controlled substance in the early ninety's he would like to restore those rights the mechanism to do so is section ten of the ford act section ten c lays out four elements and the servants most satisfied in order to regain those firearm rights four states granting relief cannot be contrary to federal law the federal law in question would be the gun control act which states that if someone is convicted of an offense punishable by more than one year  then that person cannot own or possess a firearm and less that person civil rights are restored now the st district viewing the void act with respect to th is a catch twenty two dollars there's nothing we can do this is an erroneous and frankly absurd conclusion based on the briefing i would seems like everyone at least on this side of the bench agrees that this is an absurd conclusion even the st district in their written opinion stated that this is an absurd result but whereas they say that their hands are tied that this is the only conclusion that they can come to  is a civil rights issue that section ten is the mechanism for restoring that civil rights and three sections generally it is enough to overcome the gun control act prohibit prohibit or so that's why we would ask that  to the public interest the standard of review for that is dependent again based on briefing is dependent on the evidence that is used  seemingly we agree that if the entirety of the evidence is documentary then it would be to novo review if there was a live witness testimony or questions of facts and it would be manifestly the evidence of the standard the general standards that we use in reviewing decisions so by the fact that the all the evidence in this case was dr terry that this court came close to that how do we know as far as what evidence was there exists it's entirely in the record do we know why the court indicated that the measure proved that th very highlight appropriately that his case is about thirty years old it's nonviolent he's married to wonderful person he's got kids that he's active in raising he has a business he has a very specific need for personal safety with that's tied to this business for what he needs firearm rights and in the state's brief the bars countering with how he doesn't satisfy the public interest they talk about his criminal history and you know statistics is stars other people recidivism and now statistics are great for and shapley larger troops out of a messy cascade of data points but they don't tell you where each data point lands like that this is an individualized process and mr evans is a real person with a history of a narrative of you know story of rehabilitation here here before the really c three the public interest c two states that it the relief can be only granted if the person's reputation and their criminal history are such that they are not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that's that's the criminal history portion of it and that's already been conceded the state agrees that he mr evans is satisfied that he is not dangerous to the public safety despite his criminal history so no i don't i would say that there are different i mean when there's a list in statue we read those to be different items so there is hat pressley some other public like maybe mr evans if he were safe person but he lived with people that are unsafe then it would be against the the public's interest potentially to grant environments if he's going to own firearms and have them in a place where late if you have roommates that were dangerous the public may not want those his roommates have access to firearms so that could be a potential situation where it would be counter to the public meant to be more of a catch all fail safe where they get the most of the analysis most of the determination the individual determination of the  with reasons that it's policy based that maybe we don't again we don't know why just denied based on public interest but potentially it could have been that it's against the public interest to grants void card to someone that is violating federal law like we don't want people and it's in the public's interest to not have people violating federal law so think it could potentially be either because it's undefined as far as what is the public interest say thinking it can be a broad policy standpoint as in the nd example but it certainly would apply for the individualized situation as well i mean there are there are a lot of reasons why the public is interested in buying right so with respect to for some reason i don't think that it is potentially yeah yeah i think that is important because the were basically speculating at this point is where the trial court is you know lay person is generally going to have experience and i mean he did a pretty good job of bringing in the record but for this event that he didn't even know happened until after the just a little bit of leeway for mr evans who didn't even understand what that that is what that constitutes and certainly that was required but i don't think that it changes anything with respect to the sas action of rights from felons because we don't trust them but then we could look individually afterlife to see if they've earned that trust back and mr evans has and that's what the st district including we asked you  there any other questions morning your honor as a man please the court assistant attorney general caitlin buell in behalf of her son applebee's the general assembly intended that those who have an illinois conviction that is a felony and were federally prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law have an opportunity to potentially remove their federal firearm prohibit or and obtain a foid card their operation of state law all parties here agree that although the void act and initially bars an individual with a felony conviction from possessing a point card the federal gun control act section one point one of the i'm not there eyes do use of a weapon by a felon statue or the u u w f statue and sections head of the foid act work together in order to provide an opportunity to restore those federal firearm rights and if successful obtain a for id card although this is exactly what the general assembly intended illinois appellate court read the u u w f statute and the floyd act together to make a never ending statutory loop that created a permanent ban on firearm possession there may be two reasonable constructions of these statutes but all parties agree that the public court's interpretation leads to absurd and potentially unconstitutional results instead this court should honor the general assembly's intent and rely on the interpretation advanced by the illinois state police the agency that is charged with administering the foid act under this interpretation the reference to section ten of the foid act with end to u w  statute should be interpreted to require an examination of only sections ten c one through three not ten c four when removing the federal firearms provision caused by a felony conviction of course  public interest indeed after an evidentiary hearing the circuit court correctly concluded that evans had not met his bargain to show that granting him a void card was not contrary to the public interest under any standard of review one cannot conclude that evans has met that burden considering his serious felony convictions for drug offenses as well as his history of arrests and interactions with law enforcement which have not been explained away history that's overlap and what the public interest but you also must look at things like an individual's acceptance of responsibility and their sustainability to possess firearms over all the overall nature of the convictions themselves how dangerous they were the impact and it's really a totality of the circumstances test and that's also i would like to point out the illinois appellate