online which is a conservative publication it had been insanity to filibuster this commonsense approach. we brought this issue out of the we brought this issue out of the shadows, into the place of public debate, where republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, could come together and talk about it. again, one of the reasons i wanted to come over here today was to express my appreciation to the national sheriffs association for having listened and contributed, and finally in february of 2011, deciding to some or this up roach, which i believe we still need.

there are other areas, where i come as someone who prides myself and working in a bipartisan way, we developed a leadership model and in 16 months were able to pass the best g.i. bill in history, and on this issue, there are other areas where we need to be working together a list, and i would be grateful and honored to be working with your organization in the future to make sure that we can look at these issues in a continuously creative way, in order to enable our law enforcement officials to do their jobs, and at the bottom of this, to work toward the harmony and the respect that we need in our communities. with that, i'm happy john, if you want to sit down and spend

the rest of this time and discussion. thank you very much. [applause] i'm sitting here, but you can sit there if you want. >> you're on the right, i'm on the left. [laughter] it really is a pleasure to have you here. as you know, c-span has reached out, using a multitude of its viewers. this is a great opportunity as well, and cisco and verizon are pushing this out over the web. as we talked about earlier, we have a number of questions for you. some of them are going to push the envelope because that's what i think we have to do in this country. we asked the membership, what do you want to ask these folks that run for president?

these are not my questions. i think they are excellent. let me start off with the first one, then we will go out to the audience. in the evolving more against terror, what role do you see for local law enforcement in protecting the homeland? i'm going to add a twist to this. anything they need to do that they are not doing, that you would suggest to them? senator webb: i believe that in terms of the structure of the mission, it's important that we look at local law enforcement as a supplement to what already federal law enforcement, and in some cases military people, are required to do. i think the classic recent example is what happened when the aircraft hit the pentagon on 9/11. i actually was in the pentagon that morning having reckless with the commandant of the marine corps. the first word we got when they

came into his breakfast room was that a missile had hit the world trade center. that was when cnn first broke the story. , not jim jones said, do you want to come in my office and catch up on cnn? i got in my car and headed down the road when the plane hit the pentagon. if it were not for the first responders and the local law enforcement, we would have been in a real pickle. i watched that for three days from the balcony of my writing office so i could look directly at the pentagon. those functions have been increased. the training levels have increased, the types of equipment going to local law enforcement has definitely increased. the role is there, it has been defined. the one hesitation that i have the one concern that i would want to pass on is we do not

want to give the impression to local communities that we are militarizing our local law enforcement. there's a difference between being an infantry officer and a police officer. i have been in infantry officer and i couldn't do the job of a police officer. most police officers are not going to want to do the job of an infantry officer. when you see in some of these communities over local law enforcement heavy up with basic military gear with the vehicles that are military vehicles on the street, you would only want to be doing that in an extraordinary situation. the best role for our local law enforcement people when it comes to regular community relationships is that role of harmony and protector and guarantor, when you know when something goes wrong, the

community is going to be on your side. basically, my view is we want local law enforcement to be the supplementary force, but at the same time we want to make sure these two roles are clearly defined when our communities look at them. thank you. >> i'm going to turn to the audience here. we have a question from chester county, south carolina. i'm going to ask sheriff alex underwood to present you with the next question. >> senator, you voted in the past to continue funds for declared sanctuary cities since march 2008. as president of the united states would you expand on the scope of these cities, or would you leave the influence of to the states? senator webb: well, we are getting into a think a fairly complicated area of how you define the mandatory role of

local law enforcement people when it comes to federal missions. the bill that we voted on, i looked it up when somebody asked me about it, it was one of these rush limbaugh amendments. basically it didn't say you are voting to continue the motion, the motion that was voted on said were going to cut off all federal help to local law enforcement inside any of these sanctuary cities. that's kind of absurd. it wasn't even an illegal immigration type of deal. at the same time, the concern is when you have high density immigrant populations, many of them illegal, which is actually what we have about two blocks from where i live in falls church. when you have that sort of high density population if you are

saying to local law-enforcement the first thing you want to do is come in and check somebody's papers, you are going to have a tendency among the people who are living there not to call for help. you might have a domestic abuse situation, or a robbery or gangs . there was very heavy gang activity in this como area, for instance. the notion of the sanctuary cities was for local governments to decide they would not require local law enforcement to conduct activities that were basically federal activities, and i respect that. i don't think you should be cutting off funding in other areas if local communities decide to do that. i think in most cases it works toward more effective work i our local law enforcement people.

>> thank you. senator, the next question came via the web. as long as our countries into -- immigrations problems go unsolved, the sheriffs will continue to bear the heavy cost of handling many of the illegal aliens crossing our borders and overcrowding our jails. until comprehensive immigration of border security reform is accomplished, how would you enforce the current law of the land? senator webb: i think the difficulty that we all have is the knowledge that in many ways, this federal law is broken. there are areas -- there are a lot of reasons why people come to this country illegally. a lot of them come because they want to work. they want to become part of the system.

some might come to conduct criminal activities. this is particularly true in terms of how south of the border has turned -- is in danger of turning into a narco state. there is a lot of drug trade coming across the border. some might be coming for purposes of international terrorism and these sorts of things. it is proper to do our best to enforce the laws as they exist. we want to try to work toward a system that recognizes the realities of where we are under this simpson was only act was passed nearly 30 years ago now and has proved to be lakhs and ineffective. but the reality of the system were working under right now is the president has declined to prosecute certain areas particularly in those areas i

mentioned about people who have come here to make a better life. >> do you agree with that decision? senator webb: i'm happy to comment on that, but congress is basically declining to legislate . it's like they are paralyzed. we saw that in the 2007 at 10 for some sort of immigration reform. the reality is that there are millions of people here because of the weakness of the law that are going to stay here. you are not going to send a number probably much higher than 11 million -- you're not going to round up people on buses and send them back. under the current law, i would support the process of identifying people who are illegal, discouraging border crossings for a lot of reasons

security being one of them crime being another. i would want to see our foreign policy focus more heavily on solving the problems in mexico and central america. we are spending all this energy and diplomatically and financially and militarily over in places like iraq and afghanistan in that part of the world. the greatest problem -- the greatest challenge we can salt is to work to stabilize the government's in mexico and central america so that there is a different environment down there and we won't see the same sorts of immigration patterns. with respect to the president declining to prosecute, and i think what you've seen from some other people if they are saying they will even go further than that. we have to be very careful about timelines. when i was in the senate, when

we had the immigration bill in 2007, i introduced an amendment said if you -- from the date of passage of this legislation from that date, if you have been here more than five years, if you can demonstrate that you have put down roots in your community, a job, language education -- there were a list of them -- then you should have a path toward citizenship. for those others, we will be able to separate who has come here and settled in under this law and who should not be allowed that pathway. we have to fit, realistically, the problem we have now. then we need legislation that can truly create fair immigration laws, and that's the next step.

