to the court before this court today because of three fundamental errors in the circuit court of lake county decision permanently and joining to repeal the ban on assault weapons st the circuit court erred by circuit court by enjoining deerfield ban on large capacity magazines large capacity magazines have routinely been recognized by courts by legislatures and even by the us congress as fundamental components of assault address each of these three areas of more detail before i turn to that however i wanted to address the court's jurisdiction i wanted to confirm to the court that you indeed have jurisdiction to hear this appeal  over assault weapons to our knowledge no other statute that applied this kind of hybrid approach and the circuit court simply overlooked that said it chose to focus on the  passed there was considerable debate over whether or not how this would be put into effect and we have testimony from representatives got jury without offering that legislative history is offering that along with the articles acted within the ten day window or before it's regulations were grandfathered in the court erred by going to nd amendment with the thirteen forward act amendments what the text of paragraph thirteen dollars provides any regulation may be amended and the clear purpose of that was to allow people to adopt the court determined that there were over one hundred new definitions nearly one hundred and two pages of code because it gone from sixteen pages to one hundred and fifteen pages and on that basis they found that eighty was that the  amending the earlier statute by including a black line or red line version as the actual ordinance the purpose was consistent with the floyd act that a regulation and they had met with that finally  this subsection c assault weapons mean firearms designated by either make or model or by a test or list of cosmetic features the cumulatively would place the far firearm into a definition of assault weapon there's no mention of large capacity magazines and thirteen b nor anywhere else but i think it's clear either that it was understood that the type of description of the salt weapon was going to be consistent with how with the everywhere else which always included large handguns in them that had been found to be unconstitutional the ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines was found constitutional huge sorry your honor where they stand with assault weapons they've also handgun ammunition in a manner that is inconsistent with the concealed carry act isn't that what we have to construe here well yes you do but there's nothing inconsistent about banning large capacity magazines that still that doesn't regulate a yes i do st with respect to jurisdiction both easter day on guns save life did obtain summary judgment in by summary judgment all the relief that they requested in the amended complaint under the circumstances what did not have been inappropriate for these parties to have filed cross appeals as you had suggested to appeal are attacking judge burton says order improper or not factually based or not reflecting his actual intent or to some extent they're saying that he offered a post hoc justification rather than a section that is the state having certain authority concurrently with the local municipalities what is the clear language or text that you are referring to that indicates that concurrent jurisdiction was allowed here and weren't there certain prerequisites to that concurrent jurisdiction yes so in the thirteen point one see it state to the states will have exclusive jurisdiction over assault weapons i think that is too important component to enter st that's a ten day window in the grandfathering of any home rule jurisdictions authority so that we have this patchwork contemplated then the language here inconsistent with this is nothing to be consistent or inconsistent with other than the exclusive jurisdiction provision there wasn't a regulation of assault weapons by the state that was permitted by the state has been adopted any regulation and didn't adopt any little hard doing this remotely as you know well wasn't there a requirement in the floyd act that someone who possessed not only a firearm but an assault weapon your own local authority that's what would be inconsistent with the statewide authority there's no you'd be reading in something that isn't there if you said a ban would be inconsistent on a regulation wouldn't be there is no regulation any regulation is inconsistent with the state right now ok well i guess i'm saying isn't there a regulation at least that someone obtained and has a ford cars well there certainly as w permitting people to have conferred jurisdiction just it's on workable but that's what the general assembly provided it turn least into if you think you have to adopt a ban within ten days i think what they were recognizing your honor is this is going to  be a lot of pressure on a lot of home rule authorities to determine whether they want to regulate assault weapons and then amend them or not and they gave people the opportunity to assert their jurisdiction and then determine the scope of that fact that's exactly what or new legislation it in some places it referred to an amendment in other places to refer to do building code and so they performed a comparative analysis to determine which side of the bar it fell on i think if you properly do the  comparative analysis here you would find that these were amendments but it's a threshold matter i think when it's titled in a moment where it's a red line where the changes in the structure are all within the same definition and  undertake a