waist writes a motorcycle and says what's on his mind and that may make him skeptical of the law enforcement and here we were see the law enforcement jackson before the concealed carry license and review board  posit the laws in this state and the constitution are meant to protect people like just the perils people who don't fit society's mold but are otherwise law abiding honest citizens legally speaking just harrelson should review are not technical rules but basic rules and even though in that instance there was a satchel said the administrative agency didn't have to fall of the technical rules of evidence the court said they would still have to requalify rules of hearsay and this instance the concealed carry license thing review board followed their own internal guidance relied upon the police report in denying cho's apparel sins licens they didn't make specific findings of fact to that effect but that was the only evidence before the concealed carry license the review board against mr harrison now defendant cited various cases in the casing that they could in fact rely off those police report one was landers and another was miles and at age twenty seven defendants countered to plaintiff's position that grand liquor company controls is the extent of the rules of evidence prohibited hearsay are are allowed in this context and other hearsay exceptions apply as discussed defendant goes on to discuss citing lammers and eight zero three eight of the only evidence code but if you look at the decision in lander's it actually states minors court basically said you can't use that hearsay police report when there's not a conviction here we have a conviction of just peril some damage to property not a conviction of domestic battery which would have been a disqualifier under the concealed carry license and have the proper doesn't that make a difference certainly your honor and this case there was no simulated finding of fact in the record to say how the property was damaged it is the affidavit saying this wasn't violence between the parties countering that police report the board must have relied upon the police report to say that joseph harrelson threw the alleged victim's head through the wall but they would have needed a in any criminal case there is a statement of fact at the end the court says what's this what's the basis for this factual charge here there's nothing in the record that shows the court did that shows that just apparels an admitted i had for a while which would also be a domestic battery as opposed to the court sorting it out in the criminal matter and deciding where the state's attorney there of deciding when to say he didn't do that but there was property damage such that he can't be convicted of this holding landers and grand liquor company together i think the concealed carry license and review board can certainly consider the fact joseph harrelson was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of criminal damage to property that is not a disqualifier under the concealed carry license review act or so using the concealed carry act in the board's reply brief they ask this court to find just a parasitic guilty of domestic battery in fact the defendants indicated the court can stop right there after reading the allege domestic battery occurred based on the police report but landers doesn't support that position lanter says you need a conviction to rely off that the ministry of hearing if it is further miles for the proposition that you can use police reports but the miles court specifically stated that police reports were hearsay and the miles court said that while other courts might have used different approaches all courts have required that police reports if they're going to be used they must be first hand accounts of the officers here this police report is later with double and triple imprints hearsay that is someone told the officer which is a supreme court decision there a doctor was applying for a one a doctor one p f c a medical student who wanted to be a doctor was applying for a license the court held that because there was hearsay evidence use and other competent evidence in the hearing that the hearsay evidence was harmless more or less and the position in abraham sin was now called the court where hearsay evidence appears in the record scuse me important basically said where there was other competent evidence in the records or agencies decision that hearsay evidence will not demand reversal cited in my brief was curdie where there was no other competent evidence and in the kearny decision the court said were here say evidence appears in the record it may not be consider in reaching a decision and any factual determination based on hearsay and unsupported by a quote other competent evidence must be reverse that is cases responder city defendants have alluded that mr harrison hasn't shown that concealed carry license to review back review act is applicable is not in other words that there is no contest case however going to happen here ngs and the board must vote and least four members of the board must agree to have a hearing and furthermore the board can decide what the hearings going to be on basically the basis of the hearing so jodrell someone to challenge the police report section ninety of the same act indicates an intention for the board to be governed by the way the board's own internal guidance in section twelve thirty one that one seventy c three states on states the court hell even though the act doesn't specifically say you're going to be governed by the contest case provision the court can infer based upon the administrative code and the statute provision enabling the board of the agency that they will be governed by the contest case pr that the right to carry a gun according to macdonald united states priem core is a fundamental right this is the core stated it's clear that the framers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental in other words your right to bear arms is a fundamental right and in that mcdonnell decision it quoted heller many times and heller was the landmark gun rights decision where they struck down the washington d c law saying you can't have guns in your home bas mcdonnell use the fourteenth amendment to incorporate that upon the states so it is clear that the federal government holds your right to bear arms and your right