>> i know this is going through the minds of a number of shares in the audience. i was just down there about a month and a half ago or so. is it a chicken-and problem, is it something that can go parallel? senator webb: we should always emphasize our security. and the notion of gang activity serious criminal gang activity not kids hanging out on a street corner, but the serious nature gang activity. we raised that during the hearings when i was trying to get all the different pieces of criminal justice on the table. so we should never be stopping that. but at the same time, with the people who are here, there is a game going on. both parties have been accepting

of the people who are here in the third category. the democrats, usually the ones who are accused the most of accepting it. many of them see it quite obviously as a benefit in terms of the percentage of the vote they might get but the wall street republicans like it just as well. the wall street journal is an advocate of totally open borders. it's not just a democratic issue, it's not a republican issue. what we have to do is have a rational policy and get people to admitted and move forward. >> last comment on that topic and then we will go to the audience. as you formulate your decision you are probably traveling quite a bit. i know from my discussions with some folks that you've been all along the border. in my visit, i had been down

there several years ago, and what i saw was stark dramatic, incredibly difficult terrain. i want to encourage you, there are a number of sheriffs along the texas border as well as the arizona border. i would be remiss if i didn't say what i'm about to say. if you go down, see for yourself. don't let the federal government tell you what to see. don't let them bring out the dog and pony show. these guys work their tail ends off down there, the feds. don't get me wrong. see it just one-on-one with these folks, because they are living this nightmare every single day. [applause] i want to turn to shirkey cain from davies county, kentucky. -- sheriff keith cain. >> i want to echo what has already been expressed, and that is our appreciation for you

being here. i want to take the opportunity to both personally and publicly thank you for your service to this great country, particularly in a time of our history when that service was not all that popular, so thank you very much. [applause] senator webb, you have noted in the past that there are four times as many mentally ill persons in our prisons as there are in our mental health institutions. i know that to address that disparity you mentioned in your opening remarks that you sponsor the national criminal justice commission act. though that did fail three times, i'm encouraged as are my peers that there is bipartisan support that continues to this very day. i'm also concerned with the fact that -- the state when you made during the course of your opening remarks that the

naysayers out there, the political advisers at indicated that this was political suicide. i'm interested in knowing what kind of leadership with the emphasis on that word leadership, is needed to change this national discussion the needed dialogue on reforming the criminal justice system. senator webb: thank you. the first thing i would say is, if you are looking for the kind of leadership that can change the national dialogue on this discussion, we have shown it. we did it. nine years ago when i started talking about this, people were saying it was political suicide. by staying on this, you indicate that the bill failed in 2009, 2010 and 2011. we were listening to organizations as i said across the board, including your organization which you finally

agreed to come on board after a lot of questions and dialogue. the kind of leadership you would look for, i hope, is the type that would take on controversial issues that other people don't want to talk about, stand up ask questions, take the hits, show a way forward, which we did when we finally created this concept of the commission and in this case, put it into the national dialogue. it's a success story in terms of the issue as opposed to the bill that we passed. justice kennedy became a supporter on this. the american bar association actually offered to pay for it $14 million. and now you see members of the other party, who wouldn't touch

the issue of criminal justice reform, putting it into their platforms. the american conservative action conference here in washington may criminal justice reform one of their top three topics this year when they would not have touched it with a 10 foot pole six or seven years ago. so i believe in a lot of different areas, i've approached a lot of different issues this way in my life. if you talk about problems that maybe other people aren't going to talk about, and you stand up and gather the facts and show a way forward, you can make a difference. i believe we have done that. the issue of the mentally ill in our prison system, its first of

all the result of some well-intentioned cases judicial cases that took place back in the 1970's when there was a lot of concern about putting people into mental institutions against their will, and the standard became much looser and there are a lot of people who truly needed help who are out on the street here in so many of them now in governor prison systems when they could have been in other institutions receiving different kinds of care. we need to work on that as a country. we need to be providing the right kinds of assistance to people who have issues like that , and not simply the brutality and inattention that so often goes into being incarcerated.

also i think we should be putting mental health parity as one of the issues that the congress should pass in terms of how people receive medical care and insurance company -- insurance coverage in those sorts of things. thank you. >> i'm going to turn to one of my colleagues here in the right row, terry is executive director for the michigan state sheriffs association. i know he's got a question. >> i didn't have until he asked it. [laughter] but i want to personally thank you also for your service to our country and your willingness to continue to serve. it sets you above and apart from the other candidates that you are at least here listening to our issues and concerns and answering our questions about those concerns. if i could go back the question,

i would like to congratulate you in 2010, the national alliance on mental health awarded you legislator of the year your working criminal justice and helping those persons suffering from mental illness. if i can piggyback on that, you touched on it in your answer slightly. our jails have become the de facto mental health institutions as a result of those reforms you were talking about from the 1980's and 1990's. reform needs to be looked at on a continual basis. what exactly if you are elected, can we get your commitment that you would continue to work toward reforms in our criminal justice system have had their backs turned on them by the mental health system, can we get your commitment that you will continue to do that and one of the largest things you could do in that new capacity would be to get the medicaid reform, so that those persons coming into our facilities can continue to get

the continuity of care if they are in the mental health system before they come in, they can maintain their system, they can maintain their treatment. our jails were not designed, equipped staff, or trained to deal with mental health issues. if we have a silver bullet in our arsenal of dealing with overcrowding, i believe dealing with mental health and the issues dealing with mental health is our solution. what would you do to help us with that, sir? senator webb: well, first of all, as i mentioned, i think in society writ large, we need to focus on mental health rarity in terms of medical care. people tend to forget that mental health issues are just as disabling as physical conditions. i have worked on that in the past and will continue to. the second thing is, one of the

things i know i would do fairly quickly, i am not a believer in executive orders, the abuse or misuse of executive orders, but i think it is a no-brainer to issue an executive order and get this commission on criminal justice reform going. it's almost no cost and a huge benefit to get these lines together, get the dialogue going and work toward a holistic approach of how all these different things we are talking about interact into a healthy criminal justice system. with respect to the overcrowding, the other area kind of the elephant in the bedroom here that we don't talk about enough is the number of people who are incarcerated for drug offenses. if you do a timeline back to 1980, i think 40,000 people were in prison on drug offenses. today it's probably more like

500,000 on drug offenses. a great percentage of these are for nonviolent crimes. just as in mental health issues, i don't think it makes a lot of sense to put somebody in jail when they have a disease, when the heaven illness, physical illness. there have got to be better ways for us to approach the issue of drug use in america. one of the most fascinating changes in our society in my adult lifetime has been the approach toward cigarette smoking. think about this. we did make cigarettes illegal we just got the information out there and educated people about the potential harm. when i was working on the house veterans committee when i was right out of law school, we would be at a meeting -- even probably right now, people would be lighting up a cigarette. today of somebody likes of a

cigarette, in general, you would say, what are they doing? that is actually a success of education regarding your health more than punitive law, per se. they have to be similar approaches when it comes to drug use. >> let me turn to somebody that's equally impressive. he is our national sheriffs association sheriff of the year. he is from shelby county, ohio. >> thank you, senator, for being here, and thank you for your service to the country especially as a former veteran thank you for your work on the g.i. bill. we have come through some troubled times the last five or six years in regards to whatever we call it, the great recession.

