good morning your honor is my name is david holland's i'm here on behalf of the and may it please the court the central component of the second amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense and this right is most notable within the home outside of the home the government of illinois has significant leeway to regulate the carrying of firearms but what you and i cannot do is completely prohibit the exercise of the right itself the aggravated on lawful use of a weapon statute however does just that there are two issues that are in dispute before this court this morning the first is whether the protections of the second amendment exist beyond one's private property and second does the aggravated unlawful  of a weapon statute act as a ban on the exercise of the right i'd like to start with the instinctual notion that the second amendment like virtually every constitutional right does not simply disappear when one steps outside their home in fact the united states supreme court was operating under this assumption when it noted that governments will still be able to prohibit firearms in sensitive places such as schools courthouses govern government buildings and the like for that finding to make sense of course the second amendment would have to exist outside in the same vein the united states supreme court ordered noted that the need for the protection of the second amendment are most acute within the home the right is the most notable within the home again for there to be a degree of acuity in regulating this right the second amendment does have to exist outside in fact the text of the second amendment itself or closes the state's argument that the right simply doesn't exist outside the text of the second amendment is in no way limited to the home the third amendment and of course is limited strictly to the home the fourth amendment has a special protection inside to the home the founding fathers who they understood that a right can be limited to the home and the actual text of the amendment the united states supreme court noted that to keep and to bear arms are distinct terms to keep a firearm means to possess a firearm to bear a firearm means to wear or carry on one's person or in one's clothing in case of confrontation in case of an emergency to find that the second amendment doesn't exist outside which my client's is convicted was convicted i'm not in any way challenging the other prohibitions under the aggravated on lawful use of a weapon statute th as it is written and applying constitutional precedent so in an official review of the statute if if a statute is fish unconstitutional that means it would be unconstitutional when it was passed by the legislature and unconstitutional the day of my client's trial and unconstitutional knol so i can't emphasize enough that the facts of the trial are irrelevant to the constitutionality of the wall but he does have standing in order to bring he does have standing justice ties for my clients like every defendant has a personal right not to be convicted under an unconstitutional law so the moment that my client was indicted he had standing and of course he continues to have standing because he was convicted under the statute that is challenging a concrete example of what i'm saying here today is that for example the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute is being challenged right now in the seventh circuit  that case is being brought by civil plaintiffs so those civil plaintiffs that the filed documents to show that there's a threat of prosecution against them to establish standing in this case of course my client doesn't have to do that because he was prosecuted but one standing established in that case and one standing is established in this case the analysis of the merits of the state of the constitution of the statute is identical this is a seventeen year old is a minor second amendment right yes he does and n e h minor no i'm not arguing some sort of unfettered second amendment rights but my client is only challenging the statute under which he was convicted which doesn't differentiate is that the kind of weapon that falls within the second minute and how in that square that type of weapon does not fall within the second amendment but my client was never charged with having a defaced weapon and the statute that's at issue here is an unconditional ban on all firearm caring for all or when why citizens across the entire state so he was only charged with possession of a firearm another example would be under a facial challenge a defendant could move to dismiss indictment and then of course there would be no facts known at all about the case itself and then they were doing quote good review the statute facially in determining whether the actual terms of the statute conflict with constitutional press and as this court did madrigal based upon the state's briefing here before this court it wouldn't surprise me if the state appeared before this court this morning and resorted to a series of ad hominem attacks against my client or discussion of the facts of the trial but specifically limited to position of whom you'd agree with the first hilde no i would not agree with that the issue presented and heller macdonald was a statute that bans in the home possession but the preliminary issue the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense and we struck down a district of columbia law that banned possession of handguns in the home so that that holding wasn't dependent on the statute at issue  notable within the home and that means the the right also exists outside of the home that the government of illinois and the the government of any state like forty nine other states that permit firearm carrying that can the right itself can be heavily regulated the united states supreme court found that the second amendment protects against both private and public violence and in coming to that conclusion the united states supreme court relied upon several cases that explicitly found a not in fact it supports my argument because when the supreme court made that finding it actually cited to the very cases that i just listed those cases held that you can ban concealed carry so long as some form of public carrying is allowed in the states and illinois included of course can regulate the manner in which the firearm is carrying but those cases found an explicit right to the public carrying a firearm and in fact in the non decision which the united states supreme court explained perfectly captured the meaning of both the prefatory and operative clauses of the second amendment and that case in the georgia state supreme court struck down a law that for all intents and purposes is identical to the aggravated on lawful use of a weapon statute the statute in non banned all pistol carrying everywhere outside and the united states supreme court found that that decision which struck down the law perfectly captured the meaning of the second amendment and actually used that case hasn't yet held that the second amendment exists outside and therefore it doesn't exist outside but that's not a valid mode of constitutional review lower courts are bound not only by the results of united states supreme court decisions they're bound by the portions of the results that are necessary to those decisions so i'm i'm simply asking this court to apply the rationale of the heller macdonald decision to confront this novel question of constitutional it should should we give should we hold this case to see what they say this court doesn't need to hold the case until the seven circus decision because the seven circus decision would would only be persuasive not binding precedent for this court