detail of how they fill all those requirements so and as i'm sure you're aware this case is particularly layered and very acronym heavy so i'm happy to lay out the structure if any confusion may arise but if you're very familiar with the facts of this case all just press forward into that major point as well but first i'd like to direct your attention to the most recent decision of the district of columbia circuit a recently handed down a case on june third which directly addresses leos and its effect on retired law enforcement officers and that's dewberry versus the district of columbia and opponents did file a motion for leave to file supplemental authority on june thirteenth because this did come down on june third it obviously came down well after an appellate briefing had wrapped up for both parties and this case in particular were verses in romance a district court case that defendant apply specifically to police officers it was to apply to you know the white gambit of corrections officers even those with limited jurisdiction such as this one and the purpose of it was to protect these former law enforcement officers from to qualify for are it law enforcement officer or a retired law enforcement officer well if i am good writer sure and i read a definition i disagree with their right to disagree with the i think that's one of my points is that if any part of that was to be discretionary be that hard but if you look at all the other conditions all of them can be answered simply by looking at the individual's personal file there's no personal deliberation needed there's no personal judgement required this is just a certification or you know verification we can see some discretion only and that  share and that's the other two points i want to make i realize that the active discretion versus ministerial is is a largely semantics but again i'm going to reiterate that  saw it requires the director to cooperate with the board and furnish all documents going to furnish these document this form three for any people in the future whatsoever and so that now they're saying we're not going to find punish it at all whether it's sign it or not they said we're not going to furnish it whatsoever did they give a reason for that not that i'm aware and they find us at least you know fourteen to fifteen in the past but now they're making some kind of policy or axle stating that they're no longer going to furnish these four ferries would you suspect it's because they believe that the people that are trying to get this form signed o or it's also based on that and correct interpretation of the law so not only are they acting using to thresh and where it's not granted to them but they were viewing it and it stems from their inaccurate redefinition of the wrong they're saying well we don't think these people qualify as a retired law enforcement officers why is that we don't think they heard the statute very powerful west that they had when they were employed and all of a sudden they're retired they no longer have it their interpretation of that  conditions that are set out and leo said they almost mirror exactly as we all said but they had those discretions to add additional preconditions qualifications that's where the discretion lies in determining how what kind of conditions these to force an officer right but that's not their deter but that's not their job or duty to interpret that it's not it's not their decision that's their certifiably if i did they work for you or they employed with you yes they were as such they were a law enforcement officer did they have the statutory powers of arrest clearly they did as parole officers they carried a gun they had the powers of arrest and it was only now  share and just briefly touching on the declaratory judgment case we are asking the court to permit plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add to declare to a count upon a remand whether to grant or deny that is within the cour discretion of the typically it has been granted and must apparent that no cause of action exists i think the dewberry court does acknowledge that the cause of action does exist because there is a right to conceal carry and there is a duty to the state to follow those requirements and i think would be in the best interests of justice to acquire such an amendment if the alternative mandamus is not available if there's no other questions all address any other arguments that come up on the bottle but we are asking the court to consider the points that are addressed in the d c circuits decision i think it's one of the few federal cases that directly addresses addresses the provisions of leos and we respectfully request that this court i think there was still a dispute during the summer when you judgement breaking the law as to whether these fall agents carried weapons during the employment had the authority to carry weapons during employment did it and what those terms one up at that statutory powers of arrest was a question of was bad and it didn't say whether in that case the completion by the d c department of corrections statutory powers of arrest was a wait or wrong it's a bit of a mix of holding that doesn't apply is that plaintiffs are trying to take a federal right sufficient to state an eight hundred eighty three claim and impose that as a clear way to mandamus relief under state law but that does not work those are two different things and here plaintiffs conceded and there were i agree that pages six and seven that they're not asserting and not attempting to assert any type of that are all right so it seems that they're not they're choosing not to pursue that that route  ruefully first i just want to briefly address opposing counsel's point about the statutory power of arrest just one of the main reasons why they believed did not meet the requirements as a retired law enforcement officer and the fact of the matter is  the question was whether these individuals carried guns during their job whether they carry guns off duty and fact they did several county fully was required to carry a firearm twenty four hours a day and as agents they were often required to carry a gun off duty as well as on duty so they had that statutory power of arrest while they were employed only recently became an issue once they became retired law enforcement officers if they did would that statutary power  arrest and as far as reject as far as rejecting signing it or furnishing any form threes in the future i'm not i'm not sure how that applied but if that was communicated to us about the prior fifteen forms threes that were fine ish conny fairly was one of them who initially received a form three that was signed by an employee of the department of corrections human resources department and it was sent back saying that this was not the proper person to furnish that form three he received that rejection said ok and that's when he went to the director of the illinois department of corrections to fill it out instead so i'm not sure in that as far as i know that only applied to conny foley not the rest of the plaintiff appellants i'm not sure how that applied to other applicants as well but it certainly only applied to fully and worked hard to remedy that and we are not saying as  we may have sued the encrypt defendant that maybe this should have been more properly directed towards the board we're not saying that the board failed to do something or did something and correctly the crux of the complaint is that  comply with statutory requirements by refusing to furnish form three our dispute is not with the board itself and i think as far is the declaratory action it has been certify it's not to interpret or or redefine its for its with the word to see that the applicant meets all requirements for a qualified law enforcement officer i would still say he doesn't have a statutory power to do that and since there is a question on that and they don't want to play it i believe the crux of the issue is you know whether or not not necessarily whether they are a qualified law enforcement officer which the lower court agreed that they were but it was whether the director had any power to exercise that in the first place not necessarily whether or not they do qualify if that were the issue in a lower court who agreed and said yes they do qualify what if then the end of that that case that that knew that well we can't certify this we're not going to finish this because they're under the influence of alcohol that was never an issue brought out that was never argued by opposing counsel when what the director said i'm not going  because you're not one for small so you're saying that doesn't matter you have to sign this form anyway that doesn't really make all the sense to what would be the something i don't believe that's true you're forcing me to do that if yours so yes sure that doesn't make sense that's not what the law does the law says the statute says if a piece of paper