subject to class at sentencing so as much as i i think you people want to put it that i do want to at least briefly ask you if all of them and parent knew they are if the when he was he had to be sentenced as a class allen mandatorily under the statute i can refer you to which one but right up and at the hearing the judge do you do you agree or disagree are you really don't know whether once a guilty verdict is entered and they were a guilty verdict was uttered on all three and one count is merged into what the judge police's more serious offense can eat do that merger and or can we undo that merger and in fact proceed on the guilty finding that he originally had if we decide that the one he merged  let's say so i think let's say we do it and we remain for a reason and then once he's reset the stand that and merge conviction he can then appeal and then at that point he might be able to to a challenge the and we vacated india and imposed the same sentence that he received six years would you be opposed to that no no no no i'm just curious  talking about the language in the amendment that may still be ambiguous based on your reading of it that's different but the purpose behind the legislature actually amending that u w section multiple convictions were going to be allowed now the question is does the language support their clear intent or is there some reason that we should find it once again ambiguous and perhaps impose that because what about the supreme court's comment that they clearly understood how much more dangerous a gun that's already is in the hands of a convicted felon versus an  one then that ammunition is one in this is one charge leads to one charge it doesn't matter how many so the fact that there are six bullets in a gun that doesn't mean that there are going to be six appellate related you you it's let's say it is defined that way but is there a single case in illinois because there are open cases where people are charged with just ammunition without a gun is there a single case no no where there's multiple don't count so then you miss him based on the number of bullets that were in the serious than a u w where the con is not loaded and the person and but in each case he has a may be possession of a single of it's a single possession of however many controlled substance the person acts but they changed it and now it brought separate convictions but they well in my point is that possession here may be and certainly this case illustrates perfectly there was one charge of possession of ammunition he was tried on one charge and found guilty of only one charge not multiple charges for each individual card even though it's clear that he had more than one par initial i would say one right and you had just the language of the statute reads the same for both you need for both fire and ammunition and yet you want to treat the language of the statute to allow multiple yes well that's the whole point that the legislature said two different items of contraband there are numerous controlled substances and in this case there's two items of contraband a gun and ammunition and in controlled substances case you can have one item that contains more than one controlled substance and that is going to sport two convictions that very almost identical language in the controlled boxes of ammunition and be charged with one count of your body with with ammunition well because that the legislature has been pretty clear in saying my friends are just saying that based on the on the controlled substances statute that nine packets of interpretation that we need to look at it is whether the legislature intended to have multiple charges for ammunition inside a gun versus what i believe councils indicates would be permissible gun versus an absolutely zero i meet let me ask you about that was there anything in the legislative history to suggest that they were making a conscious decision regarding that  enhanced danger with a loaded gun well in the first place it's that the language is clear so stand a better look at the legislative history i think it clearly indicates they were the decision seven months after the legislative a months after the kyra decision which said yes we agree with the state that a felon who is armed without a loaded weapon is more dangerous than an then a felon who has merely ammunition or unloaded about it so yes i think the if they well i mean to the parties feel that we need additional briefing and whether that the offense one is greater than the other or not i mean i think that if your statement