you are? >> i am i am not saying it is just because it is a rural area. >> i heard you say in a rural area. >> i did not say that. i did not say. i did not say anything about degree of

danger one way or the other. >> you are not saying that. >> no place the argument i am making has nothing to do with places being more dangerous than others. where the individual chooses to go is my. it is not a substantial burden if you can choose to go to most places and still have some right to carry. >> was this all on the record? >> in the underlying briefing. of. of course, the law changed in the ways i just described heller talks about sensitive places. this courthouse being one of them. it already expresses the idea that at least when you are outside your house there is going to be more restriction tolerated than there is when you are inside the house. it is interesting because we talked briefly about the more case and in the subsequent opinion the one

that came out after the illinois law was founded constitutional -- found unconstitutional and then the parties go back. and in the subsequent opinion that comes out which is 734748 judge poster says we say only that our mandate did not forbid the state to impose greater restrictions on carrying again outside the home that illinois law imposes on possessing a gun in the home. even more acknowledges once you're outside the home the state can regulate more extensively, and we think that is in keeping with the historical precedent that existed from the constitution's founding

ratification until now. >> rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny clicks if there is no fundamental right to carry concealed in a public place a public place, then it would be rational basis because there is no burden on a fundamental constitutional right. we think that the other circuits stand for that proposition. i throw in the first as well in hightower, which we briefed in one of our supplemental briefings. that court said that the refusal to issue a concealed carry permit to a retired policeman did not burden a

core second amendment right because it does not exist for concealed carry. we have several layers. the plaintiffs concede that is not true constitutional right. there is language referred to in heller about in the pockets of clothing, that language is defining the word carry, not the scope of the constitutional right in the second amendment but a physical description of what it means to carry which means something more than just to possess to bear meaning that you are going somewhere. we feel that the second amendment has always been treated as more extensive outside the home. look at hunting. that that is a core second amendment right, isn't it? heller tells us that colonial he you had to keep yourself alive by eating as much as defending yourself. is there anything that is more restricted in modern american cities than the right to hunt? >> probably smoking. [laughter] >> there you go. so it is allowed occasionally and there are

some cities where there is a dear problem a deer problem because there are no natural predators. generally i can't do that. i can't go out here and say oh that is a big fat pigeon commission did. shoot it. and that is not controversial. what california is doing here is the spectrum allowing -- putting aside

local ordinance and allowing for rights inside the home and pretty much equal on other private property friends, relatives pretty much equal in private businesses this shopping malls, restaurants department stores, then the regulation gets tighter and its open carry but has to be unloaded and then finally get to the city streets where we get it at its most restrictive. we don't feel that that could be deemed a distraction. ..

unless you count there's a fundamental burden excuse me a substantial burden on a fundamental constitutional right it wouldn't be a problem? problem. >> suppose i have to apply intermediate scrutiny and i now get to the idea that at the point applying intermediate scrutiny, there's a government interest, but i can't find anywhere where the government interest was related to what you did. >> i think as declaration relates it spent if the declaration doesn't then what should i give? >> both sides moved for summary judgment. so if he found neither side had sufficient evidence to warrant summary judgment, then you would have to send it back. >> is there any evidence from the plaintiffs in your

particular case? >> no. >> was there any declaration? >> never declarations that described the process that they went through but nothing about a particular riot need come as mr. gura said. i was at the argument. there are to wasn't that they have a special need. the argument was that i desire self-defense and i'm not otherwise disqualified by virtue of criminal record or lack of training et cetera. >> all right. thank you, counsel. >> thank you. >> mr. clement, we will give you three minutes. >> thank your honor. i have three minutes. i think i 3.5% think is the most important because if i heard the other side correctly they can see the second amendment applies outside the home and either conceited or claim perilously close to conceding that a ban on both open carry and conceal care

would be unconstitutional. so then the question then becomes very important is the scope of open carry kinder california law. mr. dumont you an accurate half the store but i wanted to the other half of the story which is under the new law you have open carry prohibited in the cities which is what they want to talk about but then he also told you it's prohibited in the prohibited areas of the unincorporated parts of the county. now, that means the keyword is prohibited areas come and that is defined in the penal code at 17303 of today's opening anywhere you can't discharge a firearm. the problem is that's almost everywhere. that's the streets, anywhere near a dwelling or an unoccupied dwelling or a car or an unoccupied car. so please don't decide this case on the presumption that you can carry openly in 85% of the county the unincorporated.

