that that decisions of final administrative decisions of the forward are subject to judicial review so we under the provisions of the administrative review of law and that's consistent with the ploy of language of section eighty seven the up the act which says  or the concealed carry license in review board under this act shall be subject to judicial review under the provisions of the administrative review the plain language from section eighty seven a but we believe that section eighty seven eight can be read to gather which section eighty seven b section eighty seven eight provides that when an application for a concealed carry license is denied the circuit court it that interpretation gives a fact to all sections eighty seven a and b the interpretation that the suggests does not give a fact to the plain language of section eighty seven b and is in fact i don't plea and consistent with it because under the plaintiff's interpretation you would never have decision of the department of state police that the applicant is challenging the applicant goes to the director if it's a decision of the board the applicant goes to the circuit court for a hearing then b says if it's a decision of the board then you then the circuit court reviews it so we're under the administrator for a few  i think a still has some a fact under our interpretation and our interpretation certainly doesn't create a situation where where where  well to me when i look at the statute it looks to me in a they're saying if it's a tea party solution you appeal to the director if it's out concealed carry licensing review board you don't have to until the notice is made by the state please correct that's absolutely america that is currently that's the final decision making final decision made and in the process what we would say it's really the board's final decision and all the state police is doing is notifying the applicant once the board makes its finding as to whether the applicant would pose a as to whether the applicant would there would be a risk of serious harm to the application or others or to the safety of the public if on the applicant was given a concealed carry license once that finding is made the state police has no discretion they must do not so we think the final administrative to say from the decision that saddles the only becomes involved if i will run foresman agency objects to the application if there is no law enforcement objection the case does not go to the board at if there was a law enforcement of traction and that's when it goes to the order that the applicant must go to the circuit court but under either administrator review offline yes under either once if it has to case that stays with the state police and goes to the director the director's decision is that are reviewed under the administrator for a few bob but if the case goes to the ford which again means there was a law enforcement agency jackson as there was here then you don't go to the director of the state police the applicant must go straight happened when they i woud an agency to object and then the board to hear the objection in the board actually doesn't make a decision it simpson simply sustains or overrules the objection of the agen statute very well but i think that language suggests that they regard the war as the final administrative decision maker when there is a law enforcement objection even though  pointing out the state police does give actual notice of that just gives notice of the decision but again i'm facilities under section ten f of the act once the poor makes its determination the state police has no alternative but two did not say if the wor administrative agencies or it's in commissions that are appointed by the government or the human rights commission and the property tax appeal word would be too but i would thank god but again  section eighty seven b rather does refer to fight on the ministry of decisions of the of the concealed carry license fee review board and i think that suggests that the legislature would have considered an agency i think i said before that that language was in eighty seven eighty seven so i apologize for that mistake bob but again if this is not considered a final administrative decision of the full work there is nothing else but they do that would be considered a final administrative decision plaintiff mentioned suffer while there are things that the word can do but none of thing whether there's been an agency objection whether there's been a ruling on the objection whether it's gone through the hearing process and the director's rule against the applicant it's all the same thing it makes no difference whatsoever the creation of the board is totally irrelevant under your theory well i want to action from the agency is totally irrelevant under your theory for purposes of an appeal to the circuit court it could be the legislature just messed it up hard to believe they could do th but that's the but it seems to me that your argument must leap to the conclusion that a means nothing controls everything the one thing it does mean is it i think it tells you you go to the director first but i don't go to the director with the board's involved or not because the board does terminations on the objection is not the final step the final step is then to notify the state police again presumably through the director and so it's the same thing no i did it's not the same thing your honor because in a case that only the state police are involved in the director actually reviews said the director can overturn that if the director disagrees with the department's decision in the case with the board the director can not overturn the board but  what your honor is absolutely right and what's the usual here is you're bringing a different party in to get the notice and your honour's right back time usual usually state agencies just to it themselves they don't go whatever the information is whether it's from a law enforcement agency with a lot but if nobody's objecting or what information are they getting and the department was making use they may get information force perhaps the applicant didn't list one on the application the state police finds out one is out there so they disobeyed based so they may have their own they deny the if they deny the application ok and in that conceal her view some of their actions are ministerial and some of their actions and discretion and i believe that's where the distinction is between the two sections because the only thing that you're allowed to appeal directly to the supreme court steve within fifteen days of receiving notice of law enforcement action here sustainable the applicant may submit any additional material that he or she the attorney general's argument i've read is that the agency took a look at the link you just cited in the statute in adopted a rule as to how the statute is to be applied in tha to determine whether or not what the statute is or it's with the constitutional right to carry and i believe if you look at the state's interpretation essentially bars the truck is the specific controls over the general there is a specific section of the statute that deals with appeals directly to the circuit court and then the second part of the statute deals with general where would you with the recognition that the ability to carry a firearm outside your home is a valid protected constitutional right i believe it leads to the interpretation of the statute which would exercise this constitutional right but not that that is a function of the judicial branch and if you allow the department to say yes you're right we're going to pass rules and regulations that impair your ability to exercise that constitutional right that would be unconstitutional because the executive branch has never been in this edition of saying what you can and cannot do towards people right and i believe your honor hits the nail on the head with under the rule the in person hearing is still discretionary so i want to make back clear that's that's that is still a describe ok so when you use the expression in your brief opportunity to be heard you're talking about the written submissions yes always oh and if the more lousy and in person as well yes that's correct yes ah and in terms of well let me ask you  himself or herself yes i believe the way that works around are with the state police is what they'll do the director would say first schedule an informal fact finding because when it goes up if the ministry of review is the only review we could have a situation where the applicant has really not had a chance to argue on his or her behalf in person if the agencies made the objection and it's gone to the board versus the other mechanism where there was no objection up in i that raises a flag or anything to me maybe that's what the legislature  course a court could always decide to ignore the waiver or the forfeiture rule and say and say well there is such a strong case that there should have been a hearing will ignore forfeiture in this situation but they are regularly put in but we filed the records under seal to protect the confidentiality of the applicant and filing records i'm under seal is a well established procedure in situations thank you very much you