I represented the petitioners in the Supreme Court today. I dont know if therell be questions from anybody but i wanted to say that were gratified that the Supreme Court heard the argument in todays case. This is a very important case. My clients have been litigating this case for over five years. Theyve been represented by a great team that goes well beyond me. Brian stapleton has been representing them if the very beginning of this litigation. And the reason they filed this lawsuit five years ago was to try to vindicate their rights under the Second Amendment. Up until the point that the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case, the city of new york resisted their efforts to vindicate their right at every turn and only when the Supreme Court granted certiorari petition in this case did the city start to take efforts to try to recognize their rights. The court asked a lot of questions today about those continuing efforts by the city to try to make this case go away but they also asked very important questions about the merits that made clear that this is part and parcel of the kind of regulations that have no basis in text, history, or tradition and should not be upheld consistent with the Second Amendment, so were very, very hopeful that the court will decide this case on the merits and in favor of the petitioners but were very gratified that we had our day in court to vindicate these important constitutional rights. If there are no questions, i leave it to others. Thank you. Were going to have remarks from leaders of every town for gun safety, the Gifford Center and brady. My name is hannah shearer, litigation director at Giffords Law Center to prevent gun violence. Jonathan lowey, Vice President of legal at brady. Eric turswell, managing director of litigation at every town for gun safety. We just came from the oral argument. There were tough questions on both sides. We still hope and expect that the court will dismiss this case as moot. Because the plaintiffs have gotten all the relief theyre seeking. But it was also very clear today whats actually at stake in this case. Counsel for the state affiliate of the n. R. A. Got up there and asked the court to declare that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms and also to adopt a restrictive and extreme test for deciding Second Amendment cases that would look only to history and tradition and not to Public Safety concerns. So thats why were here today, keeping a close eye on this case to make sure that we assert our right to be safe and show that the Second Amendment is perfectly consistent with gun safety laws like the sort americans have overwhelmingly been demanding. Were optimistic that the court will not consider the merits of this case because theres no case or controversy and that if the court does consider the Second Amendment issue, that the court recognizes the longstanding right of americans to enact the gun safety laws that they want and need to protect their communities and that protect our most fundamental right to live. Thank you. I think what the argument showed today is that it is the petitioners who at the 11 1 2 hour are inventing theories to try to keep a case that is moot alive. I think the questions revealed that. And we hope that the court will see that this case is over. The petitioners got all the relief they actually requested in this case. And that what theyre asking for now goes beyond what theyve asked for before. If the court reaches the merits, as john said, we hope that the justices will reaffirm that theres no inconsistency between the Second Amendment and reasonable gun safety laws that we know save lives every day across the country. Thank you. Any questions . Thank you. Thank you. Im going to introduce james e. Johnson, the Corporation Counsel of the city of new york. New york citys chief legal officer. James e. Johnson. Good morning. My name is jim johnson. Im the Corporation Counsel for the city of new york. That is the chief legal officer for the city of new york. And we have just heard we have just heard the argument in the new York State Rifle Association vs. City of new york. This is a case that we have maintained since the very beginning, since certiorari was granted, it was moot. We should not have been called into court today but we were. We were more than ably represented by rich deering who is head of our appeals unit in the new york city Law Department. At issue in this case was a request by the plaintiffs, by petitioner shearer to carry their firearms out of their homes and to certain firing ranges, including a competition outside of new york. New york, new york city and new york state gave them everything they asked for before this argument. That was made very plain in this argument today. The case is moot. It is a case that should not have gone forward to this point. But in any event, we are looking forward to the judgment of the court. We feel that we had a very strong and powerful presence in the hearing today. We are grateful, of course, for not only richs work but that of the entire appeals unit in the Law Department and the support of jeff fisher and his team, and were pleased that the solicitor general of the state of new york traveled down with us to be at the argument. Can i ask you a question . One of the things mr. Deering said is the fact that the state of new york changed its law and the city changed its regulations was not maneuvering as the other side said but a good thing. What do you mean by that . I think it was Justice Breyer who noted that when there are parties to an argument, when there are parties when there are parties to an argument and those parties resolve or settle their disputes before the argument is reaches the Supreme Court, the court should view that as a good thing and we view it as good government. What about the justices concerns that state and city laws dont apply to the hypothetical that may arise . Is it up to those people to refile litigation for the hypotheticals that werent addressed by these laws . I have rich right here ill have him answer that question. [laughter] i wasnt even really listening to that question. I think that the point is the lawsuit was never about any of those kind of hypotheticals. They are things that if folks want to explore theyll have to be explored to determine what those new laws mean and whether theres any constitutional claim that can be made about them but its never been part of this case and we dont know enough, really, for even a claim like that to be been framed and litigated and decided now. Can you amend the current laws to try to prevent future litigation . The problem with that is they turn this into essentially an audit where they tried to think of every hypothetical they could imagine about the law. I imagine if that happened thered be new hypotheticals. Thats the way legislation works and litigation works but its not theres no its not appropriate to try to inject those hypothetical into a dispute framed about something completely different and is now completely resolved. Its cold and wet and were going to get out of the rain. Thanks very much. Say who you are. Spell your name. Look at them, dont look at me. Im kris brown, kris, brown, im president of brady. Even if you survive this, this is just the first of what you can expect theres going to be a lot of cases. What are you looking at, hoping for, in this case and for the future . In this case, we know that the new york statute has been mooted. We know that legislation has passed to stop any other locality from passing a similar law and we want to ensure that the Supreme Court does not take this case where there is no case or controversy. Thats an n. R. A. Objective to have dicta in this case that radically changes and transforms the Second Amendment. We dont want that. We think an appropriate balance has been struck already in the case law. We dont want that to be eroded. Because commonsense laws save lives. Ok, again. Let me get you to look out that way. You know there are other cases coming even if you stop this, you know there are other cases coming, so what is your objective ultimately . In the next case and the next case . And the next case sn because there are five justices and have a record of being inhospitable the claims against gun regulation. We want the court to uphold reasonable interpretations that ensure that things like back ground checks and extreme risk laws that of been enacted in 17 states and district of columbia, and assault weapons ban. We are working in congress and course to make that happen. Thank you. Gun Safety Advocates and members of Congress Held a rally outside the Supreme Court protesting the nra backed lawsuit on a repealed new