section two a one lays out three additional criteria that persons under twenty one must meet they must have the consent of a parent or guardian they must not have been adjudicated delinquent or convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense and they must have an a at the lack of notice was relevant here i mean the reason that he was prejudiced was precisely because the parties proceeded the entire time that they were unaware of their of the state's burden to prove this they didn't they didn't present any evidence they didn't even argue with the defense counsel therefore didn't defend against said he while i believe the record supports that he was in point of fact on the air that he had to prove this honor i'm sorry that the state had to prove that summer was ineligible and that the court excepted and that is just clearly incorrect aside from the fact that it's inconsistent with section two and one of which provides a message for it the person under twenty one to get a fourth card it's also inconsistent with the second amendment the idea that somebody under and defendant to choose his attorney is the quote the root meaning of the sixth amendment right to counsel in criminal trials some to not intent defendant and he has a right to choose his attorney although that right can be limited when the court conduct administration of justice we don't know or to mouth words are overloaded when a case is ready for a trial and there isn't a real good reason to continue it in the state answered ready they said they just was required to balance the efficient administration of justice with the defendant's constitutional right the reason that we know for a fact that he did not do that is because it did not ask for one single solitary question that was pertinent to the analysis it didn't inquire about any of the factors that it should have been paying attention to not to mention it's also patently obvious from the record that sumner had a very good reason to request a continuance he had he had just been indicted as as i just said he'd just been arraigned it was when he was arraigned that he was that he state revoked its offer when he was literally in the process of accepting the offer and then they took another recess and he came back and the defense counsel said your honor my client would like a new attorney and i'm sure that he did a new attorney and that's really what's key he was not attempting to forgive ministration of justice he wanted an attorney who perhaps would properly advise him about what what type of penalty he was facing and the court conduct of knowing great that's really the key issue here on mon proceedings on the day that this occurred and it is entirely possible that he and his mother and father and grandmother who are all on record as having conversations with them that they wouldn't if they were trying to find them a new attorney and in court didn't ask about any of that continue for quite a period of time that's exactly right and that's another very relevant point is that the state's attorney here actually very graciously agreed to continue to spend not only a continuance but a continuance so that someone could find a new attorney actually they had set out on a specific way and was not prepared to complete his trial it was the court that really knew all day they were attempting to serve one of their key witnesses in the morning and she had not been served and they did not think she was coming and she defendant's constitutional right to choose an attorney should outweigh the inconvenience to all the other parties including the state the witnesses and the court if the defendant is not attempting to forge the effective administration of justice so and this case is very similar to that constitutionality of the statute that regulates the core constitutional right of eighteen to twenty year old adults to keep handguns in the home for the purpose of self defense while there is nothing wrong with the state requiring a foid card as a prerequisite for having a gun the legislature must ensure that the process for obtaining a void card does not affect our the second amendment section to anyone or i that is of the foreign car after violates the second amendment bec infringes on the first second amendment rights of eighteen to twenty year olds stir scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review even under intermediate scrutiny however the law does not pass constitutional muster all the state must may have rather eighteen and has no living parents or lives alone or is the oldest member of his household and keeps the gun in self defense chris first honor is in fact an excellent example of the class of persons entered by th is a matter of first impression for this court there are there are cases that have analyzed the statutes on bridging the rights of persons under eighteen town guns but none of them i know of where that were in this group where it's between eighteen and twenty one where the person is legally an adult i know of no cases that have even analyzed that eighteen and they contained exceptions for people who were in the home for self defense so the solution was only applied to juveniles and contained exceptions this law applies to adults and contains no exceptions on the other cases cited by the state deal time but what i'm saying here is even if one insists that it was our burden to prove this negative which would be impossible even if one set will not impossible even if one says that it would be our burden to prove it it was proven here in this specific circumstance because we had the state in we had the records from my state police saying this is his only application which was sent after he was twenty one therefore we know that months regarding this and he also said well you know he went to trial only three days before our only day that's not true a month oh on september twenty ninth council said well we've been trying  qualified to have what i think yes it would have been better had it been totally set out there's no doubt about that but again we have to remember where we are the standard here is just the prejudice standard well because there where many of the statute is that in i understand your argument to be that simply because he was under twenty one and that's what it was he was he was accused of not having a  card and it was he was told in the pool came out that he was under twenty one and so that's how we know it wasn't because he was mentally ill retarded or none of the other reasons the whole trial revolved around his been under twenty normal state police saying that he was under twenty one and not qualified to have the id card that simply because you are unhappy with your turning doesn't mean that there was a violation of the right it doesn't guarantee the in for the relationship between the me here but the court indicated indeed not at the time but in the later at the motion for new trial said well it was my opinion the at he was but that the court jumped to conclusions did it two conclusions with respect to that because there were no questions right now questions asked he did not specifically asked the defendant why is it that you want to counsel mary however i believe that it was clear from what it occurred he and i think it's apparent that mental institution that he's that he's not a convicted felon and that he is not a drug addict he doesn't he is not his burden to prove those things that is the state's burden to prove that he's ineligible for whatever reason the the because of his arrest in this case the notion that it circumstantially proved that the fact that he had never applied for a ford car prior to that time circumstantially proved that his parents wouldn't have consented is a very tenuous and france it's not an inference that actually makes any sense because there are lots of reasons why he might have waited until he was twenty one including the reason that he had just been arrested for having a firearm or thought for a car maybe he thought it was a  time to get a floyd card and also because maybe he didn't want to do the paperwork that was involved with filing earlier but regardless the idea that this proved that his parents would never consented is not true and even if there were some very tenuous and fr concerned with whether or not that he was going to get effective representation but regardless the six the moment also protects an independent right to choose an attorney and that's what's been violated here and on those grounds we have to have a new trial