it's put tremendous financial impact on local law enforcement and police departments. as a result of that, we have had lots and lots of unfunded mandates from the state in federal government, especially through homeland security. do you think that we should be offended by all those unfunded mandates coming to us? your thoughts, sir? senator webb: i think you are right to be concerned. certainly there are a number of suggestions that i would have, or reactions i would have looking at the issue itself. the first one is kind of a sense of irony from what i was just talking about a little while ago with these sanctuary cities question. i support the notion of local

communities, local law enforcement communities, having to make decisions about the best way that they can enforce laws in their communities. the sanctuary cities concept was designed to do that. you cannot have the federal law come in and say you have to check someone's resident status you have to do this, when that is essentially a federal function. you have the same thing with these mandates, if they are mandating from a federal or state level that something be done, and then they are taking away the discretion of local law enforcement in terms of how they should utilize the assets and the people that they have. i think that is a legitimate question. there's another question from the federal level that kind of hit me when i was thinking about

this. that is, if you look at how the congress were, you have two different types of committees in the congress. you have an authorizing committee and and appropriating committee. i was on the armed services committee. we were -- we would authorize programs, similar in nature, not specifically to what you are asking. then the appropriations committee had to appropriate the money for that program to take place. if they did not, then even the let program has been authorized it was not going to be put into place. you would have a similar argument here if there were federal mandates that were not funded. but in general i would say i think there should be respect for the discretion of local law enforcement in terms of how to use their assets, and we should be very careful in terms of wiring local law enforcement to conduct activities that belong

in the federal or state level. i hope that answers your question. >> thank you, sir. senator, we want to thank you. i know your schedule is getting hectic by the day. we have a very special gift we would like to present you this morning. on behalf of the national sheriffs association, i want to present you this lack that actually flew over fort mchenry yesterday in honor of you -- this flag. it's a representation of our support for you being here. i want to tell you on a personal note, before we finish, a couple of things. we realized in the green room before we came in, we worked in the same administration many years ago. i'm going to say this from the heart, i hope it comes across as such. you have taken a lot of heat, you've taken a lot of hits, both physical and political.

as you look out over the horizon, i know that you are hearing a lot of people say do what you've got to do and run. by being here today, you have committed, to us at least that we sheriffs in this audience are worthy of listening to and talking to, and we want to thank you so very, very much. senator webb: thank you. i'm proud of having worked in the reagan administration. one of the great accomplishments of that administration was bringing good people in and allowing them to leave. we are probably going to get a lot busier over the next week or so. if people want to help us out, we appreciate that. >> new jersey governor chris christie announced he is running for president, becoming the 14th republican candidate in the race. scott walker of wisconsin and john kasich of ohio are expected to get into the race as well bringing the total number of republican candidates to 16. governor christie made the

announcement at livingston high school, where he graduated in 1980. governor christie: i have spent the last 13 years of my life as u.s. attorney in governor of this state, fighting for fairness and justice and opportunity for the people of the state of new jersey. that fight has not made me more weary. it has made me stronger and i'm now ready to write for the people of the united states of america. [applause] america is tired of hand wringing and indecisiveness and weakness in the oval office. we need to have strength and decision-making and authority back in the oval office, and that's why today, i'm proud to announce my candidacy for the republican nomination for

president of the united states of america. >> governor chris christie's announcement in its entirety tonight on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house congressional hearings and news conferences, bringing you the events that shape public policy. every morning, washington journal is live, with elected officials, policymakers and journalists, and your comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. c-span, brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> at the white house today president obama held a news conference with the president of brazil. he was asked about nuclear negotiations with iran.

>> you're on the cusp of entering into a nuclear agreement with iran. in particular, [inaudible] you in your administration raised the imprisonment of these americans but still you will sign likely an agreement with tehran in those issues will remain unresolved. what do you say to the families about how you will deal with their loved ones? and i guess the bottom line, do you find the iranian leadership trustworthy? madam president, welcome to the u.s. you canceled the previous trip to the united states following the snowden -- do you need a translation?

a little louder, certainly. you canceled your previous trip to the united states following the revelations by edward snowden by the nsa spying on you. are you still troubled by these revelations and have you received assurances and are you satisfied that the answers you have received from the administration? thank you. president obama: first of all, with respect to u.s. citizens who are held in iran, this is something that we continue to push hard on irrespective of the nuclear deal. it is a top priority for us to make sure that our people are treated fairly and on the face of it in the case of these individuals who have been held

they have not been and they are not been afforded a basic due process and legal rights that we afford visitors to our country. so we are deeply concerned about it. we spend a lot of time pushing on and we will continue to do so. there is no lessening of the sense of urgency. when i talk to the families of -- we remind them of the fact that that is a mission that will continue and has been worked on it consistently throughout their captivity. with respect to the larger issue of whether i trust the iranian regime, as i said before, there are deep-seated disagreements and divisions between the united states and iran. and those aren't going to go

away overnight. the goal of the nuclear negotiations is not to rely on trust, but to set up a verifiable mechanism where we are cutting off pathways for iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. john kerry right now is down there with separate ceremonies -- with secretary of energy muniz who is one of the top is nuclear physicist in the world. they are deeply engaged in negotiations. my hope is they can achieve an agreement. the instructions of them have been extremely clear. the framework agreement that was established is one that is implemented and codified

properly when in fact achieve my -- would in fact achieve my goal, which is iran not obtaining a nuclear weapon. there has been a lot of talk on the other side from the iranian negotiators about whether they can abide by some of the terms that came up. if they cannot, that is going to be a problem because i have said from the start i will walk away from the negotiations if in fact it is a bad deal. if we cannot provide assurances that the pathways for iran obtain a nuclear weapon are closed, if we can't verify that and is the inspections and verification regime is inadequate, then we are not going to get a deal. and we have been very clear to the iranian government about that. the good news is that our p5+1 partners in these negotiations

feel exactly the same way. so there's still some hard negotiations that take place at -- but ultimately that will be up to the iranian to determine whether or not they make the requirement that the international community has set forth to be able to fairly and accurately and consistently assess whether or not they have foreclosed the possibility of obtaining a nuclear weapon. and given past behavior on the part of iran, that can't simply be a declaration by iran and if -- and a few inspectors wandering around every once in a wild. that has to be a serious breaker -- verification mechanism. that is going to be the test as to whether we get a deal or not.

>> you can watch all of the news conference tonight on c-span at 8:45 em eastern time. in addition to meeting with the president of brazil today, president obama also spent some time on the x or import bank which is set to go out of business tonight at midnight because congress did not reauthorize the bank's charter. usa today reports president obama was scheduled to host a conference call with people involved in efforts to reauthorize the bank. local elected officials, business owners, and labor leaders were on the call. they support continuing operations because it makes loans to foreign companies that buy goods manufactured in the united states. the c-span cd stores partnering with our cable affiliates as we travel across the united states. join us and cox communications this weekend as we learn about the history and literary life of

omaha, nebraska. one of the first advocacy groups fighting for racial equality was here. >> when you came in, if you were black, you need to keep your head down and be aware that you were not going to be served in restaurants or be able to stay in hotels. when the de porres club began operation, they use the term social justice, because civil rights was not even part of the national lexicon at that time. 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 in a vacuum. i like to say they were operating without a net. there were not those support groups that were not the prior experiences of other groups to challenge racial discrimination and segregation. >> we look back to the union pacific and how the instruction

of union station helped omaha's economy. >> union pacific is one of the premier railroad companies of america. it was founded in 1862 and signed into law by abraham lincoln. it combines several railroad companies to make union pacific and then they were charged with helping the transcontinental railroad that would connect the east and west coast. the started here, and central pacific started on the west coast and was moving east. 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 book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3.

the city of san diego requires that anyone who wants a ill weapons permit demonstrate they have good cause and good moral character. a part-time san diego resident sued after being denied a permit by the sheriff's department. oral argument in the case was heard earlier this month. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> all rise.