to keep arms fundamental right were these constitutional issues arise in this the on the motion to reconsider your honor i would posit respectfully that they were raised at the initial argument not the motion to reconsider rather the initial argument on the briefs judge historias indicated i was attempting to raise just serious on the issue of fairness in the dictionary hearing but i understand and creatively defendants have argued that that was waived because it wasn't raised in front of judge pistorius my counterargument to that  had i not raised that on the circuit court i would still have the opportunity to raise it here because joseph aronson wasn't granted a hearing before the administrative agency and as i briefed the case law indicates that you raised those issues before the administrative agency at a hearing here joe joe harrelson wasn't allowed i hearing to raise those issues and it's cited in my in my releases them in the documents that submitted i would respectfully request or posit to the court that the way the sash towards scheme there's a framework of this works is the board takes the objection and from the law enforcement if they sustain that objection they give those apparels and fifteen days to submit evidence not argument so just the perils and some it's evidence and if you look at that and certainly when i was in this case in beginning i thought this is an interesting discovery tool we're all the disk of all the evidence is presented before the board and then there's a hearing well the hearing is then determined by the board they get to decide that so if they don't want to hear those arguments they don't have to in this case they didn't so just know your honor the what was presented was affidavits again that the statute was very clear that the person i don't think anything but the statute or that the administrative code says they will only consider evidence properly before the board so if i were to present argument or evidence i read that sacha to mean that it will be considered by the board because it's not evidence countering circumvent that with a memorandum wall i did not the first time that those were the constitutional issues were raised was that the circuit court or a large events did you submitted memorand unless they change generally it on the cases that were supplemented and again i would fall back to my position in my reply brief where they saw shown that the proper place to raise that would be the administrative body and how to raise it in the administrative body here there was an opportunity to raise that before the administrative body such that even if it hadn't been raised that the circuit court any point before the motion to reconsider i'm confident that they would be able to raise it at some point before oh i'm sorry at some point before the case was disposed of so that the due process argument with respect to the fundamental right and defendant cited page thirty two of the brief that mcdonnell was basically saying that they were affirming heller and that's true defendant said mcdonnell is trying to say that the fundamental right there is towards the home however in mcdonald they were simply quoting heller when heller sad the decision this is affecting the home and that heller decision was about gun rights in the home as opposed to out on the street mcdonald court systematically route their decision use the words right to bear arms and right to keep arms and those are separate methods of caring keeping arms referencing the home bearing arms meeting out on the street because it's a fundamental right event our student players would posit that he was afforded more process than he was given in other words he should have had a right to a hearing on that and along that due process no play it would assert that the case law from the supreme court demonstrates the clear and convincing evidence standard should be used with this law because it is a fundamental right and plane of sight several cases from court's decision and people of the i q lera where they affirm the seven circuit vishal ruling in moore that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right and a right that should be used outside the home so even if baron stands for what defendants mean defendants purport it stands for we still have the supreme court holding that morris good law in the supreme court has not changed opinion on that issue and i will certainly reserve my time for is generating and leaving aside whether the originals were sworn to not in this case the victim didn't want to press charges right away she thought about it for a few hours and she called deputy areas later on so what that meant is  the deputy mayors had to go in front of a judge and swear to the evidence that's contained in the incident report in order to get your arrest one from mr carlson so the argument that these are somehow unreliable documents for the information in them is somehow no foundation basically slate the evidence they were trying to get him no one could tell who it put that information into the computer whether the program was accurate there's no way to test it that's a very different situation than what we have here we know who wrote what we know with a new affidavit to me it's all about which is credible what's what was said to the police when they first investigated or what the new sworn statements said so this would appear to me to case where credibility determinations are critical to the outcome then yeah no hearing that that's true you're right i was thinking credibility in terms of you know the fact finder makes credibility terminations and people are  was that clear counsel indicated the miles decision was based because there was no record for review in court but here we have no record books before it ministrations the all we have is a decision that they said by hundreds of the evidence we find police report itself is one layer of hearsay if someone was going to say something other than the person writing that hearsay document that's double imprints hearsay if someone told someone else something to put report that's triple inference hearsay so i'm not attempting to reweigh credibility that would be improper i'm not asking the court to do that i'm saying that in a vacuum these are hearsay documents with triple double inference hearsay such that can't be relied upon and the kirby decision makes clear that