mr. clement thank you, mr. chief justice, justice kagan, we didn't succeed really well under the current second circuit law and we never got to the point of proposing an injunction. the only thing my friend is alluding to is the relief in the summary judgment motion. if we would have gotten to that point we would have wanted clarity. the kind of clarity that a federal court applying the second amendment can provide and you don't have to represent -- >> mr. clement your complaint from relief states it. in order preliminarily and permanently enjoying the defendants and skip out whoever else who receive actual notice of the injunction from enforcing this prohibition from traveling beyond the borders of the city of new york to attend a gun range, shooting competition or to use a lawfully possessed and licensed firearm for the purposes of defending one's home, person or property and you asked for declareatory relief with those same words. >> that's right, and if we're going to go to the complaint and we should look

mr. clement has basically said this case is not about damages. that's not why we think it's not moot and it's not what we want. >> i heard mr. clement say i'm happy to affirm my clients want damages but we don't think we need that lifeline from solicitor general. we think our other theories are good. even though we disagree on the other theories. i think the question under knox admission products is is it impossible for court to award damages? there's evidence in the record of economic harm. if they get a declaration on merits that they are right in the matter of the second amendment there is no barrier to their receiving award of damages from a court. >> would you remind me where in the complaint they set fourth damage? >> i think the best examples are pages 32, 33, 35, 36 of the joint appendix and again 52 through 54, 56, 57, 59 to 61 >> those are both pleading and summary judgment affidavits and rely on two kinds of harm. one is competitions they were not allowed to attend with firearms and the other is the cost of dues and membership fees to

mr. clement? >> thank you mr. chief justice. a few points in rebuttal.never got to the point of imposed injunction in this case, we didn't exactly succeed really well under current second circuit law so we never got to the point of proposing injunction. the only thing my friend is referring to our allusions to the kind of relief we wanted the summary judgment motion. if we got to that point we would have wanted clarity, the kind of clarity the federal court applying second amendment can provide. you don't have to depend on cities representation. >> your complaint from relief states it in order preliminarily and permanently enjoined to defendants skip out whoever else who receive actual notice of the injunction from enforcing this prohibition from traveling beyond the borders of the city of new york to attend a gun range, shooting competition, or use a lawfully possessed firearm for the purpose of defending one's home, person, or property. you asked for clara tori relief with those same words. >> that's right. i don't think we would've been tethered to th

mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice, and may please the court. text, history, and tradition all make clear that new york city's restrictive premises license and accompanying transport van are unconstitutional. the cities restriction on transporting firearms in places where they may be lawfully possessed and its insistence in its revised regulations that any such transport be continuous and uninterrupted, of view of the second amendment on homebound right with any ability to venture beat on the curtilage with a a firearm even locked ad unloaded, a matter of government grace period that he is inconsistent with text, history, tradition and this court cases. the text of the second amendment protects rights to keep and bear arms. that latter right makes clear that the second amendment protects rights that are not strictly limited to the premises. there is no historical analog for the cities prohibition on transporting firearms to places where the may be lawfully use. to the contrary, the second congress required the militia to take their own firearms

mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice, and may please the court.t, history, and tradition all make clear that new york city's restrictive premises license and accompanying transport van are unconstitutional. the cities restriction on transporting firearms in places where they may be lawfully possessed and its insistence in its revised regulations that any such transport be continuous and