comparative analysis what indications are there that deerfield amended the ordinance was that did they show strike so high like strikeouts and how much is too substantial to be an amendment doesn't that part of the analysis on what there are substantial changes made here i think those are the reverse order i guess there were substantial changes how much is too out the text of the minutes so it's a red line version of the earlier statutes laid on top of the earlier version and then there are strikeouts and then the rd  the mayor and the village manager both testified at the summary judgment hearing that this was their intent to amend the earlier when they adopted the regulation they were going to revisit it if necessary after the parklane shooting and concerns from parents field of assault weapons and the l c m are inconsistent with says floyd act in the concealed carry act in as much as deerfield does prohibit certain firearms and magazines for firearms that are not banned under state law then is their field position that the definition of assault weapon does include some handguns and if so with specific portions of that definition refer to handguns is there a factual record that we have in this case that would lead us to that conclusion that is that their field definition of assault weapon does refer to handcuffs or is there a need to remand this case for further proceedings i have a few counsel you said that the state and care for your field has concurrent jurisdiction is a correct yes has the state of illinois banned assault weapons though they have that they've done your honor is they permitted homegirl jurisdiction to assert local authority if they did so either prior to or within ten days exclusive jurisdiction except to where a local authority has acted and in the example of highland park or morton grove the city of chicago or deerfield to name a few those assault weapons that it will be for close forever or a scene or an acting and another ordinance regulating or prohibiting or taxing or registering assault weapons agree with your honor i think it's more likely they would remove the ban and then they would that would be to take the amendment put out this permissible they think go forward and backward as long as they were team which are stiction i don't know that once they've regulated weapons i don't know that they couldn't divest themselves of already well i was under the impression that they were granted this exception only to is that exercise the ordinance within the limited period of time and if they repealed that ordinance that is within a limited period of time then that ordinance ceases to exist in my mind and therefore i don't know how later on regardless of the reasons why they gave for the repeal or that they would then thereafter unless the legislature gave them another ten day window sometime down the road in twenty to thirty or whatever to react to their abilities to regulate or ban understood what where when i'm struggling with is the statute provides for home rule jurisdiction if they act i don't think it's close logically what you're describing here and it just isn't in the  struck a balance and your response was to just to see if you seem to imply that your field had the authority to define what an assault weapon was and if that included double barrel shotgun as or semi automatic shotguns or bolt action shotguns or as i think you are arguing relative to the size of the magazines  and m pistols could redefine an assault weapon as anything that has a barrel more than a seventy eight centuries long that fires more than one round before the  firearm must be reloaded which means you're talking about a single shot pistol is the only thing that would be legalized if than fact the city of deerfield decided to define its assault weapons regulation the definition of assault weapon but what i was arguing was that the definition of assault weapons as a two thousand and thirty in illinois was a well developed area of the law  so there was a fairly well developed definition of assault weapons of having certain to pass certain characteristics including large capacity magazines and i think it would be fair if they came flowed from the one thousand and ninety four assault weapons ban by congress so is it because they didn't do anything out of the ordinary in defining their assault weapon assault weapons military weapons some developed features that allow them to be fired back at lee but they're not particularly military weapons you know the difference between an assault rifle an assault weapon  assault weapon is a semi automatic weapon an assault rifle is an automatic weapon an automatic weapon is defined as discharging bullet after bullet until the trigger is released or until the magazine empties or until the chain belt empties or the clip empties a semi automatic weapon that looks like a military water matic assault rifle is called an assault weapon and the only difference between the two is that although they may walk a like they don't operate the same and  so the terminology of assault weapon was derived in the process of deciding what guns the civilian should not be allowed to own and they decided to pick guns that look like assault rifles that were automatic weapons which require class three licenses to possess and all let's get back to that set of patients that's not a question let's get back to we're a seeking alternative forms of relief or where they seeking the same forms of relief affirmative or negative prohibitive injunction then how is this a final an appeal of order under thirty dollars for a if there are other claims seeking the same relief on the same sans