good morning your honor some may please the court because plaintiffs were not given the opportunity to make a factual record and prove the cook county ordinance issue did not meet the freedmen vs highland park standard and the cook county residents are not left with adequate alternative means of self defense in their homes and because the cook county ordinance cannot survive under the heller or sell analysis the district courts twelve the six dismiss both the semiautomatic rifle and large capacity magazine claims should be reversed the adequate alternatives test is by definition a factual inquiry it cannot be denied that cook county  much larger and demographically diverse than highland park and what is adequate for one is not at necessarily adequate for the other as if the friedman analysis is no more than a one size fits all standard based on though the majority opinion in friedman did not specifically state such facts clearly there were many facts in the record that were submitted to the court and the court concluded that the ordinance left highland park residents with adequate alternative for attorney tips for self defense so you know what it proves out that the maturity i know the dissent at but the majority in friedman did not rely on any specific factual findings and rendering its opinion that it no your honor respectfully disagree they must have in order to come to the conclusion that highland park residents had adequate alternatives and highland park residents did not need these firearms or large capacity magazines for self defen even if in the five page i believe opinion they did not go into detail on what facts they relied upon but they must stay on both in order to come to that conclusion and if they did not rely on any facts in order to come to their conclusion then it really underscores all the more why plaintiff should have been allowed to develop a factual record in this case would you agree and i think you did in the briefing that the ordinance at issue here is essentially identical to the ordinates at issue in the highland park yes i believe they are and what if any factual distinctions have you pled between those two cases that would distinguish this case from highland park it's the firearms and large capacity magazines that the plane seps not only prefer them for self defense but would factual the ultimate factual underpinning the color and fall handguns in the home because that was the ordinance being challenged that is not the principles of heller what is protected are the types of arms that are in common use at the time by law abiding persons for law lawful uses such that a person would be expected to have in their home and case called for a militia for example was not limited to handguns the the second amendment right as pronounced in color of common use in no way what is its hold and limited to and guns even if the ordinance could issue ultimately involve that firearm let me go back if if i could too what factual distinction have you clad in this case given that the ordinances are essentially identical what factual distinction have you pled here to take this outside of friedman i don't know if they are not specifically it was plaid because this was originally a two thousand and seven case that was me refiled in cook county and i'm removed here but then it was read it was outs cook county as a whole with over five million residences not highland park with its twenty nine thousand residents that while the key highland park police chief sent submitter that corporation that these firearms were not excuse me were not needed for self defense cook county demographics i guess i'm more thinking of as opposed to race perhaps i'm more talking about let's say income level let's say that there are there are gang problems there are more prey kens there are more drug crimes there are more instances and i mean one only need read the newspaper to see this that cook county as a whole is not the same as the little city of highland park and plaintiffs have only asked for the opportunity to show they are now they i don't believe that under heller the second amendment depends on crime levels at all let me ask you under freedom and under freedom in your attempts to distinguish very well plaintiffs are asking for the opportunity to make the case to show that because of the theme differences and i'm saying demographics but i don't really mean that as a broader term likely to stop the attacker while not going through anything thing behind puts the effective range of these guns well in more than one would need necessarily in the home but that's not really the i mean one would hope your one was not asking for the second amendment right to use it as sniper rifle but one is using it where it can't be agree the the b n on private possession of automatic rifles is constitutional yes and even if i didn't it's not an issue in this case but automatic weapons are not the type that civilians commonly had at the time of the founding or or sense nor assault rifles for that matter while assault rifle is just the modern iteration of the regular rifle that civilians had it's a you pull the trigger once one bullet comes out what do you read lying on faith that what we're all i want to make that distinction that all the cases say that you really want to get into muzzleloading acknowledged that technology improves over time that be the first the men sorry first amendment the fourth amendment and including the second amendment and why is in common use at the time it's not automatic weapons but all the cases acknowledge that there are millions of these the the the arms and the large c magazines that issue in circulation in use by law abiding people for law abiding purposes including self defense in the home should common use be evaluated you think on a national level or a local level census tract state by state one thing i believe it should be tracked on a national friedman however seems to indicate that by saying what's adequate for shelf self defense in highland park that it wants to look to a more micro level while plains of starships are looking for the opportunity to comply with that and make a case that cook county is not like highland park and therefore of what might be according to friedman adequate alternatives for highland good morning ma'am please the court assistant state's attorney in just a question or appearing on behalf of the cook county defendants as my opponent has correctly noted friedman is the law at this circuit it is a relatively recent precedent it was resolved in two thousand and fifteen and nothing that has been raised in the complaints or cited in the briefs should lead this court to believe that there is any reason to revisit it or overturn it is there a way to reconcile friedman with is  you apply a more rigorous standard than intermediate scrutiny coming closer to strict scrutiny and if you look to see whether there's a substantial government interest in here they're clearly just preaching the question i'm sorry you just preach question are bearable arms covered by the second amendment though there is not a consensus among the circuits which had taken up this issue on that point but returning to the court's question concerning itself i do believe that there is based on the judicial notice a law substantial evidence in the public record that cook county has a significant interest in protecting its citizens from these weapons which are highly lethal incredibly