that illinois circuit courts when they are considering the is cases are doing so under section ten and have the foid act and that specifically enumerated certain offenses that are allowed to go to the circuit court and all other circumstances these sorts of removals go to the director of the state police and so the director of the state police is also performing this sort of review about public interest and the state police really look do know that that is in the record that is part of illinois state cases business file which is in the record and it was this same evidence that was presented to the circuit court itself you know who gives the affidavits the letters from mr evans his wife and i believe several of his friends and acquaintances intent and in doing this the court looks to the statutes plain language which requires it to consider the statutes in their entirety without reading provisions in isolation this court resumes the constitutionality of these statutes and recognizes that there is this circumstance sense mr evans did not meet his burden to show that he was entitled to employ part or his burden to show that or his burden to produce a full record this court could remain and to the here all parties including i s p the agency that is charged with administering the foid act agreed that the general assembly intended to grant those with former illinois felony convictions who are federally prohibited from possessing firearms the opportunity to remove that firearm prohibition under state law the language of the u w at statue indicates that i ask why the circuit court where applicable could grant relief potentially to a person like mr evans and thirteen amendments to the foid act the decision maker who was considering this removal of a federal firearms prohibition will consider only sections ten c one through three of the floyd act so looking at things like whether someone had been convicted of a forcible felony with in twenty years whether the applicants reputation and criminal history made them likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and whether granting relief was contrary to the public interest ten c four was not part of the equation it was added in two thousand and thirteen to ensure compliance with a variety of different state laws but this sort of relief for felons was never specifically addressed nor was it the focus indicates that one can remove their federal firearm for have to are simultaneously granting afforded part that too could be a reasonable interpretation of the statue and when a statute is being capable of understood in more than one manner the statute is in big us which requires this court to take a look at the drafting history of legislative history to fully understand the general assembly sometimes and contrary to evans's interpretation the only state police as interpretation provide illinois individuals with their felony convictions the opportunity to remove their federal firearm prohibition through state law the senator who sponsored the bill stated it would ensure that felons have the opportunity to obtain firearms and they house sponsor stated that an individual in this position could receive individualized relief from the illinois state police and state law and that would it require an examination of the severity of the individual's crime and their personal circumstances do you see whether they should obtain this really rather than waiting for relief from the federal government this law actually remains in effect today it was not repealed or link between these sorts of drug offenses and increased violence which is not in the public interest or the time whe sometimes given the circumstances of the offense might be a long period that's why this really is a true talent of the circumstances situation that requires the circuit court in this particular and sense to look at the individual that is something that i can't tell you all i know is the only that what the offenses were about they were a class x found any and a class to found any and they involve the manufacture and distribution of more than fifteen grams of cocaine and then manufactur deliver of a substance that was an analog to l s d but we don't have a transcript of what went on in this record we don't know if individuals talked about the circumstances of these convictions or of other brass including the two thousand and eight erast which was stricken with a plea to reinstate for battery you mentioned earlier i think that it's over all that on this record under any standard ever be zero it's clear that mr avon's hasn't met his burden but at this court would like to remand for additional backchannel findings on the public interest point it certainly could are no there are no specific factual findings he didn't meet his burden i don't know what was discussed at the hearing however i'm just looking at this overall criminal history of record and the circumstances that are parents it is clear that they a convictions he was arrested again in one thousand nine hundred and nine for possession of a controlled substance in two thousand and eight for a battery and he hasn't explained why he has not he was not convicted but he hasn't explained the circumstances surrounding th circumstances inquiry decision maker here the circuit court could take a look at those arrests and maybe even asked about them during a hearing but again i don't know exactly what has happened during the hearing or  the general assembly left it to the decision maker to decide within their satisfaction as to whether individuals could show that it was contrary to the public interest or if their criminal history and reputation were such that they would be in a manner dangerous to public safety and it was it's really a case by case basis in some circumstances someone might be able to possess a firearm much more quickly than in other circumstances people are all different that we know that there was a hearing but we don't have the actual transcript of that hearing the individual factual findings and solves might be for an abuse of discretion the  of an individual we're going to work for i think that to the extent that that was something that the decision maker was interested in they could certainly ask about it for example documentation requested by the department related to the determination of granting relief so presumably i could ask about those things if does allow for that totality of criminal history to be considered when but that it is in section c two that's what gives the jurisdiction to consider the criminal so criminal history could even potentially be actions taken without arrest but it's that is soley within section c two and c two has been conceived if there's no evidence there's no counterpoint  no basis by the state for the public interest that doesn't fall within the scope of c two which has already been conceded so the court sure to affirm the st district s conclusion that c three was satisfied by mr evans by his life history by the affidavits supporting his rehabilitation this is the type of person that should be granted counsel didn't receive notice of here he didn't not his attorney appeared at the the oral arguments but he did not even know that it was going to take place now mostly would be directing the circuit court to overturn the determination of c four and then further proceedings consistent with that finding so then we that would allow for the opportunity to have the evidence or hearing and we can produce witnesses we can have mr evans testify to this as an action of the circuit court just i mean i've seen situations for for both especially when there's a question of law usually that gets settled st before bringing in witnesses and having them testify but that it's great that it hearing what didn't correct this would be the the actual hearing then rather than just oral arguments based on the question of law