transactional set of facts that would allow the mere statement of a three or four  finding giving this court jurisdiction when there are all resolved issues claims that relate directly to the claims or on appeal this appears to me to be a classic situation where this is piecemeal issues but there is one point i'd like to make i think there was a question about whether deerfield ordinance bans any handguns and the relevant provision of the ordinance to look at would be ordinance not sure there's anything in the record about this but i'll just represent to the court that that is quite a narrow category of handguns that are treated as assault weapons for purposes of your field ordinance the vast majority of hand guns most popular handguns are not included in deerfield ordinance obviously prohibits all large capacity magazines including magazines specifically designed for in guns that do not qualify as assault weapons or do you fit your field ordinance with that let me turn to the jurisdictional issues of the case that the fundamental question this court has to decide is whether there was a final appealable order in easter day when the trial court interest summary judgment disposing of all the claims in that case on march nd two thousand and nineteen our submission is that the answer to that question has to turn on information that was available to the parties at the time so the trial courts after the fact explanation for its decision to consolidate the cases and nonpublic facts about the lake county circuit courts computer system are just irrelevant to the inquiry to the best of our knowledge no illinois court has ever considered this type of nonpublic court would leave litigants to guess about whether an immediate appeal is necessary and i would just encourage the court to consider a litigant who believes in good faith based on the information available to it at the time that a merger has occurred only to learn later after the deadline for appealing that no merger happened based upon facts that the trial court hadn't previously disclosed there would be a serious due process problem with denying that litigant the ability to  implication of the defendant's position is that whether a notice of appeal must be filed can depend on facts that are st disclosed to the parties months after the deadline and when we limit ourselves to the record that existed when the trial court disposed of all the planes in easter day it becomes clear that these cases did not emerge it's undisputed that the cases maintain separate docket entries and the trial court entered separate summary judgment orders the st in the th district both gave dispositive weight to those same or very similar considerations and merits of heart attack st robinson savings and loan and a cast mel and those same considerations ought to be decisive here to the one case defendant side and responses dow but in doubt the trial court entered a single summary judgment order paragraph twenty three dollars of the st district opinion in that case makes it crystal clear what's more if the separate docket numbers and separate summary judgment orders left any doubt about whether the  retain their separate identities there are other facts that point in the same direction after consolidation the gun save lives and easter day plaintiffs filed separate amended complaints presenting separate claims the dockets in the two cases show events and filings occurring in one case but not the other after consolidation the trial court referred to easter day as the companion case to gun say wife after disposing of all the claims and easter day the trial court scheduled a status conference and gun save life but not yesterday based upon all of those facts the parties had every reason to believe at the time that summary judgment was entered in easter day that the cases had not merged finally just a brief word about the wildlife code and preemption under the wildlife code i think there was a question about whether we needed to file across the peel with respect to that claim i would submit we did not and the reason is because the wildlife code really provides an alternative ground for affirming the judgment below in other words that the rule about cross appeals is that you've got to file across the peel when the apple even wants this court to change the judgment below with our wildlife code argument we're not asking the court to change the judgment we're asking for we're providing the court with an alternative basis for a firm and i'd also just note with respect to the wildlife code the wildlife code specifies which kinds of firearms can or can't be used to take which kinds of game and it's undisputed albeit perhaps a little bit late in the proceedings a specific statement that it was its intends to merge the counts is there any question about the trial court's intention and an issue there's no question about what the trial court intended  i you know i don't don't at all suggest that the trial court acted in bad faith or was was being you know inaccurate in its explanation for its decision but the problem is that that explanation came months after the kind of critical decision that your field had to make about when to appeal and so you know it as i said a moment ago i think the critical thing to do is to think about sort of the converse of this situation where imagine if someone thought that there had been a merger based on the record that existed at the time that summary judgment was entered and then months or years later the trial court reveals some previously undisclosed facts or facts about its it's subjective intent when it entered and then consolidation order that mean