>> you may be seated. good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, for the consolidated cases against san diego and county of yolo. before we begin, i want to remind everyone to please turn off your cellphone sorry don't interrupt the attorneys presenting the case. you may proceed.

>> may it please the court. i would elect to endeavor to reserve three minutes for rebuttal if i could. it involves a challenge to the san diego county policy to interpret an applicant to have a particularly acute need for self-defense the distinguishes themselves from their ordinary fellow citizens from my clients complaint is not with of california statutory scheme because that will be interpreted to the second amendment rights but a good cause to be interpreted to make it much more permissive to get concealed carry permits for self-defense purposes including california counties like sacramento county that are quite populous.

the source of the difficulty is the the san diego interpretation and its policy to not invalidate any statute of the state of and it would save those statues from constitutional doubt. the question i would also emphasize is not whether there is a constitutional right of concealed carry but if there is a constitutional great -- right to exercise to bear or carry for purposes of self-defense. the answer makes abundantly clear is yes the government cannot complete the foreclose an avenue for exercising important second amendment rights. the government in response would suggest it is somehow homebound and does not extend for arms

outside the privilege of the home that extends to keeping it in the first instance. >> in terms of the procedural status at this point, since the sheriff chose not to appeal, and now the state is going to be making an argument here to intervene, is this now a different vehicle that we hold , the abeyance baker without the sheriff? >> i think it can be decided the same. that might depend ultimately on the resolve of the state's motion to intervene. we don't have an issue with the state to be here to get involved in the case. but we do take issue with them to be here under rule 24 that

justifies them being here because of a federal statute we don't think the challenge calls into question the constitutionality for the reasons i think i have already elaborated. we don't have a beef with the statutes if my client was fortunate to live in sacramento county there is no objection to what the state has done in the way it interprets good cause. >> do you think the recent denial of the jackson case out of california has any bearing cents the supreme court doesn't like to talk about the second amendment very often. years go by. can we read the tea leaves? >> that might make your decision all the more important but otherwise i think they are about

the same. it is important to the client that their case is over but we have been instructed not to read anything into this simple denial of service. the court could have denied that for any number of reasons. >> what can the sheriff require a safety course of completion? >> absolutely, your honor. something like that would be much more tethered to the interests that it is asserted. we are not here to take issue of the regime generally. we don't have a beef the licensing scheme is administered by the majority of counties in california that requires a certificate of training and other background checks to make sure someone is in the category were they are able but maybe there is a case down the road if

the county to have us landed more restrictive interpretation of good cause. but you only get to show good cause if you have a better reason for the firearm than your fellow citizen with self-defense with the supreme court decision that said every citizen but the people have the right for -- to possess a fire alarm for purposes of self-defense so that is of the basic defense to save the only way you can exercise your second amendment right is to show you have a better basis to exercise that right than your fellow citizens. >> you are unhappy with the comparative nature. but you have emphasized that self-defense is the touchstone. so can the county require someone to demonstrate that they

require a firearm for defense, regardless of whether it is compared to anybody else's need? >> i suppose if a county of wanted to take a position that says and to satisfy a good cause is in then to articulate why it is you have a need for self-defense, i don't think we would be here objecting to that . obviously the supreme court in the heller decision was focused on it self-defense so we take that as our guide to satisfy their good cause requirement. you may need to explain the basis for your desire for self-defense but it should that be the only way to reduce which is if i have an acute need that

distinguishes read from my fellow citizens. >> but under your theory, any self-defense should be good cause? >> i don't think so. but with the san diego policy did not give my clients and opportunity beyond the distinct right compared to citizens we were not denied because that was not good enough but because the county has a policy that requires the showing to be extraordinary. >> a premise for the three judge panel decision was a law-abiding citizen has the right to carry in public whether openly or concealed. so as i read that a three judge panel if you were not a

convicted felon as a law-abiding citizen you have a right to carry concealed or open and followed from that. it does not allow the unrestricted open and carry that it had to be permissive du share the promise of the three judge panel? >> we think that is correct. >> when i say promised their argument stemming from their premise that any law-abiding adult citizen has the right to carry one or the other. -- in a specific showing? >> they have the second amendment right but to have an absolute entitlement but like all constitutional principles is not without limits.

>> what limitations do you see? >> i don't know if i see and the obvious ones in this context. >> that does not help me prepare -- doesn't help me very much. you can limit the right to carry in public but you don't tell me what? >> as a starting point it is fairly clear the state should have the option how they regulate carry. if they prefer open carry and another state has concealed carry they have that option also how they go about licensing regimes or whether they require longer training courses and to see the policy to understand. where there there is an argument that conforms with the second amendment or not. >> but to go back historically

to baldwin where the court basically said to keep and bear arms is not infringed by a lot -- laws that actually prohibit the carrying of concealed weapon s. >> i don't think they have ever had occasion but i don't think abrogate their did some -- dictum. >> how does that case fit into your construct, and what would you have us do with that case? >> this was the point i was trying to make. we are not here saying we have an absolute constitutional right to concealed carry. the way i would understand what the robinson court meant by that

dictum, they have a paragraph whether making a drive-by statement about six different constitutional rights. what i think they meant is on the assumption there was open carry in that state, that a concealed carry restriction would be consistent with the second amendment. i think that's the way the supreme court in the heller decision understood what's going on in a state like georgia. the court specifically to front of a statute applied to firearms in particular for both open and concealed carry. both the georgia court back in the 1820's or 1840 said you have to essentially have a right to carry this one way or the other obviously you're jumping the tracks from the regulation of the second amendment right to the obliteration of the second amendment right. that's how i understand the robertson dictum.

>> if it applies in this context, why would it not survive intermediate scrutiny? >> am glad you asked that. i don't think san diego's policy cancer arrive any form of form heightened scrutiny. there are a couple of hallmarks that include, first of all you relax the statutes are unconstitutional rather than the ordinary rational basis and the burden to challenge it and then you require actual evidence and if you look at the evidence in this case, it is all of one declaration and that this is 404. with all due respect that cannot be enough to satisfy -- and it gets countered by the declarations by the plaintiffs. >> but he doesn't even get to the relevant question.

he makes two observations. less guns and violence and come -- less concealed guns and 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. that is the relevant question. the county has no evidence on that and no excuse for not having the evidence. >> has the court conducted a trial, is there a fact on the question? >> what i think it is, this case went to summary judgment. the county had its opportunity to marshal all of its evidence. the burden is on it. at that point it doesn't get a do over and marshal the thought was sufficient evidence. we don't think they got the job done under the intermediate scrutiny. the court in a case like turner broadcasting talked about the

judgment but that was in the context where there had to be the judgment. the government never imposed requirements before. so you had to make a guess. here's the answer is in plain that when those states adopted a more permissive interpretation of good cause, that the sky fell or violence went up. when you have an obvious comparison, it seems to me that even it does not get the job done. p what do we do with the circuit court decision in wollard? drake? very similar statutory revisions all survived.

