apparently amended its own firearms legislation and delisted the crime of which are for which he was convicted him from its own firearms statute star i want to make the presentation here that committed his crime his crime would not have been one that would have precluded him from obtaining a concealed firearm or any firearm in the state of missouri which isn't the question rather whether  your well and that's the way just one ground of of the of the statute it is your honor and i think that's exactly the way the district court federal district court treated the issue asking for a new look or reconfiguration here understand it makes did run through the mix decision did run through the rights that were not restored he could not sit on a jury that he couldn't be on the highway patrol he has restored existed for the individual that might be a right they could be considered in the overall mix of factors of whether or not the rights have been restored substantially be stored underground missed so what i'm saying here is this at the time of this little window there just some language by the way it gave me an opinion that says a court might want to consider the state firearms laws i think in the restoration of rights paradigm and that that's my introduction to to this concept saying that since we're in a new working from a new frame of reference it's a new time it's a new day the state law changed in this very that was not the case when the meat's case was decided so i'm just asking the court to do basically a new restoration of rights analysis of the fair argument well i'm not i'm not sure it would carry everyone along with it but at least it's not like a case where the supreme court is made in the rule of law that would let a panel disregard a it seems to me then if we accept your factual delineation we granted we have to go back to the supreme court opinion and think about having a factor again and i'm not sure it gets you anywhere rights can be restored by the shift to figure just by operations well clearly we're dealing with the operation of law here and i guess where i want to go with that is what your honour's interesting is the fairness aspect that if he kerry in this new situation doesn't have any positive no this under the state prior arms law that he's prohibited prohibited person just lovely mentions that in the downward departure area i think in the sentencing scheme i think it's we have an operation of law restoration and the state law of this not prohibit him from possessing a firearm it's the distain this in the parent's situation where they draw that real good distinction between presley is discussed in means so i guess that could be a problem but i would hearken back your honor to the argument that it's a new context it's a new day there was a new state legislation and i don't think i can and title eighteen united states code you prohibits people from possessing firearms who had previously been convicted in any court in this case we have a second degree burglary conviction from missouri this court goes to part two of the test which is is there an expressed restriction regarding the defendant's possession of firearms or ammunition if the answer is no to the first part of the test then the second  giving felons the right to bear arms the restoration of that single right still does not prevent prosecution under section nine hundred twenty two fine but you see it's kind of interesting i don't know where the line is for s the way i read the statute your honor is that during the five year period immediately prior to his date if he was incarcerated he can't possess the firearm for five years and so i guess in that regard you judge his civil rights at the time is released from the state of the state situation where at the time of his charge under the federal law  is there any guidance you know other than your honor i am familiar with other states i believe colorado may be one of them that does restore civil rights by offering ration of law and i believe it is actually it's a five year period afterwards but i can't tell you that there's actually any guidance as far as that is concerned concerning the mystery conviction what do you think about whether there's any israeli guidance on our change how this court determines whether or not someone receives substantial consideration or substantial restoration of their civil rights and that's because an anniversary it was kind of an prison that is correct your honor let me get seventy i think they're both november day and there was no firearm prohibition on the man for the duration all right by operation of state law he was not prohibited from possessing a firearm at any time the difference between there could be different timing factors here and i'm saying finally in foley he had no prohibition under state law to possess a firearm and he was reinvested with the rights that we all agreed used reinvested with by