bat being the case if a circuit court well it's kind of a two step process with the our first argument is whether the dispositive issue is whether the two thousand and thirteen forty act applies for the two under frederick that's an administrative review and the circuit court only has such authority as the ministry of review statute allows so therefore getting back to thailand's granting individual who is safe enough to be sure for her to and so i don't know where this is a mystery to review because classically administrative review is upon charmer upon which this individual was convicted of a domestic battery which under federal law says he's not allowed to possess a weapon federally now then say that we set up a program office has no effect on this particular section so they don't effect on this particular section why are you in turkey and on behalf of the state police so that it nullifies the subsequent procedural due process to result in an absurd which effectively i don't know if you are willing to concede but the the effect of what you're saying is that it literally takes a federal penalty that is based upon we're not the legislature it's going to really be up to the legislature to expand upon the absurdity of dispositive issue here under the holding of frederick as we've argued in our petition for e here is what w  lies the frederick court held that the law in effect at the time of the administrative decision which is the state police's letter saying you don't get a free card applies we argue in also have the frederick decision saying as you point out that under the few thousand and thirteen amendments going forward that carving just granted him is no longer review action because under the constitution the court only has special statutory jurisdiction in administrative review actions and in this case the circuit court has your honor correctly pointed whether it should be enforced or not and the contents of these made this morning about the fact that it was an invalid word and it couldn't be enforced in any way and that it should be stricken it can attack at any time all of those arguments were arguments they're being made police are in and to do that at this time and attack him or her when that was an awful order of the court so i think that the motion to strike should be well taken that those issues were never before the court that if a new order was never even the appeal it attorney general's office then they designated the investigations authority to alcohol tobacco and firearms alcohol tobacco and firearms is not funded by congress for over the last twenty years to do these would submit to this war were not restrictions to keep people from being able to have her second amendment rights reinstated and to prohibit them because of the fact that they couldn't comply with federal so what you're saying is it's not countering the current law because the federal law is very similar steps and procedures regardless of the fact that as a practical matter there is no way take remediation under it because of the lack of funding and investigation and so on and so forth and then the prohibition against it at the ministry of review of the district court level exactly i  the state should have to do for a waiver and the reason this is that they pay have to be in sync with it there's no way to go to it in the federal courts so we want to make sure it's been done exactly the same way in the state court and once it's done in the state court illinois legislature doesn't want to get into a situation where a constitutional question could come off it would say can you for ever because you committed a certain events can't forever now be allowed to have your gun such that even though you were carved by the state governor of illinois i believe under the interpretation that this woman titus crawford on you still wouldn't be able to get a see if that's the case and a member of the executive branch can grant you your or reinstate your rights and why can't a member of the judicial branch acting in conformi difficult process to be going to it to be left with i think that again i've made my comments about the bench and i think that it's fairly clear from my interpretation of norm comments that i made is a little different approach a little different take on it and i argue that the federal law state or pearl that you can give your civil rights restored to federal law but there's just no funding for i think that will