not stated that already given our construction of the statute and our interpretation of this fact it would not a matter if the amendments want to fact relief granted pursuant to statutory review follow up or as with the amendments iraq are the last line of the two justices concurrent state that there was no need therefore for this court to determine whether clinton can overcome any federal prohibition on possessory forearms for this reason i do not join in the in the stories opinion on in the brief the state states that justices and therefore come up with the argument that the majority of the justices would not approve would not follow quorum it with the two amendment with the new amendment and i disagree with that based on what the final satins was in that in that consent concurring opinion so i believe that you can't count those justices quite yet i mean i  that my client should not be allowed to get  one of those was that he allegedly on and served on his application well that was an incorrect answer but the state is stating that he lived on the application and the question was you know does have a criminal record or rather his state it was here that had a background check off for a job and that the background check came back in so that he had no criminal history so it was his criminal record and i whether that's all the intelligent thing to do or not i don't think is the question it's it's is that reasonable for him to believe that he and i i think that it is i believe it was how do you ever been convicted of a crime that's what i believe the question was on the positive arm in my client had been convicted of a crime but yet still answered no but i think that he cast it has to be intentional and i don't think him time somebody was attempting to lie i mean and assuming that he didn't do it intentionally it would be very and my client should be allowed to apply for the board and as this court consider recently you know any of the plainly language of the floyd act as amended in two thousand and thirteen and well settled case law support the judgment of the circuit court dismissing plaintiff's two thousand and fourteen void card application based section nine twenty two g nine of the federal gun control act bans those with prior convictions for mr meaner crimes of domestic violence from possessing a firearm there is no i'm denial we the appeal procedure there isn't discretion when there is that bar that credit cards in place if if we assume for the moment that there is some wiggle room in the statute and there's some discretion that's a be sure of the way you would about with regard to the lying on the application with respect to the lying on the on the application that application of the languish that allows the state police to deny on that in the case the afghan has to intentionally lie obviously to show that they're trying to mislead mislead the police and therefore because the record was undeveloped i hate it we decided to rest on the domestic battery conviction so there is my guess is there would be some discretion with that because you have to consider the intent and therefore you have to examine it and exercise some discretion as to whether or not it was an intentional act two thousand and thirteen amendments indicate specifically that the court shall not issue an order if the petition is barred by federal law and there are sections before this that no relief may be granted is contrary to federal law therefore under the two thousand and thirteen amendments why act court so the court could not issue a four card to play that because of his domestic battery connection and therefore cannot grant relief requested and on i think it's important that the domestic battery that we're talking about was committed over twenty years ago on if is the state's argument i