please call the first case the interesting thing is if you print out the u s supreme court's decisions in heller and mcdonald you have about seventy three pages two or column small type and those are just a majority in the plurality opinions and this is seventy three pages a very dense very thorough textual and historical analysis of the meaning of the second where it says and what it means basically for the first time ever really the highest court has given us as and has looked into what the meaning is of the right to keep  perhaps it should be but there is here we have an in numerated right under the constitution and i think it heller stands for anything anything at all is that it elevated the second amendment into the ranks of the other in numerators rights and made very i mean obviously it was there already but it made very clear that the second event is like the first amendment like the fourth amendment like the fifth amendment like the that these are at the core of our constitutional protection and nobody would say really that you know you only have the first minute rights inside your house you know they have your fourth amendment rights inside your house that you know you don't have the right to freedom of religion as long as you don't take it outside  freedom of expression so long as you know keep it within the walls your house you know the first amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures not only in our homes but in our post on reasonable report people  utilize hunting weapons for example even below the age of eighty and i don't see a cutoff time in that cutoff age limit that would allow a person possession was as a weapon as long as a parent  were eligible to receive before card that's doing right that's true or not then why would not this your argument extend to a thirteen year old with a weapon on the street or a twelve year old that because eighteen nineteen twenty year olds are adults they can vote and serve in the military serving juries they can be conscripted they are by statute members of both the and when it was ratified and we say what did that mean at the time and i think all the evidence here points to eighteen year olds being first rights holders of just for the purposes of the second amendment  said you know militia members were not only expected to show up themselves but were frequently expected to bring their own back so not only were eighteen year olds expected to perform militia service they were cases say the twelve year old some of them what is distinction you're making saying that that heller does not make it allowable for a ten year old to care or carry a weapon on the west side of chicago but i think that he meant his themselves are individually interpreted and the supreme court's already said in certain occasions that minors have some limited subset of our bill of rights here under the analysis they put forward in hell or you go back and you look it would minors have the right to keep and bear arms at the and so the second minute talks in terms of the people so what are these people these are the people who are essentially full citizens and we certainly consider eighteen nineteen and twenty year olds full citizens for most of the obligations i mean they could be required to serve on a jury at the site a death penalty case you know they can be they have to register for the draft they certainly can be required to carry weapons in the military and the militia  right he had to apply for one it would have been futile without parental consent and we're saying that you cannot condition the constitutional rights of an adult on the consent of another adult parent an one in the one case i did find was an abortion case out of missouri where they actually gave the father the veto power over the of the wife having an abortion the supreme court said no you can't do that because you can't outlaw yourself you can't say somebody else can tell you to speak condition what type of firearm are shooting on under heller how are they indicated that certain types of unusual or particularly if and i think if we look at to go back to that we look at what the heller court was actually doing all right through this opinion once they said it was a personal right and in the end alice's bringing them to the conclusion that this was a personal right dawson and williams doesn't and they are saying we have not only the holdings in that case we have the analysis they used to get to those hold and if you look at that analysis i think it's crystal clear that they were talking about the right to bear arms for self defense of person and property now obviously our persons are not always on property so if you're going to have the right to bear arms in self defense of your person that has to go beyond the front door and frankly again i don't think that should be too much of a surprise considering that it is a constitutional meaning of the second amendment they were saying you know they cited these cases as examples of what they were talking about as far as the meaning of the cement and in both of those cases they struck them bans on caring concealed weapons and they are held open now saying wait you know we're not challenging the foid statute per se and we can analysis the analysis in heller is is probably in the cane that banning concealed carry open carry with a licensing requirement would would probably be  course of heller was you have the right to bear arms for self defense it's your person and your property the whole thread through this everything they cited to nothing suggested that this was going to be limited  their job they did give us some signposts on which way this was going though and it is it seems clear to me and i think it is clear from both the heller doubt opinions that this handgun who is now challenging the constitutionality of illinois aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute this quote should affirm defendant's convictions for three reasons first this court should not address defendants as applied constitutional claim because defendant fail to litigate that issue on the trial of second there is no fundamental right that is it hinged upon by the illinois statute in question here and third if this