which is whether a conviction for possession of a fine registered assault weapon under california law is a crime of violence under the federal sentencing guidelines because it necessarily involves conduct that presents a serious of physical injury to another and i think it's for the court to resolve it it must look to section twelve to eighty of the california penal code that's section is the section that makes possession of i mean i'm registered assault weapon if it can be totally legal if you had it for a long time it can be an infraction it can be a misdemeanor or felony so it's something that this is not like a machine gun or something that would be illegal across the board in the following i think it's the one the nature of california is such a thing well i think i think there's a couple points both of those crimes requires a culpable mens rea of knowing that what you have is what it is this particular crime you can be convicted basically basically and j simple negligence mens rea to what the supreme court said is if the defendant recently should have known the characteristics of the weapon bring it under the registration requirements of state law that's the fish and so that's one difference the other difference is that congress has taken and interstate commerce but it was not listed among those inherently dangerous ones that congress single out for registration purposes and i think that again is very critical but also very critical at this point if this was such an inherently dangerous weapon involve necessarily involves conduct that presents a serious risk to physical injuries other nevertheless the federal law allows you to have it and state law allows you to have it in many situations in other situations treats it as a minor crime that seems to me morning your honor is jason here representing the united states i just wanted to make a few brief points and reserve any time for questions if i may to respond to the defense argument first point out that the issue here is not congress's treatment of assault weapons and it's substantive liability provisions instead the issue on appeal is the sentencing commission's definition of crime of violence and whether the defendants prior felony convictions under state law falls within section forty one point t guided by the supreme court that has to make its own determination and to answer judges in sees what i'm talking about and why i think that twelve twenty and once you two eight zero falls within the definition that the statute is specifically limited well your honor the point is that each firearm listed in the statute including the one the defendant has that's in this case is supported by a legislative finding specifically finding that each each gun has been found by the california legislature and that's including  appendix in one to two thousand and five point five that each firearm has been determined by the legislature to have a high rate of fire high capacity for firepower and it's outweighed and therefore whether loaded or not the mere possession of those firearms is determined to be a danger and a threat to the public at large and i think in terms of the to answer the limitation question where does that and would it apply to a vehicle and that the question presented on this case is not something the sort of far flung or too broad especially of conviction under taylor must be narrowly tailored to those falling within the sentencing guidelines definition and in this case i think the crime of violence definition is a nice fit with the