that no merger occurred well on defendants view of the law with respect to this issue that that litigant would lose their ability to appeal in so i think what that sort of hypothetical illustrates is that this it's really the job of this court to decide whether there's a in making that judgment the court's got to look at the record as it existed in the trial court at the time the litigant was deciding whether and he didn't notice an appeal let me ask you this i mean obviously the hypothetical scenario you pose to be problematic of course for what i'm wondering is where is the prejudice around fairness to the parties at this time and this particular case in light of the fact that although a lot of concern now before the court and being granted access to appellate court to make the full arguments on the matter so has anybody been prejudiced by that's an aerial you know i don't necessarily think that there's been prejudice apart from the fact that you know obviously the serial appell proceedings in this case you know caused my client and presumably the other litigants in this case to to run up additional legal bills one thing i would say though is that i don't see in this court's precedents concerning appell litigant their ability to have an appeal but our position isn't that you know deerfield didn't have a right to an appeal it's that you feel it doesn't have the right to appeal and it was this court that dismissed the previous appeal because feel didn't carry its burden to establish that your stiction exists and so you know to the extent that there is unfairness here is it derives from from that not from a proper application of this court's merger jurisprudence that's right and so would you agree the effect of that order was to deny summary judgment with respect to inform and also correct yeah i think that is right in the denial of a summary judgment motion not a final order how do we get into this we're how do we deal with this now well again i think it's right and i think it's the way we're presenting the wildlife code argument it's an alternative basis for a f judgment on that claim but the point remains that the court does have before it basically the question about the propriety of an injunction that prevents deerfield from enforcing this ordinance and you know if you have any questions yes i had just one final up on the jurisdiction issue you agree the trial court here did expressly state that it intended to merge these actions doesn't that fact and that  alone distinguish this case from all the cases that guns a life cited as well as easter day well i guess here's the thing that i would i would point to about all those other cases is that what we don't see where you know that's a case where the st district clearly struggled with trying to decipher based on the record that was before it whether the trial court had merged the cases that regarded it as a close case and the fact that we don't see a real man there instead we see you know the the court on appeal barreling ahead and making a determination it underscores the fact that these kinds of after the fact explanations by the trial court they're  just not relevant to the legal question about whether this court has  appellate court in the state of illinois is a court of limited touristic show i have heard that statement yes your own that we are in a court of original jurisdiction yes you and that we do not have the ability to grant ourselves cura stiction the jurisdiction does not exist that's clearly correct are you aware that the supreme court in supervisory authority has the ability to order us to accept and dispose of the case for whatever reason if the sides i am generally aware of the supreme court supervisory authority yes ok so d when you said they i think you said that they may have a right to appeal but they did not appeal is that i understand you correctly well i guess the way i would put it is they had a right to an appeal but not to two appeals and it was the defendant's burden during the st appeal to establish that this court had jurisdiction this court concluded that the defendants had not carried that burden and dismissed the appeal and so my submission here is that you feel doesn't have a right to a basically a nd appeal so what what if we didn't have jurisdiction before because there was not a final unappealable order and we don't have jurisdiction now because it's final it's not a final it appealable order and it goes back for a rd time and all the claims and all the of a denial of a post judgment motion if there is one or within thirty days from the entry of the final and enforceable judgement on all counts that if someone files a notice of appeal that we may be able to entertain the merits of this case well i guess i'd say your honor that i have consistently throughout the litigation thought of our taking wildlife code and firearm preemption claims as being separate claims as opposed to a single claim obviously the easter day case is somewhat differently situated from ours in the sense that there's no doubt that they only had a single claim in that case in the the trial court has already basically resolved that that one claim on summary judgment you know obviously our argue is that the two cases didn't merge and so you know i could conceive of a scenario if the court agrees with our merger analysis i could conceive of a scenario where the court might if you disagreed with me about there being you know more than one claim in previous questions i do not know neither do i thank you but i will counsel who are mr easter day please present his case runners i'll be addressing the issue of the courts preemption session