because you can't carry openly into prohibited areas in the unincorporated areas advance almost anywhere you would ever get. if you are on the grid on the streets, near a dwelling near a car you cannot carry openly. and that's why this is a situation where we are not asking for a constitutional right to concealed carry. we are asking for a constitutional right to have some mechanisms to exercise what my friends essentially concede we have come which is the right to self-defense outside the home. that is being forbidden to us almost anywhere that we could get on the grid. second point is try to be responsive to the moore case is significant. it's a significant that i thought it would be because its most significant on the point the other side has conceded which is judge posner explained why it is that the second and extend outside the home. some of the other circuits decide their case these are the

assumption it doesn't or research. i think the principles significance is the constitutional right to carry does extend outside the home. if you think about the cases that are out there there's a second, third and fourth circuit cases, the seventh circuit case that i will grant you it's a different that california isn't just like new york. it's not like new jersey. >> thankfully. >> i mean not just generally but as to the statute. [laughter] what makes it a different i think is penalties of up to the counties. so unlike the states would make his decision on a statewide basis and the assembled a statewide case for why this is so important to public safety, california with all due respect doesn't care care that much but leave it up to sacramento county and its constitutional. so the record then becomes what the record is in each case and the record here is not enough to satisfy strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. thank you. >> thank you counsel.

>> will put three minutes on the clock. >> thank you, your honor. i like to make three or four points in the limited time i have. first of all all of the council on the underside alluded to the other items there's a historical basis for this type of law. the brief does a fantastic job of marshaling evidence for the proposition that the right to carry guns has been regulated budget is the historical basis for this type of law that dates back earlier than at the drake courtcourt found the art apart other twists into in new york and new jersey enacted those particular types of regulations. what else was going on in the early part of the twists and request those were the days of -- the last word from the supreme court at the time was that the second amendment did not apply to the states and so it cannot be that we look to the legislative year of legislatures at that time as evidenced to people understood the second

amendment right, because if those legislators had consulted the supreme court's guidance on the second amendment they would be told that they were completely exempt from having to be concerned about it. it happened in other cases as well. council noted the high tower case. we filed a letter on november 26 that responded to their citation of high tower and ended we noted two things. hightower held distinguished to claim the point is made because the court found that the plaintiff had the ability to obtain a license to carry a handgun openly, so-called class be open carry license in massachusetts. that's not on the cards today. in response to that we noted a couple of other court decisions which perhaps merit some discussion. first of all we have people versus real where the michigan supreme court held and i have a quote, the axis of right

guaranteed by the constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff and they were taught by the to a handgun. more recently from the indiana court of appeals, essentially this case, we had a police chief who decided that he and the ability to evaluate people's claims of self-defense as a reason for granting or denying a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and the court struck down restraint the police chief from engaging that peter, holding that such an approach contravenes the essential nature of the constitutional guarantee, which is essential of course what this panel here did earlier in the case. also of course, much will resort the sprinkler of rhode island said the constitutional right to bear arms would be illusory, their words, -- kaluza rate -- ability to carry a gun were committed to the unfettered discretion of the licensing officer.

and, finally, your honors, council states that we did not provide any evidence challenging the wisdom of his carry policy. that's not our burden to even under intermediate scrutiny it's the government burden to prove that its law actually advances some kind of an important interest in a way that fits properly to that objective. >> so at that point all i do is evaluate what the defendants have suggested as evidenced? and if it meets at the appropriate level of defining the government interest and feeding the regulation to the government interest, then you loose speak with we wouldn't lose because number one they didn't have any evidence but never to -- >> i have the affidavit that suggests -- >> the affidavit didn't show that this policy was necessary to address some feature of carrying handguns. what the affidavit basically

stated, the three of the case was carrying handguns is dangerous and want to reduce or eliminate the danger. even if we were to concede that they are correct for the sake of argument, we will tell them it's very dangerous to carry handguns come all kinds of terrible things to happen we would still prevail because right or wrong that judgment has been made in a constitution. the people ratified that in the second amendment and that choice has to be respected. thank you. >> thank you for your argument interbreeding. it's been very helpful to the court and we will be in recess. >> all rise. [inaudible conversations] >> off a sweep of congress is now officially booktv in primetime.

>> earlier today president obama announced the united states has agreed to formally reestablish tonight relations with cuba and to reopen the embassies in the two countries. he said the u.s. will continue to a series of differences with cuba but american engagement with that country will advance democracy and human rights. here's a look. >> the progress we market it is yet another demonstration that we don't have to be imprisoned by the past. when something isn't working we can and will change.

last december, i announced that the united states and cuba had decided to take steps to normalize our relationship. as part of that effort president raul castro and i directed our teams to negotiate the re-establishment of embassies. since then, our state department has worked hard with their cuban counterparts to achieve that goal. and later this summer, secretary kerry will travel to havana formally to proudly raise the american flag over our embassy once more. this is not merely symbolic. with this change, we will be able to substantially increase our contacts with the cuban people. we'll have more personnel at our embassy. and our diplomats will have the ability to engage more broadly across the island. that will include the cuban government, civil society, and ordinary cubans who are reaching for a better life. on issues of common interest like counterterrorism, disaster response, and development, we will find new ways to cooperate with cuba. and i've been clear that we will also continue to have some very serious differences.

that will include america's enduring support for universal values, like freedom of speech and assembly, and the ability to access information. and we will not hesitate to speak out when we see actions that contradict those values. however, i strongly believe that the best way for america to support our values is through engagement. that's why we've already taken steps to allow for greater travel people-to-people and commercial ties between the united states and cuba. and we will continue to do so going forward. you can see his entire remarks tonight at 9:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," gay rights, same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws for employment and housing.

