uh victor, victoria, mr. victoria newland robert kagan wrote in an all pad in the washington post. and we talked about this. it was about 5 to 6 months ago, which was pretty much cooling for this explanation. of the trump, they just said this man is such a exist central thread. we can't stop him. this is like, this is, julia sees, you know, this is the only way the way it would go. we're going to deal with him is the way they dealt with june and caesar. so this is, he doesn't affect the business how, what the, how the political establishment is thinking. and indeed as mafia said, there are serious reasons or as questions about the security elapses. there, i mean, yes, inexplicable, absolutely no real questions? well it's, it's really quite remarkable. martin is a, this is a, i'm glad you brought up the flow of our prime minister. mean, this is what we see all across the western world. everything is x a central. if everything is x essential than anything and everything is permitted because it's, you know, it's to be or not to be. this is a, you know, it, you know, it's obviously ver

justice roberts: justice alito. justice sotomayor. kagan. justice gorsuch. justice gorsuch: one specific thing in the government's replied brief and i want to get your response to page 21 of the applied brief, the government notes the background check system that congress has created to prevent the sale of firearms to prohibited persons. domestic violence, protective orders are promptly incorporated into that system. it's resulted in more than 75,000 denials, the government says, based on these provideds in the last -- protective orders in the last 25 years. in your order it would not stop people from buying firearms. just want to get your response to that. mr. wright: i think that's wrong for a couple of reasons, justice kavanaugh. the same system that incorporates state prohibitions against firearm possession, and so if there is a lawful provision imposed by state law and a judge in the court. it could be incorporated into the background check system. second, i would have to concede there is a historical tradition of limiting who citizens people in the com

roberts: thank you counsel. rebutt, general. ms. prelogar: thank you, mr. chief justice. my friend began his argument this morning in response to justice kagan saying he does read bruen to require the government to come forward with a precise historical analogue in order to justify a modern day firearms regulation. i think it is a clearly incorrect reading of bruen. unfortunately, it's a profound misreading that many lower courts have been adopting and i think it's important for the court to understand the destabilizing consequences of that reading in the lower courts. just last week, a court invalidated section 922-g-1 on its face as applied to the most violent and horrific crimes imaginable on the theory the government didn't have a sufficiently precise historical analogue to justify a permanent ban on felons. several district courts have applied challenges to section 922-g-1 by armed career criminals who have multiple convictionses of assault, drug trafficking, armed robbery, clearly violent crimes, because we don't have a sufficient analogue subjecting them to those crimes at the finding and the court has also invalidated on its face the