possession use sale distribution or manufacture of any explosive or weapon the statement was true mr camper have previously suffered in this matter conviction for unlawfully carrying a firearm but that the security bad never asked about such an offense as a logical manner how is it possible to carry a loaded firearm without at the same time processing i don't think it is possible your honor on lawful carrying includes unlawful possession and we learned that by just looking at penal code section twelve thousand and thirty one and under the plain language of that staff somebody can lawfully possess a gun and at the same time on distinguish in this statute between certain offenses which require for that unlawful possession of certain offenses which require do not require unlawful possession is there a difference between carrying a weapon manually and the person's hands and carrying a weapon in a vehicle i don't think for the purposes of this statute there is because i believe that the section under which mr camper was convicted someone can be convicted for a lawful carrying if they have it on the seat next to them in their car for example but whether it's in somebodies hand or whether it's on the seat next to them the key fact i think is that somebody can lawfully possess the weapon at the same time they're lawfully carrying it and and i think that it's also significant that that defendants thought that they were lying but i don't think it's distinguish one basis because both the argument we make in this case and the issue addressed and didn't bear dealing with the faults of the element of thousand and one and the defendant's intent has nothing element very well may have caught that he was being deceitful and therefore if the case is going to trial the government could have probably proven that element then they have been able to prove that element that's a completely separate element for from whether the statement itself is literally true doesn't demonstrate how a reasonable person might interpret the question however if you looked at that question and knew what he'd been convicted of well i  think that we can put too much stock in his ultimate statement that i was actually just status in the record so how can we put stock in that about what his interrogation might have been and you know i don't think you should put properly that when you're talking about a one thousand one false statement prosecution the issue is the question that's on the application it's they think that you should not go behind the question to look at the inten of congress and the statute in fact in that case they said that the goods conviction probably wasn't compassed by the language of the statute but because the question on the application wasn't as broad that  the government still cannot maintain a thousand and one prosecution of the farm that your client signed to have the same language that the farm that was involved in good because i'm not sure that they're good a different question was an issue the of dishonesty and so on and then embezzlement it's not embezzle might get me that that definition and it's totally different from what we have here i don't think so your honor because i think the governor was certainly making this exactly the same questions that go to the heart of what they want to know and the person answering the question cannot be penalize for somebody asked me in precise question and here i think if in fact as i mentioned in the reply brief i don't think the government can question falsely and why aren't we looking at the question then whether his answer was false when you look at the plain language of the questions that involves unlawful possession of a weapon the plain language here clearly incorporates the carrying a loaded firearm the defendant throughout his briefs and his oral argument retreats to a california legal definition in order to avoid that result i don't want to be characterizing anything but under the law of question including carrying one a lot of other things are listed but not that your honor if the court is concerned that the form has some level of ambiguity then this becomes a case of fundamental ambiguity as set forth  intended to lie and specifically the record states he intended to lie because he believed if he told the truth he would not get hired and that is why even if there are some level of ambiguity in this case the defendant does not prevail because his intent was to lie but we the statute and the f a a regulations whereas the form in this case does and perhaps that's why the good court did not take the time to go through a statutory construction analysis and did not live supreme court precedent in taylor care on in our dello because if it had done that in tried to imply or ups like congressional intent clearly embezzlement is involving dishonesty and they would have come to a different conclusion but i'm going to have you stand for i still don't understand why congressional intent has anything to do with anything because suppose putting the for together they have left off this question entirely and we know that congress wanted to know a lot about firearms but if they simply forgot to ask the question and we would never get there and i don't i don't understand why once they do remember to ask about it also if that's the question we're still fundamentally flawed we would go back to the fundamental ambiguity analysis and the defendant's intent would control whereas in this case the question on the form mirrors the congressional language and the defendant is argu but we still end up with ambiguity your honor again that goes back to the fundamental ambiguity test where the nice circuit has twice stated just last year that where the questioner and the respondent understand the question in the same manner the fact that some other third party might come up with an alternate interpretation does not undermine the false statement i don't disagree with you at all in your statement of work with the laws but what you just recited has nothing to do with congressional and chant it has to do with the intent of the director of the form and the responder to the form correct your honor i think this case presents itself in two separate analogies first if we only look to the plain language of the form we are looking at the context of the form of the language on the form and the respondents intent in answering the question in that case because the plain language clearly is understandable and was understandable to this respondent there is no ambiguity that is recognizable in a legal manner if however as a matter of law the defendant's argument is because these two crimes are not synonymous as a matter of law then we have to look to defining what unlawful possession means and the supreme court has stated three times the manner in which you do that is in fact looked at congressional intent so if the three cases i started running were not false statement cases however those statements do fall under the two fundamental ambiguity question cases mechanic and cruelty and one was for perjury the other was for a false statement where they said specifically that some and acuity does not undermine a false statement conviction so i think that's where you do tie congressional intent in with the false statement conviction record in the ninth circuit so when defining it in the first instance it is appropriate if there is a discrepancy in several of the statements really is not particularly consistent with with what's in the farm and so on i think it's kind of stand of course question correctly this  bore out unlawful possession so that the government's alternate arguments that this court may take judicial notice of court documents below and recognize that he didn't act unlawfully possessed it which also goes to his commonsense analysis of the question on the form that hi loses he changed and shifted his argument to one of a plain language looking at the face of the form only but again in doing that he still attempts to hide behind the california definition of lawful which a plain english reading of unlawful possession does not incorporate statutory rape in order to know whether that's true or false you have to think about the jurisdiction in which your conviction occurred and in one state it might be twelve and in one state it might be age sixteen and so the answer depends on the jurisdiction that convicted you in court whether you should answer yes or no knows now that if that was the question in the mind of the answer at the time answer the question is absolutely relevant to the inquiry in this case however there is no evidence in fact the evidence is to the contrary that the defendant run through the mountains of thinking well i was charged with unlawful possession but i pled down so i wasn't actually convicted of that in this case he thought he was lying now if he went through the analysis of trying to figure out if his statute the statute under which he was convicted falls within the question then that would be a question of fact for the jury to find as the court the meister can call it unstated that's one level of ambiguity can still be borne out and the question of whether or not the answer and the first is a question i had the same interpretation in mind is for the fact finder now then allegedly if the judge found that the ambiguity didn't rise to a level of fundamental ambiguity but still is consistent enough with an innocent explanation and the defendant had an innocent explanation such as your honor when i read this i thought my conviction didn't count and therefore i answered this intent when responding to the form which i think is what we can consider it only what we consider if we're looking at the plain language of the flow of the form you can say your time has expired thank you and if you couple of subsections of the statute that mr campbell was convicted of whether that constitutes a conviction for unlawful possession so i want to clarify that point second during the argument earlier we had a lot of opportunity to discuss  we didn't have much of an opportunity to discuss better the case that was recently affirmed by the four circuit and i would just ask the courts look closely at that case because there are the facts are exactly the same merely the same as they are here didn't know your honor and i would ask you to look closely at bronston in the case of the come under it the issues of literal truth and intent to deceive the video's elements are completely separate and i think would be very improper for the court