dangerous and which cause mass mass casualties and then these are instructs that you must look to make sure that it's a tight fit between the compelling or substantial interest and the regulation itself and i believe that the cook county ordinance satisfies that test because it first regulates assault weapons generally and then when it turns to semiautomatic pistols or semiautomatic shotguns it must be that the weapon is semiautomatic and also have several other combinations of features which would then render it regular so if we were to apply examine this case as opposed to freedom and i believe we would end up with the same result and that is that the cook county assault weapons  passes constitutional muster well the supreme court in heller acknowledged that the second amendment codified it's a right for law abiding citizens to bear arms in the home for self defense the court expressly noted that it is not in unlimited right and unlike plaintiff noted that the firearm preference for self defense which goes to the core second amendment right is a handgun heller did not in any way suggest that military weapons assault weapons semiautomatic rifles also touched upon the core right of the second amendment i think it's important to note that distinction when plaintiffs discuss that there is not an adequate alternate means of self defense in this case and that's critically important here because they have failed to point out how citizens of pilot park have access to any greater means of self defense than citizens of cook county so it's not necessarily as plaintiffs suggest and the county rejects the dangers posed by specific socioeconomic demographics or ethnic demographics but rather what means of self defense are available to the citizens in that county they have pointed to not one regulation not a single one which imposes a higher burden upon cook county residents to have firearms for the poor purpose of self defense in the home as opposed to what thailand's park residents have available to them in addition to that with the plaintiffs encourage the courts do here is create a split among the circuits which have repeatedly and unanimously held that assault weapons bans are perfectly acceptable under the second amendment that large capacity magazines pose an increased danger to society and are also regular ball and so it's not just that the court is asking or that the plaintiffs are asking this court to ignore friedman they are also asking this court to adopt their radical view and go it alone interpreting color to go far beyond what the supreme court court noted in that case indeed everything appellate circuit which has it tempted to establish a test governing firearms regulations within their jurisdiction as noted heller did not provide a doc try to test it did not so for plaintiffs to argue to this court that not only did it provided on trying to test but that test would allow for  assault weapons to be held in the home of everyday citizens is just lacking in merit beyond that show it doesn't matter here that the district court may have gone a bit too far in ruling that friedman impose categorical ban on these weapons under the second amendment there is authority which suggests that categorical bands are not acceptable under the second amendment however i don't believe that the district court's opinion modifies the seven circuits law as set forth and friedman nor does it really run afoul any of the other established laws of the other circuits so you're saying that the district court's ruling wasn't dependent upon that particular state t or finding i don't believe so because i friedman applies to this materially analogous band in the same way regardless of what the district court might have said in an offhand comment the supreme court has stated that certain weapons are so dangerous and or unusual that categorical bans are acceptable we don't believe however that the cook county ordinance poses a categorical ban there are certain weapons that are weapons of war that are dangerous and when they have certain characteristics they are not permitted within the boundaries of cook county and then there are you have other firearms which if there are a combination of factors are similar to it regulated but we don't believe that the ordinance goes so far as to be a categor the muzzle can be held by the non trigger and while you are reloading and there are a limited number of there's a limited number of munitions per the magazine clips that it can accept the same is true for a  semiautomatic pistol if the semiautomatic pistol has a fixed magazine that accepts ten or fewer bullets it's perfectly acceptable under the cook county ordinance however if that is modified if they can accept a magazine which has a greater number of bullets then that is a regulated firearm under the ordinance similarly you can have a shotgun in cook county that semiautomatic you cannot have a shotgun in cook county that can act as a rocket propelled grenade launcher the ordinance has pacific combinations of features for the firearms that are commonly used for defense in the home which limit the specific type of accessories that can be put on that firearm such that it cannot be weaponized into a weapon that would be commonly used in a mass shooting but is otherwise available for persons to use in the defense of their home which is the core second amendment right to specify h we believe that the district court should be affirmed freidman is the law of the circuit the plaintiffs have provided this court with no facts or legal justification to overturn it and unless the panel has any further questions i yield the remainder of my time this case was not dismissed by the district court based on twamley but it was based on the assertion that friedman said that the firearms were categorically unprotected that is an incorrect legal conclusion and that the court and apparently the cook county board believe that a less useful firearm one that doesn't work as well is good enough when they say that ten volts in a magazine is enough what they're really saying is that they're making the decision that if more than one attacker comes through your door and you have a magazine with ten rounds and you fire it wide or you're nervous and you run out too bad because the cook county board has decided that ten is enough the twenty a j letter i submitted about the drunken vs the sarah case goes into great detail and cites many real world examples i don't believe your honor that hell or allow i don't believe that it would a semi automatic rifle which is not in a switch is only an assault weapon it because that's the name they get to it which is not an automatic weapon which is not a machine gun that will be far more effective for my to use and i'm in total to make my own decision about how i'm going to defend my property no your honor because those firearms have never been used by civilians by law abiding civilians for lawful purposes  don't mind do your overtime oh i am i'm sorry then i can sum up  the firearms are that are and large capacity magazines there's two claims are used by the they're in common use they're used by law abiding persons and they're used for the common purpose of self defense in the home the plaintiffs were not given an opportunity to show this they were not dismissed on its wamsley claim that they didn't heed sufficiently they were they were knocked out of the box before having a chance because the district court