mr. clement: most decisions are not binding. but i think the real difference is, if they were taking intermediate scrutiny seriously they were based on the evidentiary records in those cases. the situation in new york was radically different. there was a much richer record that does not bear anything like the record in this case. if you think about the state interest in the case, it is not an interest in public safety. they would be perfectly happy for san diego county to interpret this the same way as sacramento county. from the state level, the compelling interest is given discretion to county level officials. i do not think that is good enough to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. that is something that is true about the california regime that

is not true of any other regime. judge fletcher: i thought you said with respect to whether the evidence was available in the world, there was no such evidence. how can you say there is a rich record in you your -- new york? mr. clement: i was talking about the evidence in california. what i do not think you have in other states -- because they answered this at the state level. what you have in california that distinguishes it is the opportunity to have a direct comparator about what would happen if you had a more permissive view of good cause compared to the policy being supported here. there are obvious comparators. you look to san francisco sacramento -- judge fletcher: but how long have the policies been in effect? you cannot look at something that has been going on for six months and drawn legitimate

conclusions. mr. clement: i think some of these policies have been a fact -- in effect for years. when i say the evidence is not out there, all the evidence that has been cited in the amicus briefs suggest that when jurisdictions allow relatively free issuance of permits, the crime rate stays the same or it goes down. i am here to tell you that, if you apply intermediate scrutiny and i am wrong about this empirical western, and a another jurisdiction makes a better case , that would be the consequence. that is the great thing about intermediate scrutiny. it is not one-size-fits-all. it admits the cases could be decided differently based on the record in the particular case and jurisdiction. i would invite you to take a look at that declaration.

i cannot think of another context where that kind of declaration would be enough of an evidentiary basis for a jurisdiction that have the burden under intermediate scrutiny. judge: thank you. attorney: may it please the court, alan gura. nobody argues in this case, and there is no evidence that would suggest that people with a heightened need for self-defense are somehow safer with firearms than members of the community at large with a garden-variety need for self-defense. rather, the argument in this case is that because carrying guns for self-defense is allegedly dangerous, they should

be able to reduce that danger by reducing the number of people carrying handguns. sheriff arruda's policies are a rationing scheme. judge: i am sorry. i think the government will argue that, because there are certain exceptions, people that can have concealed weapons, that is somehow as not as harsh. what would be your response to that? i think there are certain military people, retired police officers. how would you respond to the argument? mr. gura: if we have to defer to that balancing, that some people with a certain background are ok to carry because of the danger somehow lessened, the court would have to defer in other

areas. the court would have to differ to the sheriff's judgment that nobody can exercise this right. if the sheriff says, i decide it is so dangerous no one can have it, the same deference would stay. and why only applied to the bear part of the second amendment? we heard the same argument in heller that keeping handguns in the home is dangerous. the district of columbia should have been able to prohibit handguns in the home. code washington dc interact a statute that says we will only allow people with a strong fear of burglary or heightened need they can show, only they can keep a handgun? there is nothing in the second amendment that would adjust -- suggest this can apply to one side and not the other.

the third problem is, if we are going to have this deference why stop at the second amendment? we can imagine the fourth amendment is probably a right the sheriff finds annoying and interferes with police power that they can only exercise so much force. why not only respect to the fourth amendment rights of people with a heightened need for privacy? judge: that is an area in which danger plays a role. the doctrine of exigent circumstances comes into play when danger is apparent and immediate. if taken to its extreme, your argument seems to suggest safety concerns are irrelevant and no sort of restriction is ok. is there any form of restriction you would find constitutionally permissible? mr. gura: yes, your honor.

it is not our argument that no restrictions can be tolerated. the only restriction we are challenging is on the very entitlement to exercise a fundamental right. there is no challenge to any restriction the sheriff might place on time, place, or manner if he wants to enact that. there is no challenge to the training requirements. we accept that. we could probably imagine other regulations that could pass because they are addressing an actual danger rather than a regulation based on the theory that the right itself cannot be tolerated because the sheriff disagrees with the right. it is not like the fourth amendment where there may be an exigent circumstance and of the sheriff says we have evidence being destroyed, a ticking time bomb.

we can imagine these circumstances. but would it be simpler for the sheriff to say, this idea that people should have a right to demand a reasonable search, that simply has too high a burden on public safety? i will only be concerned with the rights of people that have a special need. that would not fly in speech cases. it does not work in abortion cases. this court decided isaacson v. horn which decides the state has the power to regulate medical decisions. if determined a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks and balanced the ability to access abortion services on the need of medical necessity. this court said no. regardless of what one might think about abortion, the right is recognized within this

timeframe. therefore, it is a woman's right to choose to have the procedure. not a doctor's right to determine it is necessary. judge fletcher: since the case started, there has been a change in circumstances for open carry in california. is your suit premised on the change in the law or is it premised on the law as you found it when your client was not allowed a concealed permit? mr. gura: the law may have changed, but the theory has not. judge smith: it seems if i am to apply the law that apply to open carry that existed at the time your client was not given this concealed permit, at that time, your client could have open carry, if you will, an unarmed

weapon and also could have carried some ammunition to put in the weapon. now it is that he cannot carry either. does your case live or die on that change? mr. gura: no, it does not. but at the time --judge smith: why is it stronger? i am just trying to say, can i apply the facts as they were at the time your client was denied a permit? are you suggesting i have to change the theory and apply the change in law? if so, why not ask the district court whether you are right or not? mr. gura: the district court opinion did not turn on availability. judge smith: i think it did. if i look at what the district court did, pages eight and nine

relating to what would be available in this particular situation, not in your client's opinion but in mr. peruta's opinion and page 10 of the richards opinion seems to be based on the basis of the law on kerry. mr. gura: at the timely filed it was unchanged. people have the right to be armed at the time of confrontation. judge smith: but if i am applying an intermediate scrutiny to this particular matter, and of the law does not say anything about the fact you are allowed to carry what ever you want unloaded and with ammunition, does it not seem that is a pretty big basis to suggest that, on intermediate scrutiny, the law survives? mr. gura: first of all, let's

take the law as it was at the beginning. the ability to carry an unloaded gun is quite useful and not dangerous. judge smith: i do not know if it is useful or dangerous. we had a similar case in jackson where our court held that having guns in the closet and ammunition was equal to anything needed. the supreme court did not take any chance to undo that. mr. gura: your honor, nowhere in america or american history have people carried unloaded guns for self-defense. judge smith: where is that in the record? that may be your argument, but i did not find it in the record. mr. gura: the second amendment states that people have the right -- judge smith: the second amendment talks about the right to self-defense.

all we are talking about is the difference between self-defense and loaded or unloaded with ammunition. mr. gura: neither now nor then did my client have the ability to carry a functional firearm for self-defense. today, they cannot. judge: what do you mean by functional? mr. gura: a gun that is not disassembled, loaded and ready to use. judge: loaded and functional are different things. mr. gura: i guess loaded is an aspect of functional. we had this issue in heller. people were not allowed to render their arms functional. they had to be disassembled and unloaded. the supreme court said it violates the second amendment. this was simply a violation of the second amendment. there was no way people could use their guns in self-defense.