>> as we travel across the united states, join us in toxic medications this weekend as well we learn about the history of literary life of omaha nebraska where the de porres club is one of america's first advocacy groups fighting for racial equality. >> oma had a reputation in the african american command in omaha and the united states as a city that when you came in if you were black you needed needed to keep their have been engineered to be aware that you were going to be served in restaurants and you weren't going to be a stay in hotels. when the de porres club begins her operations the idea effect

the term civil rights wasn't, they use the term civil justice because the idea of civil rights was so far removed from the idea of the greater community of omaha or the united states, that they were kind of operating any thinking i would like to say that there operating without a net. they were not to support groups not the prior experiences of other groups to challenge racial discrimination and segregation. >> we look back to the union pacific that the construction and union station helped omaha's economy. >> the union pacific is one of premier railroad companies of america. and was founded in 1862 with a specific relic act signed into law by abraham lincoln. it combined several railroad companies to make union pacific and then they were charged with building the transcontinental railroad. that will connect the east and west coasts. they started here, moving west

central pacific start on the west coast and they met up in utah. that's really what propels us even farther. we become that point of moving west, one of the gateways to the west. >> see all of our programs from omaha saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv and sunday afternoon at two on american history tv on c-span3. >> next economic and financial experts discuss the ongoing debt crisis in puerto rico increase. the countries face similar economic challenges come painless node of greece position as a sovereign state and puerto rico's position as a u.s. territory will affect the outcomes. held at the mid to enterprise institute, this is two hours.

>> ladies and gentlemen, if everybody would take their seats we will begin. thank you. and good morning. are we ready on our tv? thank you. i'm alex pollock, and it's my pleasure to welcome you all to our conference on a tale of two dead crises come is puerto rico america's greece? as many of you told us it seems our time for the conference was pretty good and i need hardly remind you of the current events, headlines and debates

make is quite timely. we have the prospect for twin defaults, a line from the "washington post" this morning of course closing rica banks weekend runs on atms news photos of a bank run standing in front of the atm. the governor of puerto rico publicly saying the government debts are not payablecommon speaking of a debt moratorium lots of debates about possible bankruptcy or puerto rican government entities are financial control board be imposed up renewed depreciated currency for greece, or as my friend desmond has called it an exodus for greece from the euro. further credit downgrades. and all enough to keep us busy thinking about this. that is some entertainment and comic relief as part of this.

since rating agencies and officials have announced that the default by greece on debt the government would not be a default, at least it wouldn't be called a default. and we have the president of the united states and the secretary of the treasury urging europeans to find an agreement. i'm sure they really appreciated those helpful urgings. then there's the sober truth which is that troubled borrowers can keep paying as long as the lenders keep making new loans, and the new loans go to pay the interest on the old ones can even though net, nothing is changing except that debt is getting bigger. when the lenders stop lending more it's the end of the extend and pretend game. in my view, both greece and puerto rico are fine examples of

debt finance, government centric noncompetitive economies which in margaret thatcher's wonderful phrase have now run out of other people's money. let me share a quotation with you all. the history of greek borrowing is to live constantly beyond its resources, this begins. it continues, the debt burden was plainly beyond greek capacity, but for a long time they found a new debt to furnish funds to pay the interest on the old debts. however, this day came to an end. the greek government been declared that pending further negotiations complicate only 3% the interest on its debt. for four years degree cover and engaged in stubborn negotiation without issue. finally, on the initiative of the german government,

provisions were written into agreements whereby greece entrusted to an international financial commission the duty of controlling the revenues set aside for debt service. however, greek opinion was profoundly hostile to this arrangement. the subsequent record of greek borrowing says this author has a reputation of the earlier history. this is all written by herbert christ in 1930 describing events in the 1890s but of course they are remarkably appropriate for june 30, 2015. both greece and puerto rico in their government accounts have shown a notable ability to achieve the debt. they are to the numbers on the slide, i know, but if you get a chance to look at it on the website competitions of the biggest 10 u.s. states by debt including such notables as