and i'll start just very quickly then with the time line  their use they might be used with an assault weapon days later the four card act and the concealed carry act are a man dead regarding preemption and exception and it says that all cm's will be destroyed or confiscated all cm's will be destroyed but there's nothing in there actually banning that point that's noted in the court when the court that the defendant would classify as al c m so long as they are for handguns which are common thirteen point one c of the foid act says which is really where i think the main  the village lies says that assault weapons are preempted unless inconsistent local ordinances are enacted on before with then ten days of the acts of fact a day and then it says that if an ordinance and they acted within the ten days of the state can be amended so when the defendant says that there's no question that a ban is permissible under the  amendment it's only if it was originally done within the ten day window and the village didn't do it they had the opportunity they chose not to so it says inconsistent in the statute and thirteen point one c and that's important because section one point one of the flight act defines firearm which is any device by whatever name known designed to expel a projectile the dot dot dot and section to a one says that if you want to firearm you need to have a ford card so assault weapons are allowed under the ford act so what's in it and if you ban them the village didn't do the village i'm sorry the state specifically says under thirteen point one that this is a denial of limitation under section six h of the illinois constitution well preemption exclusive power  state they could have done it under six i or six h and i and didn't do it the state of the village wants to keep talking about experiments and concurrent jurisdiction and  local jurisdiction being allowed and it's not except as the statute allowed and the village didn't do it when the legislature wanted to limit wanted to preempt it knows how to do it you look to the insurance code of the medical practice act when the legislature wanted to limit concurrent juror limit concurrent exercise of power without preemption it knows how to do that to look at the highway code for example the village was correct when it said that you cannot ignore the clear language of the general assembly the sis in a hybrid who and norman versus city of granite city are very clear when you have one ordinance and then a new version of the ordinance for you can't do both it's not an amendment you can call it an amendment all day long you can title  an amendment but if there's a clear conflict between the two or insist they both can't be carry out then you have an intention to rip intention to repeal that is exactly what happened here the circuit court no and the circuit court with correct when it noted and l c m s if you look to the where to case and you look even the friedman case in the th circuit it's clear large capacity magazines are not a category of  they're completely different things and to the extent that the village says otherwise so the extent that the village tries to equate handguns and assault weapons when clearly the white card act asli on the briefs submitted by the parties as well and since my time has gone over which i appreciate the court's indulgence i'd be happy to answer any questions justice that's a do you have any questions mr siegel i'd like you to clarify sort of the threshold question is it your position that section thirteen dollars of the foid card act all regulation by home rule units relating to the possession or ownership of assault weapons period unless the ordinance and regulatory neck meant was out or before and they give it a window so you're conceding it's not a complete and total ban under any circumstances if the village were to comply with the exception correct yes i'm not saying that the i'm not saying that the village or until it can't do anything ever for example all the ordinance that was in two thousand and thirteen that talked about safe storage and transport and whatnot let's say hypothetically speaking that they didn't pass that ordinance days before the forty act was amended let's say they passed it a year later  it's an ordinance that isn't necessarily inconsistent at least that the circuit court found it's not be disallowed wing residents of the village from having assault weapons it's saying you can have them but here's the rules on how you're going to have them let me ask you this is in your possession a dirt field the original two thousand and thirteen ordinance was not inconsistent with the provisions of the point guard it was an inconsistent no it was not there is no challenge to the two thousand and thirteen ordinance in this case and while i my colleague might disagree it's our it's a circuit courts position and we're not challenging that finding a regulation that is how you can possess a firearm is inconsistent so long as it doesn't go against the general rule of the statute that if you have a foid card you can have them and that's where the fatal  is for the village because it's not inconsistent and therefore there's nothing that they would the beagle lee be allowed to of the man dead and that is taking apart the issue of whether or not it was actually an amendment which it wasn't you saying that the villages two thousand and thirteen ordinance was not inconsistent with the act even though it regulated the possession ownership of the assault weapons beyond what was required by the state police and not inconsistent because the only thing that the four way that act says is that if you