i would like to respond to the question mr. clement received earlier about robinson v. baldwin. the answer is in heller. we have to look at how heller defines a second amendment. heller tells us it is to wear or carry upon the person for the purpose of being armed and ready. those are two categories of carry. upon the person or in the clothing. that sounds like concealment. heller recognized in its definition that concealed carry can be one way of exercising that right. of course, as my colleague ably argued earlier, the heller opinion made clear, as did many opinions earlier, that the state can regulate the manner in which guns are carried.

because the state can regulate the manner in which they are carried, they can tell people you may not open or concealed carry. we do not have a claim we are entitled to carry in any particular matter. my clients will take what they are given by legislature. but if levin -- legislature says you cannot carry in any form and for concealed carry, you will give a license you are not entitled to because we do not recognize a generalized interest in self-defense as a reason for the license, the right has been effectively destroyed. judge: your colleague referred to the seventh circuit opinion. the seventh circuit opinion was looking at a flat ban. mr. gura: correct. judge: in that opinion, the court contrasted the flat ban an illinois situation, with the situation in new york. new york had, it seemed to me, a

good cause provision similar to yellow county and -- yolo county and san diego county. maybe you can enlighten me why these other circuits, why we should not be looking for them for good cause? mr. gura: the new york law would not survive under moore v. madigan. the opinion goes on at length to discuss how it is chicago's got the same right to have guns in their apartment. it goes on at great length. judge: it is not a flat ban. we have a ban with a proviso.

mr. gura: it made clear that the same self-defense interest that secures the right to keep arms in the home is the same interest that underlies the right to bear arms outside the home. i do not believe moore suggested that this type of good cause scheme would be applicable -- judge: i am meeting to exclude the home. we are talking outside the home at this point. mr. gura: if the constitutional interest is the same inside and outside, there is no way a law like this, which starts on the presumption the population at large is disabled from exercising that fundamental right, is preserved. judge: thank you counsel.

attorney: thank you, your honor. edward dumont. i am here for san diego county and sheriff gore and john whitesides. i am authorized confirm sheriff gore has not changed his policies or procedures for the issuance of concealed weapons permits pending guidance from the court. beyond that, mr. chapin is here to answer questions. i will be dividing time with mr. whitesides. judge: mr. dumont, where were you when we argue this case before? the sheriff is not going ahead.

and we questioned at that time -- we said, does the state no? yes, they know about that. we had discussions about whether it implicated a statutory scheme. the state sat on its hands and lost. and here you are. why should we let you intervene at this point? mr. dumont: we appreciate the ability to be here today. judge callahan: we would have liked to hear from you before. mr. dumont: we appreciate that. we think we should be permitted to intervene given the way these cases together have now become in essence, a challenge to the constitutionality of california public hearing schemes as a whole. there is a way that the court should revolve -- resolve the

cases that were not have those implications. we are here because two things happened. the panel opinion addressed the issue in a way that has brought significance for california law and their ability to regulate. number two, sheriff gore decided at that time not to seek a hearing embanc. judge: if we allow you to intervene, what does that mean in general? my understanding of the governor and attorney general's office they are supposed to defend laws they think our constitutional. no one seems to want to weigh in on political issues, as it were. why isn't it too late? mr. dumont: with respect -- judge callahan: if it were

another case, there would be no way for parties to intervene when it was clearly implicated. mr. dumont: i agree the circumstances are unusual. judge: we used to get cases as a district judge. there was an obligation to certify to the attorney general that a state statute had been called into question. did the district court make that certification? mr. dumont: i do not believe certifications were made. that said, i would not want to rely on that. what i want to say was, in most of these cases, as they were presented in the complaint in district courts, they presented a couple different avenues. one of them could have been a broad view. but they seemed to be focused on exercise of discretion, including allegations decisions

were being made in an arbitrary way or based on favoritism. those were not issues we thought the state had compelling reason to get involved. as it turns out, the case has been decided on broader grounds which is why we are here. judge: is there a way for a good cause requirement could be interpreted as a challenge to the state statute? as i understand from mr. clement , they are only challenging and interpretation of good cause by the sheriff. mr. dumont: i heard him say that. judge paez: is there a way to interpret the statute to avoid the problem we have? mr. dumont: i take it my friends would be content with an interpretation that says good cause is satisfied by an assertion of a law-abiding individual.

that is not the interpretation we have. it is possible there might be some ground where a sheriff could make a discretionary decision. i was not quite clear what the grounds would be. there would be greater than, i would like to carry. judge paez: how does the state to find good cause? mr. dumont: the state law is up to the individual. judge paez: california has no view? mr. dumont: the state statutory structure is to give the responsibility to define good cause to local sheriffs. conditions may vary from place to place. a local sheriff is accountable and aware of local conditions. it may be that the policy make sense is different in yolo. we do not have -- there may be a

baseline. but there is not a statewide definition. judge callahan: the second amendment does not change county to county. mr. dumont: that is right. we are here to debate the constitutionality of a share of imposing the standard they have imposed, which is what new york imposed and has been upheld. judge: is it the county view that the heller right does not apply in this context? mr. dumont: i want to be careful how i answer. it is not our view that the second amendment has no purpose outside the home. what my friends on the other side like to do is to find that right in heller as a right to do what they want to do, which is carry concealed weapons on the streets in public places, streets and parks of san diego

or davis. and that, we do not think heller stands for. first of all, history and tradition. heller, one of the things it makes passably clear is that restrictions on concealed carry of lethal weapons, especially in cities and towns, do not conflict with the basic second amendment right. judge: i want to get you right. it is the state position that heller right can apply outside the home? the core right of a law-abiding citizen to use the firearm for self-defense can apply outside the home? yes or no? mr. dumont: yes with

qualification, which is the supreme court has not given us any guidance about outside the home. i think it is hard to read heller and come away with the thought there is no purpose for the second amendment outside the home. i think it is necessary to read heller to say the second amendment does not confer a right to the concealed carry of handguns, especially in cities and towns. judge: there is a second prohibition that equals a total prohibition. what is your position on that? mr. dumont: first, i think there is historical evidence that, in the context of public spaces in cities and towns there is 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 heller and kochanski and drake. drake relies in part on this in terms of holding. in part, we would say there is a very good argument that, categorically, we are allowed to regulate open carry along with concealed carry. when we are talking about public spaces. judge: justice scalia said it was the perfect embodiment of concept. i think it was chandler. those were both open carry situations in public spaces, were they not? mr. dumont: i do not know

exactly where the defendant was arrested. my recollection of the case was that the statute applies statewide, without distinction and what the court held in nunn is that you can ban concealed carry, but not the van open carry -- if you ban open carry. the court goes through an interesting analysis of whether the south was representative of the rest of the country, but my point is not to establish categorically that we could ban open and concealed carry. i think there is a rich tradition of regulation. what california is doing is regulation, not a ban. for instance, in unincorporated areas, except prohibited areas where you cannot discharge a

weapon, you are free to carry open and loaded it at your place of business. you are allowed to keep it and carry it there. if you find yourself in an emergency and your gun is nearby, you are allowed to load it. judge: that was curious for me. if you kill someone in self-defense, the da's office determines it was justifiable homicide. but without the exception, you would be charged with having a loaded gun in a public place? i was not sure with the exception amounted to. mr. dumont: it amounts to a statutory exemption from what might otherwise the prohibitions in circumstances you are faced with a life-threatening situation. and aid is not immediately available. also, other ordinary activities for firearm ownership outside

the home training, hunting, all of these are accommodated by california's scheme. the fact you cannot get a concealed weapon permit to allow you to walk in the streets and in the parks and malls and parking lot of downtown san diego or davis does not mean that your right to carry a firearm has been destroyed. judge: does this argument assume the change in law, that there is absolutely no carry that is not whereas, prior to the change, one could carry but not loaded? does your argument applied to both situations? or are we only dealing with the situation in front of the plaintiffs?