court does choose to address defendants as applied claim it should find the statute constitutional turning to my first point your honour's this court should not even analyze defendants as applied constitutionality defendants failure to litigate this claim at the trial level forfeits this issue the supreme court held that a reviewing court such as this court is incapable of making a determination of the constitutionality of a statute as applied to a particular defendant when that defendant fails to raise the issue at a trial level this was in the case of in reparenting age of john m which was further citing the supreme court case of united states reno first florida's illinois supreme court in two thousand affirmed this very ruling reemphasizing that where there is no evidentiary hearing at the trial level a constitutional challenge to a statute must be a facial attack at the the trial or in this case which was the arbiter of facts may no findings of fact regarding whether this particular statute the illinois e w statute is unconstitutional as applied to a defending who was an adult age twenty years old but not yet twenty one years old at the time of the offense for that reason this court should not take on this issue and analyze the issue of whether this statute is unconstitutional as applied to adults who are aged eighteen to big donald in claiming that the second amendment right which is a fundamental right to bear arms is violated by the illinois statute however a close reading of heller and mcdonald and subsequent cases demonstrates that the second amendment right is not infringed upon by this instance statute in florida supreme court defined the second amendment right to bear arms in a very limited manner the court went through a deep historical analysis in discussing the origins of the right to bear arms and while it is true the court discussed the right to bear arms in the context of fielding a militia and in the context of self defense the actual holding of heller was very clear the second amendment right to bear arms is limited to the right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense while in the home you see it's really what i wa all because of the fundamental right and constitution so you're serious the fundamental right of constitution is limited to in that they hold court found a federal statute which the effect of the statute was to outright prohibit the possession of firearms in the home as unconstitutional because for the reason that it violated the second amendment right to bear arms but in order to get to that position and rule on the constitutionality of that federal statute the court did have to define the second amendment right to bear arms and the court was specific in stating that east second amendment right to bear arms the extent of this right is the right specifically expressly permits the possession of firearms in the home the statute itself reads the firearms so why is limited prohibition against carrying on arms all straight to your house  right to bear arms the statute expressly permits the right to bear arms in the home the abode earth fix place of business the issue and how it was that the effect is what i question my question is why is the limitation statute as applied to the defendant which involves the age limitation is nevertheless constitutional in this case if this court does review that very claiming involving adults who are aged eighteen to twenty this court should find that a prohibition that further limits their rights is constitutional the supreme court decided that age in itself is not a suspect class your honour's and because age is not a suspect classification there should not be a heightened constitutional review in this case the raw appropriately limits the right of individuals who are aged eighteen to twenty to possess a firearm why the law your honor is replete with instances of the legislature exhibiting heightened concern for individuals who are of young age or who are eighteen twenty but not yet twenty one for example the juvenile court act these instances show the recognition that adorns the adults who are aged eighteen to twenty but are not yet age twenty one are not fairly mature adults and this is exhibit a heightened concern to keep  protective i on individuals who are not get twenty one now critically driving this distinction based on age is not a suspect classification that would net that would trigger heightened constitutional review because heightened constitutional review is not appropriate because this is an age distinction in your honour's this court should enter lies whether the ag w statute in illinois is constitutional under rational basis review this court should find that under rational basis review the illinois statute is constitutional in fact this very court did find that in people versed das and in two thousand and ten when it analyzed the constitutionality of the aggravated awful use of a weapon statute under rational basis review and found that the restrictions present in the statute including the age restriction and the foid restriction were rationally related to a legitimate if not compelling state interest in protecting individuals from gun violence and taking the police force from gun violence however even in this case if this court does decide to analyze the age restrictions under heightened constitutional review illinois statute would pass muster under either intermediate scrutiny there are strict scrutiny certainly the intersection is present in the statute are narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling government interest in public safety and the suppression of gun violence however the age restrictions are specifically necessary because they serve a important deterrent function that other punishment which punish the possession of weapons after the fact cannot serve this is a proactive measure that limits the ability of young adults to possess firearms legally and therefore it is necessary in the determination of or in the prevention of possessing and prohibiting gun violence honour's now moving back to my second point the age restriction in this case is not only constitutional but it is necessary under rational basis review or