illinois, and compares it to puerto rico. and then converts this to per capita product and per capita debt. and we find that the average of the 10 biggest state borrowers at 21% stated municipal debt to gross product where as puerto rico has a 69% a remarkable three times a debt burden of illinois. when i showed these numbers to our colleague, john mousseau, he said yeah but the puerto ricans don't have to pay federal income taxes so they could can pay more to service their municipal debt. nonetheless, it is a huge level of government debt in puerto rico. as of today, something the greek and puerto rican governments have in common are standard & poor's come in with standard & poor's on the panel, so using their ratings. dacia ratings of ccc- with a negative outlook for the

government of greece and ccc- with a negative outlook for the puerto rican government. of course, we have a negative outlook there's one step down is default of various kinds. and it is important always to remember that although people talk loosely about the debt of greece and the debt of puerto rico, in all cases of this kind would talk about the death of a government. it's the governments of debt that is at issue. and in these cases it all boils down, ladies and gentlemen to alex pollock's law finance which is loans which cannot be paid, will not be paid. so the debate therefore is really about how to divide the inevitable losses among the parties. and for governments in particular it's about how to obscure the losses which are being taken and to keep the

public confused about what's going on for as long as possible. now, our expert analysts are going to enlighten us further about the past present and perhaps the future of these two broke big time government borrowers. let me introduce them in the order in which they will speak. first, dave hitchcock senior director at standard & poor's and hazardous primary analyst for major states and for the commonwealth of puerto rico. he's been with standard & poor's for 35 years which means you have seen a lot of dead crises in that time, as have i. david is past chairman of the municipal analyst group of new york, served on the board of the national federation of municipal and list of the comptroller general's advisory council on government auditing standards and received the first team all-star award for credit analysis for states in 2014. next will be john mousseau who

has over 30 years investment management experience and is executive vice president director of fixed income and portfolio manager from municipal on investment at cumberland advisors. he's a member of the national federation of municipal analyst, new york society of security analysts and is writing has appeared in the bond buyer and the wall street token "new york times," and he was last with us on this panel to discuss the bankruptcy been living of the city of detroit and welcome them back to discuss some more let us a interesting issues. our third panelist is my colleague andy cole organized this conference can desmond lachman, who specializes in the global medical economy exchange rate policy committee is housing market and multilateral institutions. previously managing director at solomon and smith barney and deputy director of the international monetary fund. desmond has written extensively

on the global economic crisis, the dollar, the strength in the euro area and on the greek debt crisis in particular about which he has been an unrelenting and correct pessimist. next will be bert ely who has been a consultant and prominent comic and unthinking issue since establishing his own consulting practice 40 years ago. byrd especially analyzes conditions in the banking sector and we've asked him today to include his views of the banking systems of greece and puerto rico in his remarks. bert has often testified before congressional committees and has indicated by the media on a regular basis and he often attends conferences at aei and is a prominent questioner of the panel. but today he will have to answer your questions. our final panelist will be whitney debevoise -- it's hard

for me not to say that the french away -- is a senior partner at arnold and porter which he rejoined in 2010 having served as u.s. executive director of the world bank from 2007. whitney's experience includes brady plan restructurings at the end of the 1980s global debt crisis and get restructurings at belize, greece and argentina numerous privatizations. wewe should have some of those coming along out of these debt problems. as well as eurobond financings. he has written extensively on securities regulation, debt restructuring from international banking and sovereign immunity to we are delighted to have this truly knowledgeable and outstanding panel with us today. now each of our panelists will speak from 12-15 minutes. after that we will give them a chance to react to each other or to clarify points that they have

made. after that we will open the floor to your questions, and we will adjourn promptly at 11:00. dave, you have the floor. excerpting with us. >> great. so as it turns out when you talk on puerto rico and greece yet to be quick on your feet. i supplied new slides yesterday afternoon to the panel here updating greece but i could not at that point update the slides are puerto rico. so already one of the slides is out of date having passed about 12 hours. so let me start. i just wanted to get his clever.

i am a puerto rican analysts are not an in depth expert of greece. i'd be happy to connect you with our greece game but i am passing on the comments from our sovereign ratings group. i've been asked to talk about similarities between puerto rico and greece and differences. and so welcome the first thing is that we look at your criteria i just want to the disclaimer. we're not using exactly the same criteria you. to win you. to 1.2 symmetrix it's not necessarily weighted the same or even evaluated the same from one to the other. one is a territory of the u.s. the other is a sovereign nation. however, we also have additional criteria in our ccc category which reflects short-term factors and short-term liquidity, and they both come in under that and, indeed the ccc- prominently reflects the timeframe that we are looking at

over six months for potential restructuring. and also point to some of the long-term trends. so this is still accurate because their criteria doesn't change. you can see within the triple they criteria we have different traditions with a plus or a minus, or without either. and so the triple c+ which we had come although it was on credit watch negative and to yesterday, basically reflects that we don't have a clear path identified for a debt default for restructuring. a ccc, on the other hand, indicates that we feel that it's essentially going to happen within the next six months.