mr. dumont: i have been arguing in terms of current law, which is harder for the state. the law imposes greater restrictions on unloaded open carry. judge: is that in front of us? because i did not find, frankly where that was the case for the plaintiff to bring the suit. mr. dumont: i agree at the time the plaintiffs sought permits, that was not the law. i suppose one could evaluate the decision on that basis. we have not approached the case on that basis. we have taken the view we should defend the statutory structures as they are now. judge: i asked mr. clement about intermediate scrutiny.

howdy respond to his argument -- how do you respond to his argument? i think the counted -- county submitted mr. zimmerman's affidavit. mr. dumont: the affidavit has in it the voice of an expert who is a long-standing and very experienced professor. a variety of statements which support points i want to get to about the degree of danger that concealed or open carry in public spaces imposes. if the court feels -- and i think you need to understand the record was built at a time when the law was different as to unloaded open carry. well, that is the main difference.

and i do not think it would be appropriate to resolve the case on the basis of that record. if the court feels the record is not sufficient to support the state and county positions in the way the case develops, i would suggest the right thing to do is reverse the summary judgment in favor of the county. judge: counsel suggested if the evidence is not sufficient in the affidavits in front of us, at that point, we should grant him some regulations. mr. dumont: i understand why he would take that position. i do not think it is the right answer. judge: why? mr. dumont: i am not sure it would be the right answer under all circumstances, but in these

circumstances, if the court is going to issue a ruling of broad significance, you should either take judicial notice of the same facts recited in the opinions of other courts -- and i must say that most of this, the risk imposed by these weapons is a matter of common sense. but if the court is going to issue a broad ruling, it should be done on the record. if the court once to resolve the case in a narrow way that applies to these plaintiffs and gives them permits but leaves the sheriff's free in a different case, that would be open to the course -- court. judge: your time is expired. thank you, counsel.

attorney: good afternoon. john whitesides. i would like to address judge smith. questions about the change in law. the law changed after the opening and answering briefs were filed. mr. gura referred to it as cementing a victory for the plaintiffs. at the panel level, we were asked, i believe by chief judge thomas, whether or not that would prevent the case from going forward. and counsel agreed it would not in both cases. in richards, the reason why i took that position was because as i read the district court

opinion, the changes that had been made in the law -- and i will address those in a minute -- would not have changed the district court's view. judge smith: then how do you explain page eight and nine in peruta and page 10 in richards where both district court's put an emphasis on the presence of carry law in california and suggested that was maybe some reason why intermediate scrutiny would not strike down the law? because they had carry provisions which were allowed then. you simply could not put the ammunition with the gun. attorney: those exceptions still exist. albeit in lesser form. the way the current scheme works

, it is different from the old scheme. in the old scheme and current scheme, you could carry loaded on private property, business or residential, with permission, as long as it was not a public place. when you got to a grocery store or a restaurant as opposed to your lawyer or accountant's office, if you get permission from the property owner or tenant entitled to possession to carry, you could only do it unloaded. you could carry, but it has to be unloaded. under the old law, you could carry loaded with permission. the other change is that under the old law, you could carry unloaded on you. in a holster open, displayed as long as it was unloaded on a public street.

you cannot do that now. now it has to be in a locked container. those are the differences. in my view, those differences -- judge smith: as i understand the law, you cannot carry openly anything. what you have to do is get a concealed permit. if you do not get a concealed permit, you cannot carry out all. mr. whitesides: that is only for walking up and down a public street in city limits. judge smith: that is what i understand the sheriff is putting regulations to. mr. whitesides: that is true. but remember that yolo county is 95% rural. when we are talking about whether or not there is a substantial burden on a fundamental right and 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

assumed it was, it is not a substantial burden if your inability to carry is limited to less than 1% of the county. if you can go to your relatives, your friends, your neighbors, if you can go to your lawyer, your accountant, your place of business and do all those things loaded, and when you get to the grocery store or bank -- let's suppose the bank says you can come in with your gun. all that is left are the streets. and people do not walk up and down the streets just to walk up and down the street. they go in and out of businesses. the theoretical burden on their right to carry is only going to be impacted if the business they are going to would let them in

the door with a gun in the first place. to me, the burden that is being argued -- judge: people walk down the streets for a lot of reasons. if you are worried about self-defense, you can stroll around in the evening. you can circumvent the park. do all kinds of things. under your theory, that is ok because if you are in the country, there is no restriction. mr. whitesides: it is a restriction viewed in the totality of where you can carry. it is a small restriction. not a substantial burden. if you can go 99% of the places you want to go and carry, the fact you cannot go to 1% should not be deemed constitutionally problematic. judge: do you take the position that you start with the premise that heller extends beyond the

home, gives you the constitutional right outside the home, but you are only narrowing it to 1% or a small handful of circumstances? is that the construct? do you agree with that? mr. whitesides: i do, adding one layer. that is that extending beyond the home and to carry in a public area of the city are not the same thing. and we have extensive, scholarly exposition by several amicus, including the league of california cities and every town against gun violence, the track prohibitions on carry in urban areas from colonial through antebellum forward.

judge: i guess that is what is unusual about your argument. i hear you concede heller does not restrict self-defense to the home. mr. whitesides: correct. judge callahan: everyone is agreement -- in agreement on that. but you seem to be arguing you are in a rural area and the real danger is in cities that are heavily populated. that seems to be the danger. but you are saying you are a rural area. why is this so dangerous where you are? mr. whitesides: well, i am not saying it is just because it is a rural area. judge callahan: i heard you say in a rural area, it is not as dangerous. mr. whitesides: i did not say anything about degree of danger. judge callahan: you are not saying that? ok. mr. whitesides: the argument i am making has nothing to do with

places being more dangerous than others. where the individual chooses to go is my point. it is not a substantial burden is you can choose to go to most places and still have some right to carry. judge callahan: was this all on the record? mr. whitesides: yes. in the underlying briefing. but heller talks about sensitive places. so it already expresses the idea that, at least when you are outside your house, there is going to be more restriction tolerated then there is inside the house. it is interesting, because we talked briefly about the moore case. in the subsequent opinion that

came out after the illinois law was found on snow -- unconstitutional in the subsequent opinion that comes out, judge poser says we say only that our mandate did not prevent the state to impose greater restrictions on carrying a gun outside the home than illinois law imposes on possessing a gun in the home. even moore recognizes that, once you are outside the home, the state can regulate more extensively in keeping with the historical president -- precedent that existed all the way through ratification. judge: is it strict scrutiny? mr. whitesides: if there is no