have a fight card you can have them so it's not inconsistent i don't again i the circuit court found this and i'm not disagreeing it's not inconsistent to say here's the rules for how to have them now i suppose again i could take to all the way to the next argument with hypotheticals and i know nobody wants that but if the village  said you can have them but you have to bury them in the back yard under ten feet of dirt and you can only take it out from the hours of three am to three fifteen a and then you have to bury it again i mean yeah at some points an ordinance could become inconsistent with the general principle while you can have them but it's really a sham you can have them but you have to keep them space stored and you can only use them in self defense and here's the rules for transport where we're not saying that that's inconsistent with the act because you're still allowed to have them so because they had the pace it wasn't inconsistent and the village didn't actually pass any ordinance that qualified under section thirteen point one act that could be amended later again leaving apart the issue of whether or not it was actually an amendment or you mentioned the eighty case you're citing that case here today for what proposition he says there is if whether an ordinance is a mandatory and again this goes to the amendment issue whether an ordinance is a mandatory is not determined by its title nor the reference to another ordinance in the title and that a subsequent statute that revises the whole subject matter of a former statute and is intended as a substitute for it although it contains no express words to that a fact is and is the repeal of the former act and that is exactly what we have here when you take something that you're allowed to have but with thirteen ordinance the intent of deerfield middle east especially was pretty clear based on the testimony wasn't well the court rule that the testimony was not relevant to the legal discussion and we agree with that the again they can say at the court i don't believe that the core looks to the intent they the court looks to the two statutes and does a comparative analysis of the two statutes and what are the differences and if the differences are that they both can't be carried out and that the subject matter is now complete that the  provisions now are completely changed and we're talking about a repeal and a replacement and the villain in norwalk i'm sorry he's indicated vent intent was a critical component you know well to the extent that might be a factor to consider it still doesn't change the effect of looking at the two ordinances and seeing the differences between the two the village knows this because if you look in their own municipal code section one dash seven that when a prevent when you have new and existing ordinance in a different ordinance when the provisions relate to the same subject matter and are substantially the same it's not a new enact amends and here they're not substantially the same so even and so if you want to look at the village intent look to the village code and even the village code says that what the village did here is not continuing an existing ordinance this is taking a completely new ordinance slapping the old title on it and saying oh it's just an amendment but it's  thirteen point one a tells us has the general rule that the foid card act is not intended to invalidate local regulations that impose and i'm quoting greater restrictions or limitations on the acquisition possession and transfer of firearms that are imposed by the sec now see contains an exception to the general rule when section c mentions regulations that are inconsistent with the foid card act doesn't that simply mean that the regulations that impose greater restrictions on the salt weapons than the act imposes that is possession of a foid  anything different well st of all section thirteen a starts with saying except is otherwise provided in the firearm concealed carry act in subsections v m c of the section so is the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons or exclusive function powers in functions of the state and any ordinance or regulation or portion there in a manner that is inconsistent with this actual be invalid unless it's an acted on or before within ten days and if and to go back to my hypothetical if a year later and s do that because ten day window i think the village would be able to say no because that was only for ordinances that are inconsistent and this isn't inconsistent month your honor if that's a question then the answer is absolutely yes they were so substantial that they could no longer constitute an amendment there's two reasons for th the st is that it's one day you're allowed to have them and the next day you're not allowed to have them and if you do have them they're going to be confiscated and destroyed and you're going to pay you're going to pay a penalt so that there is an absolute one in eighty say that one day this is allowed in the next day that's not allowed that is not an amendment i don't dare not in the legal sense that we are discussing here the actually banned them so it's only in the eight hundred and nineteen that they made that change and said well they're banned so you have to recognitions in there with regard to all cnn's you have to recognition it's in the earlier eighteen in the later eighteen they didn't do this in the st instance and where you take something that isn't banned like the assault weapon issue when you take something that isn't banned and turf and say oh now it is banned in the sense that we're talking about it that is not an amendment that is a