please the court stage also to four petitioner from the national immigration project this case involves a straightforward legal issue that this court has not previously addressed in its prior cases recent supreme court precedent of issues here including that under the correct application of the law the state statute here is broader than the federal definition on page fifteen of its brief it concedes quote the illinois statute of conviction is broader than the federal offense because it criminalizes some conduct namely possession by a felon of a device which expels a projectile by expansion of gas or escape gas that the federal offense does not kill shot let me let me tell you what my trouble is with that which is that all every federal works by the expansion of gas right when in a standard handgun the cartridge is settle off some substance use rapidly oxidized and then a high pressure gash expelled projectile of the barrel why does the source of the high pressure gas matter we are that's a policy choice that congress made and this court in construing you know i'm that you're just telling me your conclusion i'm nothing but expanding gas and yet we refer to that as an explosion so that's the question i want you to focus on why the federal statute uses the word explosion why isn't all rapidly expanding rapidly expanding gas is not a form of explosion right if you think about it won't kaino all it happens propels lot of thirty five thousand feet into the air is gas coming out of solution in the magma there's no oxidation going on there or there's no gunpowder or no t n t it's just gas and the word used to describe that is explosion but that's why i'm trying to get you to focus on why the word explosion believe that that's that's the lynchpin of your argument and maybe that's right but just asserting the linchpin again doesn't tell us why that's the right thing is it that there is some background to this statute right there's this alcohol tobacco and firearms ruling which seems to say that pneumatic rifles are outside the scope of the fans all yes that i'm i'm not sure that that's a good ground alikes for weapons that you know that expel a projectile through air pressure in that business statute specifically says that these are not federal firearms ok look like that that's something that might carry the day for statutory interpretation you've got these two statutes side by side and one of them assumes the high pressure gas is not exposure that might carry the day for you that's the kind of thing i was looking for have you got any more and also the the rule two thousand and five four that the court has already referred to and yeah but you know administrative rulings well after  ekman don't really tell us what the statute means the tell us what the agency thinks it means and the agency may be right or may be wrong but we're not in the world chevron here criminal statutes aren't there's no chevron deference in considering criminal statutes yes so your honor and here with the statute defines a single offense which again the government does not contest supreme court decisions instruct that courts do not apply the modified approach and you not look to the type of firearm rather the courts examines whether the minimum conduct here at gas powered weapons comes within the charge federal grant  government does not contest but tries to get around it by arguing that there's not a realistic probability that illinois actually prosecutes gas powered way that's really one of the key to key disputes here and petitioner has satisfied a realistic probability of prosecution in two different ways in this case first we've pointed to the plain language of the illinois statute which by its express terms punish es gas powered like you know conduct that the government has conceded is fraud or than the federal grant and for circuits of have upheld this second we've pointed to actual prosecutions for gas powered weapons and we most recently in our in our twenty eight j submitted a case in which a defendant was prosecuted for this exact statute at question here felon in possession of a firearm for rifle the government says that fifty things are not enough and if it fails for two or it's arguments fail for two reasons first we've painted to the plain language for circuits have said this is sufficient on this case the government says that the supreme court is that you need to point to a case every single time that the government misconstrues the law the supreme court has said that where it's unclear that the state statute is broader that in that case you need to point to an actual case it can't be a product of legal imagination but nothing like that is happening here this is not guesswork gas powered weapons is in the statute itself that is the clear intent of the illinois legislature and for that for that reason satisfies a realistic probability in addition we've pointed to an actual to actual prosecutions of convicting conduct different than the federal statute is because it's not the ordinary usage of the term fire the illinois you know i have the same question for you that i asked ms soda which is why it is an irrational not within the ordinary usage of the word firearm and i don't want to spend too much time dealing with fiction but the person sherlock holmes referred to as the second most dangerous man in london sebastian moran was a murderer who killed by using air rifles they can be extraordinarily have other kinds of explosives so on that definition there are no firearms anymore well that was twenty eleven again we're talking about what the ordinary prosecution of this state is for its own statute which in the ordinary case refers to regular explosives with respect to petitioners arguments that the statute itself satisfies the obligation to point to a state in consistency with the federal statute we would say the court must reject that argument because it would read when it's demonstrated the existence of the conviction this isn't a world where after demonstrating to the conviction we then say well had they met their legal burden to show that there's a categorical match no that answer is always going to be a yes or no regardless of whether we're on the  firearm definition at issue here however the cases that we point to grades and thompson both interpret that strip statutory dept definition and for that reason are are are more on point and you know secondly your honor going back to the the issue of the intent of congress you know i don't know if this and i don't i must say i don't give two hoots about the intent of congress i care about the meaning of what enacted not what was in anybody's heads yes trying to answer going to that question i don't know if this is helpful but i just lastly would note that you know while an explosion may be caused by expanding gas the federal ok and that's how projectiles get pushed out of the barrel of ordinary dogs spending gas yes and the term that congress uses is explosives you know which are which are generally materials  you know just designed to explode but anyway your honor if there are no further questions i will rest thank you thank you very much the case is taking under advisement