fundamental right to conceal carry in a public place, it would be rational basis. there is no burden on a constitutional right. we think the other circuits stand for that proposition. i throw in the first, as well, in hightower, which we briefed in one of our supplemental readings. the court said 653-61, the decision to not issue a concealed permit to retired police officer does not burden. in this case, we have several layers. we have concealed. the plaintiffs fairly concede it is not a true constitutional right. mr. gura referred to the language in heller, but that is

defining the word "carry," not the scope of the constitutional right in the second amendment. it is a physical description of what it means to carry. that means more than to possess to bear, meaning you are going somewhere. we feel the second amendment has always been treated as more extensive outside the home. look at hunting. that is a core second amendment right, isn't it? heller tells us that. you have to keep yourself alive by eating just as much as defending yourself. is there anything more restricted in modern american cities than the right to hunt? judge: probably smoking. [laughter] mr. whitesides: there you go. sure, it is allowed occasionally. there are some cities where there is a deer problem, and you

can get a special license to hunt deer, but generally, i cannot do that. i cannot shoot a pigeon. it is not allowed. that is not controversial. what california is doing here is a spectrum. it is allowing -- putting aside local ordinances -- the state is allowing full rights inside the home and putting much equal on other private property. friends, neighbors relatives. pretty much equal on private businesses. when you get to where people are congregating -- shopping malls, restaurants, department stores -- regulation gets tighter. it is open carry but it has to be unloaded. finally, you get to city streets , where it is at its most restrictive. we do not feel that can be deemed a destruction of a fundamental right because it is not a fundamental right historically.

and there is no destruction. at most, there is a burden. not a substantial one. but yes, there is a burden. far less than the result hunting or smoking. judge: in richards, which is your case, what was the evidence presented that would suggest that the law that was enacted substantially relates to the interest that the city or county determines they have? mr. whitesides: the only evidence was a declaration from the undersheriff which gave the reasons as to why they were concerned about issuing a carry permit to anyone who just put down self-defense. judge smith: if the declaration of the undersheriff is not sufficient to apply the substantial interest of the

county, then what do i do? mr. whitesides: unless you found there is a fundamental burden -- excuse me -- a substantial burden on a fundamental constitutional right, it would not be a problem. judge smith: supposing i have to apply intermediate scrutiny and i now get to the idea that at that point, applying intermediate scrutiny, there is a government interest, but i cannot find a way that the government interest was related to what you did. mr. whitesides: i think the declaration relates it. judge smith: if it does not, what do i do? mr. whitesides: both sides moved for summary judgment. if you found neither side had sufficient evidence to warrant summary judgment, you would send it back. judge smith: was there any

declaration? mr. whitesides: there were declarations that describe the process they went through, but nothing about a particular need as mr. gura said. the argument was not that they had a special meet. the argument was i desire self-defense and i am not disqualified by virtue of criminal record or lack of training. judge: thank you counsel. mr. clement, three minutes. mr. clement: thank you, your honor. if i heard the other side correctly, they concede the second amendment applies outside the home and they came perilously close to conceding that a ban on open and concealed carry would be unconstitutional.

the question that becomes important is the scope of open carry under california law. mr. dumont gave you an accurate half of the story. i want to tell you the other half. under the new law you have open carry prohibited in the cities. he also told you it is prohibited in prohibited areas of unincorporated parts of the county. that means the key word is "prohibited areas," defined in the penal code, 17030 to mean anywhere you cannot discharge of firearms. that is almost everywhere. streets, near a dwelling, a car. please do not decide the case on the presumption you can carry openly in 85% of the county that is unincorporated. you cannot carry openly in the

prohibited areas in the unincorporated areas. that is almost anywhere you would get. if you were on the grid, on the streets, near a dwelling, near a car, you cannot carry openly. that is why this is a situation where we are not asking for a const regional right -- constitutional right to conceal carry. we are asking for a mechanism to exercise what my friends is essentially concede we have, a right to self-defense outside the home. that is deemed forbidden almost anywhere we could get on the grid. the second point is to be responsible to why moore is significant. it is most significant on the points they have conceded. judge posner explains why it is the second amendment extends outside the home. some of the other circuits decided the case on the assumption it does not or were

kind of silent on that question. if you think about the cases that are out there, there are third and fourth circuit cases and i will grant it is somewhat different, but california is not like new york or new jersey. not just generally, but for the statue. what makes it so different is that it leaves it up to the county. unlike states where they make this decision on a statewide basis and assemble a statewide case for why this is important to public safety, california does not care that much. they leave it up to sacramento county. the record becomes the record in each case. the record here is not enough to satisfy strict or intermediate scrutiny. judge: thank you counsel.

we will put three minutes on the clock. attorney: thank you, your honors. first of all, both the council on the other side a lewd to a historical basis. the every town brief does a fantastic job of marshaling the proposition that the right to carry guns has been regulated but there is no historical basis for this type of law that dates back to the early parts of the 20th century. what else was going on in the early 20th century? the last word from the supreme court at that time was that the second amendment did not apply to the state. it cannot be that we look to legislative behavior of legislatures at that time as evidence of how people understood the right to exist. if those legislatures had

consulted the supreme court guidance on the second amendment, they would be told they were exempt from being concerned about it. of course, there have been other cases as well. council noted the high tower case. we filed a letter that responded to their citation of hightower. first of all, hightower held the claim that the plaintiffs made because the court found the plaintiff had the ability to obtain a license to carry a handgun openly, a class b license in massachusetts. obviously, that is not on the cards today. we also noted some decisions that merit discussion. we have people versus rio, where the michigan supreme court held the exercise a right to carry cannot be made subject to the

will of the sheriff. they were talking about the right to a handgun. in schubert versus debarte essentially this case, we had a police chief who decided he had 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 that behavior, holding that such an approach contravenes the essential nature of the constitutional guarantee, which is essentially what this panel did earlier in the case. and mosby versus divine. the supreme court of rhode island said the constitutional right to bear arms would be illusory if the ability to carry a gun were submitted to unfair discretion of the licensing

officer. and counsel states we did not provide any evidence challenging the wisdom of this carry policy. even under intermediate scrutiny, it is the government's burden to prove its law advances the interest in a way that fits properly to that objective. judge: at that point, all i do is evaluate what the defendants have suggested as evidence, and if it meets the appropriate level of defining the government interest and fitting the regulation to that government interest, then you lose? attorney: we would not lose. they do not have any evidence. the affidavit did not show this policy was necessary to address some feature of carrying handguns. what it stated his -- is that

carrying handguns is dangerous and we want to eliminate that danger. if we were too can see are correct for the sake of argument , tell them it is dangerous to carry handguns, we would still prevail. right or wrong, that judgment has been made in the constitution. that policy choice has to be respected. judge: thank you for your arguments and your briefing. it was very helpful to the court. we will be in recess. >> all rise. >> coming up tonight, chris christie announces his candidacy for president. after that, we take your calls and comments on the 2016 raise.

and a news conference with president obama and the brazilian president. now we go to livingston high school in new jersey where chris christie went to school. he announces his candidacy for president. it is 30 minutes. ♪ governor christie: thank you. thank you, new jersey. thank you. thank you to livingston. [laughter]