heightened scrutiny would pass muster  getting back to the core of the second amendment itself heller in mcdonald spoke of the second amendment and the importance of the second amendment in not infringing upon the right to bear arms specifically when statues in effect and possession of firearms in the home in this case as indicated before the possession of firearms was never banned in the home by the illinois aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute rather it was expressly permitted again because the second amendment is not a fringe upon this right to bear arms by the illinois statute this court should analyze the constitutionality again of the statute in terms of the second amendment now this is distinct and separate from the age requirement but in terms of a facial challenge this question has a constitutionally of the statute in terms of the second amendment again under rational basis review because critically the second amendment right to bear arms was not infringed upon by the statute where eight fundamental right is not infringed upon a statute should be analyzed under rational basis review again i turned to das ng and this court specifically analyzed this statu illinois aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute under rational basis review in das in the court spoke of other cases that previously analyzed the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute such as people versed graves in people versus williams and in in all of those cases the court found that the right to bear arms is not infringed upon by the statute and specifically dossing analyze the second amendment right to bear arms as defined by heller and mcdonald and found again as the people submit in this case that the right to bear arms in the city in the second amendment was defined nearly and in heller and it was defined so that the right to bear arms was defined as a right to bear arms in the home and for the purpose of self the fact dawson found that this right was not triggered or impinged upon by the illinois statute which the permits the right to bear arms in the hall doesn't found that the restrictions present in the at u w a statute were not overbearing or do not go so far as to obliterate the right to bear arms unlike the statutes in heller road mcdonald which in effect did ban possession of the firearms in the home runners because no fundamental right was and hinged upon by the statute and because this court should first not analyze defendants as applied claim but even if it does find that the age restrictions are rational or related to aig the jimmy government purpose and therefore the age restrictions to our constitutional assistance of counsel in this case in order to demonstrate in effect assist counsel if the defendant's burden to show that if the trial attorneys performance was so deficient that if l for an objective standard of reasonable s and  limited the testimony that would come out of trial specifically limiting the people from bringing up the defendant's purpose of being on the street which the people submit was a retaliation in gang violence because the defendant had been shot at days earlier that was banned from the people's case in chief however as your honor highlights the trial counsel brought that up and try to counsel elicited that testimony specific call the credibility of officer case you who was test who was the state's witness in that case into into question try to counsel knew that defendant was going to take the stand in this case at that time and defending if you read the record reflects that the defendant testified that he was never on the street and that he didn't yet did not possess a firearm thus questioning officer k q about whether defendant was on the street what statements the defendant made and what defendant stated his purpose was or was done for the purpose of later being able to show that officer k whose testimony was not credible or  even fabricated thus it was an effective strategy to elicit that information when trial counsel knew later on that he would attempt to show that his client was not actually on the street now rather trial counsel was ultimately successful in demonstrating that is a different issue in this case it tried their back found that atsic a he was a credible witness and beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was the individual on the street in possession of a gun however just because the strategy was not ultimately successful designing that this court should second gas or second guess that strategy or find that strategy pursued a better strategy a trial where i work could have pursued a better strategy a trial counsel should be presumed in effect if simply because it was a matter of trial strategy or judgment that was called in question are these in the if there are no further questions for these in the foregoing reasons the people respectfully ask that this court of crime defendants two convictions for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon thank you law says that if a statute creates a classification it burdens a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny heller made very clear and the state has conceded that this is a fundamental right so therefore it is suggesting that it would go forward is categories that there would be things that were outside second amendment protection and those would receive those are per se permissible and but if there were of analogized in my own mind to the crawford confrontation clause says they don't but they what this supreme court has told us to do is of is this was introduced testimonial because testimonial is what's were hit by the confrontation clause well if it's testimony you know you can't bring it in there's no subsequent balancing test after that but if it's not testimonial it can com people have already done the balancing here the framers that the balance of the people who the members who ratified the second amendment get the balance it was up to them to decide whether this was a right that was worth protecting it's not the legislatures  apply to things that are protected by this and briefly just regarding meet the facial challenge waiver argument that the state brought up the s