new law by comparing new ordinance by comparison let's say that gun manufacturer x puts out a new model and said and the village says oh well those aren't banned we need to add that to the west that's an amendment but turn around and say everything that was allowed is now not allowed is not an amendment and i really want to and i apologize for i'm going off on a tiny tangent your honor but the villages argument that handguns can be wantin to assault weapons because they feel like that's out defining when the statutes could not be clear that they're separate things  and handguns let me see if i understand your argument correctly both in your briefs and your mention today one any portions of your fields definition of a ut yet ok and to the extent the deerfield ban of large capacity magazines does regulate ammunition for handguns it is preempted in its application to the same there's not even in either of those statutes was there even the ten day window that the village is making the issue about so there was no discretion given and with regard to handguns and handgun ammunition there was no discretion given to the village it was simply preempted under section six age do we have the factual record in those cases to which portions of deerfield definition of assault weapon there another section and is there a factual record here well i think we have i don't think we're dealing with a factual record i think that we can look at two different two different parts of the law and come to the conclusion and the only the only possible conclusion is the one that the plaintiffs are advancing and that is that the state statute defines handgun as a device that issues a projectile that  handguns and i believe if someone raised the challenge with regard to those handguns i think the village would have a real legal issue here  but my client d my client's not advancing with regards any of the specific list of handguns there someone might in the future and i think that those would run into a problem but i think that if you look to the state definition of what a handgun is and you look to the village tried to actually enforce  against what is a handgun i think is a legal matter not even requiring the factual record it would see that a tracker a fact or a trier of law would see g and then they list the characteristics is there anywhere where we know if this pistol is also considered a handgun and would come to the extent again i think that it's i'm of course happy to have the discussion i don't know that it actually is  issue in this case however i believe the answer to your question as that if the to the extent that that firearm meets the definition of  and i guess the i guess the short answer is i'm not aware but i think that the th a case closest perhaps when it when it zoning from it was either commercial to residential or vice versa and the court found that that was a new ordinance i think that might be the closest i apologize but if there is a case regarding the specific facts an area you just mentioned i'm not aware i'm not so hung up as to spend three hours or four hours looking for it but it's probably out there somewhere the definition of an amendment was a change in the ordinance and  the village can redefine an assault weapon to close to include include virtually anything that isn't a b b gun or a taser or a laser and call it an assault weapon well i think that and this kind of goes back to the discussion with the justices you know i believe that to the extent that this would courts what about shotguns lever action rifles all to action i think this is a village i think under the villages argument their argument is basically that they could do whatever they wanted and i think that the answer to the example would have none of the use i think that ultimately i would think a trial or a fact would find that that is a bridge too far well let's let's limit it down then to virtually my automatic weapons whether they have a detachable magazine or a detachment a magazine that is less than  about anywhere from twenty dollars to forty dollars pellets go off at once which based upon the diameter of those pellets it's an equivalent of firing a twenty or a thirty round magazine every time you pull the trigger on a shotgun so it would seem that logically at least the shotgun within forty yards is more lethal than the assault weapon because if you have an extended magazine that goes out to about eight or nine shells you have eight or nine mega scenes of twenty dollars to thirty dollars bullets going out with the hall every time you pull the trigger and if it's a semi automatic shotgun it would be even more lethal because it could fire as fast so you could pull the trigger you wouldn't happen to pop it for years a lever or whatever so it is plausible is it not that the this is the village would have at least logically the ability to outlaw hurtfully all shotguns especially those that are some automatic if the village were to ignor for example the us supreme court's ruling in the heller case that when it comes to firearm restrictions certain policy choices are off the table and if the core and if the del the was actually allowed to to rule by for lack of better word a motion and say well this is dangerous this should be banned and yes and that's if those were the if those were the parameters and beyond bloke was allowed to not just be pushed which i think they're even put they've pushed too far in this case but just break it entirely and there's been nothing to stop them from doing whatever they wanted they could define anything as an assault weapon but what stops them it is the preemption  the preemption requirements