the aggravated unlawful use of weapons that acts as an unconditional ban on the right of public airing outside of the home and i mean that literally in the sense that there is no condition which an illinois citizen could fulfill that would allow her to lawfully carry firearms this is a ban on all firearms everywhere across the state for all ordinary citizens and i think one of the aspects of this law that is striking in terms of the lack of tailoring here is that this law applies everywhere in illinois and there's no telling at all in terms of meeting local needs and local values the statute  applies everywhere in illinois and illinois comprises a geographically diverse set of citizens only citizens live in rural areas and unincorporated areas and suburbs and cities of varying sizes but the statute is not tailored at a ll and terms of geography so whether citizen lives and macon county or wayne county or rock island or mchenry or cooke this statute applies equally everywhere it's a total ban on the public airing firearms for the purpose of self defense and that is the central component of the second amendment illinois is a no carry state it is the only state that does not permit some form of public firearm carrying so illinois like every other state will be able to heavily regulate the second amendment illinois like every state can require f l id cards require training and i can ban firearms in places outside of the home and it can ban certain types of that's correct but at the in the same vein and that's correct and in the same vein though governments can absolutely ban firearms in certain places where individuals go this is not an unfettered right and i'm not here to argue some sort of greater policy decision my argument to this court is a narrow one and simply that this second amendment exists out of doors and and therefore and i cannot prescribe the right entirely which he was convicted on is spatially invalid because it completely abrogate the right to carry a loaded firearm in public which according to defendant is protected by the second amendment however defendant lacks standing because this is not a public carry case  the first time you're making news and this is the first time we're making it in and we do not make it an appellate court and at the trial level defendant do not raise the issue and it is our position that in that  convicted he was convicted of found what i'll call one of the subsections of the property of others provision which prohibits the possession of a loaded handgun and anywhere in except where he's on his own land abo basically that he that there is a public your right to carry your gun outside your home not in someone else's property out outside your home and public betances theory but however he was found not guilty of having a handgun in public under someone else's property in a school in a mall in a theatre anywhere the falls between the spectrum of someone's home and public and consequently honors there is a constitutional application to this provision because it to ban handguns in sensitive places and as a result since there is a constitutional application defining cannot sustain a facial challenge as a matter of law although the review of th heart defended disregards the limited nature of how our and argues that the courts textual and historical discussion constitutes an implicit holding that the second amendment protects extends outside the home and protects public car arms subject only to the concealed weapons or some sort of place provision heller court itself explicitly stated that its opinion was not an exhaustive historical analysis of the scope of the second amendment and when the doors opened to other his story historical resources beyond hollar defendants public h a claim falls apart in fact a sexual historical analysis beyond howler proves that the second amendment was intended to establish a federal constitutional floor of the right to keep and bear arms although the states could not ban the possession of weapons in their home they were free to regulate or even ban the possession of arms in the public in accordance to their individual values and public safety concerns with respect position it must be remembered when the us constitution was ratified it was just the beginnings of the industrial revolution and it was just beginning and most citizens were farmers ranchers with acres of land to protect you could just open your door and look out your doesn't support defendant's position that that means that you can carry that weapon outside the home moreover it's important to note that that what we call now public hearing laws in england in the early states use a completely different terminology they weapons outside of the public carry laws but it was a court took time to limit the holes in question presented namely that the right to bear arms across in the home the court expressly stated that nothing that's opinion should cast doubt on a several compelling interest it protects the provision in question which the finding was convicted on it protect citizens from the danger that could result when others spring loaded firearm some to property it also protects police officers and the public from then here  its place of business it also allows the use of weapons for hunting fishing and other recreational activities the provision would clearly pass discussion constitutional muster and under the most the issue before this court is in no way about sensitive places illinois for example has a ban on the books right now regarding bringing firearms into bars that's presumably constitutional if this court were to find that the  subsection under which my client was convicted is unconstitutional that would in no way affect for example illinois ban i'm going firearms and bars this is a challenge to the subsection of the statute under which my client was convicted which is a ban on all forms of firearm carrying everywhere so a ban on bars and in illinois is superb flew us right now because right now there is a ban on all firearm carrying everywhere if this is what this court has questions on standing i would be happy to answer them but simply my client has a personal rights not be convicted under an unconstitutional law like every criminal defendant the state's argument regarding the text conflicts with heller was explaining what the text of the second amendment meant it wasn't confining it to one circumstance in fact it went right to a dictionary definition and said that to bear arms means it's plain common sense meaning it's the same  mean that's in criminal statutes it's the same meaning at the time of the conception of the second amendment and it's the meaning that it has right now to bear arms and keep and bear arms means to wear or carry on one's person in case of confrontation the state's historical arguments is completely at odds with heller the ses essentially asking this court to conduct its own independent historical analysis of the second amendment but the does the mcdonald decision put it how it was a as one of the most thorough explanations of any constitutional right that's been put forth the state's argument on the statute of north hampton conflicts with the heller decision heller relied on a case called simpson versus state that actually rejected the statute of northhampton argument no court in the country has adopted this fourteenth century statute northhampton argument this court should not be the first if the if there are any further questions i would be happy to answer them  conclusion the state of course has a right to criminalize the abuse of a constitutional right but what the government will and i cannot do is criminalise the constitutional right itself thank you