of state law and the courts and they try to lump something into a category like say lumping handguns into the definition of assault weapons and it would be up to a court presumably to say no this goes beyond your authority and and has to be stricken thirteen point one b pre amps them from doing anything from banning and guns and handgun ammunition preempts them in fact from doing anything regarding the regulation licensing possession registration and transportation of handguns and ammunition  him and the ammunition for handguns if they try to get around that and say well we're going ping that in with assault weapons and therefore we can ban them now  i guess your honor it would just be up to the courts like yourself to stop them i was frankly stunned to find out that my case had been merged with the other case though one of the last questions that was asked to my colleague was about count complaint based on preemption and the court ruled in our favor and when you add that up with all the other things that my colleague pointed out in the briefs point out about separate dockets and separate workers and the labeling of us as the companion case to there and the fact that their case continued on with another status date when we did not as our case was over and so i was quite frankly i was quite frankly stunned to find that the opposite ad that actually occurred and that it actually occurred apparently in secret  when it came to that i guess i didn't contest the thirty for a aspect of that because we had gotten everything we wanted  the village was appealing basically only those are the words or that that have given us the relief we wanted and so certainly that's why i and as well and so long as they're taking his claim was still pending but the court granted three of four a language on the pre amps and you know i wasn't merged based on all the evidence to the contrary i just thought was incorrect who should then continue to maintain their ok i have no per the questions are there any questions the panel has chicago or the cook county ordinance which has been tested has been taken all the way up to the supreme court and found valid so i don't think there's a textual issue with the definition of assault weapons or the fact that subset of pistols are included with assault weapons that's how it's been done in every assault weapons definition that i'm familiar with so if i note that the language refers to assault weapons and then anything inconsistent with the act so there's nothing that specifically carves out handguns if their assault weapons the justices had a concern that well what if we had such a broad definition that every gun was swept up an assault weapon when that that simply haven't happened there's a well defined definition of assault weapons the two if that were to happen that could be arbitrary increases that could be unconstitutional there are a number of challenges that could be raised to that they just aren't at issue here there's a small set of pistols that are defined as assault weapons but that's consistent with  regulation bans are a form of regulation but all regulation of assault weapons are permitted under the act provided it's done within the ten day window or before as happened here i know mr siegel was going back and forth between bands and regulation and amendment and it was a little computing but it's clear the act permits regulation of assault weapons by home rule authorities provided they do it within the window or have could adopt a safe storage and transportation restriction tomorrow because that would not be inconsistent with state law i don't think that's how the law reads i think that if you didn't act within the ten day window you can't now regula we timely appealed to yesterday the case and the reason it came back was this court properly held that it was unclear whether the court intended to merge the cases we went back before the circuit court and he made very clear i intended to merge these cases and i did so so that the question of whether or not the intent of the court has now been satisfied no other decision has had that procedural posture this is unique and it supports the village or section so i'll take your questions justice hudson do you have any questions i do not just to see you know if you have any questions based on the federal assault weapons ban from ninety four work and word those stills included in the definition of an assault weapon pistols things like bushmasters with a short barrel and no stock at acj i don't think with no stock attached i think you need to have a stack attached but that the list includes the specific type of pistols that are covered by the assault weapons ban and that was the foundation for that was that the chicago ordinance well you know what a short barreled rifle is  think i do are you aware you need a special license issued by the federal government what i'm not familiar with that your honor well the a r fifteen has been formulated in a configuration where it looks like a pistol instead of a rifle and it has the tube coming out the back end of the pistol because that's the spring that pushes back the recoil spring that pushes the bolt back shot which is usually an itch innocent part of the stock but there is no stock on it and if the pistol has a barrel i believe it's less than sixteen inches and it has a stock on it then it considered a federally controlled weapon so that's why i'm asking you if the pistols you're referring to are short barreled rifles without stock that the answer is i don't know your honor i have no further questions if there are any other questions based upon the questions that were asked and