it please the court house more nuance i represent journey stevens i'm happy office of the state a public defender in more versus madigan the seventh circuit ruled that the right to bear arms extended outside of a person's home arguably in response to that president the only general assembly passed the only firearm concealed carry act which provided for regulations allowing a person to carry a concealed firearm outside of their home or property the acar cars that anyone who wishes to carry a loaded gun case and immediately accessible firearm receive training as well as a license the act also provided a funding source for the implementation of the x provisions germ was convicted of aggravated unlawful use of the firearm because he was found possession of a loaded gun case immediately accessible firearm that according to him and according to the state did not possess a valid license to carry a concealed firearm firearm pursuant to the act he's argued that the act is unconstitutional and as a result his conviction based on his failure to possess the requisite license should be vacated a state is able to regulate the exercise of a constitutional right but where the state aleck's to do that by imposing a fee the fim must be nominal and it must be used to defer day and cannot exceed the administrative cos regulating the constitutional activity some of the fees imposed by the act in this case of violate this fundamental tenet of constitutional law if you know why citizen wants to carry a concealed firearm they first must pay one hundred  fifty dollars fifty for out of state residents it's a three hundred dollars feat and those payments are broken up then into three separate funds the state police firearms service fund the mental health reporting fund and the crime laboratory  the portion of the feed placed in the crime laboratory find has absolutely nothing to do with the weisinger or the regulation of citizens who wish to carry concealed firearm outside of their residence most of that hundred fifty i'm not sure if if the one hundred fifty dollars fee is spread out over five years or even actually it is in a spread out over five years i think that's accurate but in murdoch the court said there is no doubt minimus exception here it doesn't matter if the fee is so small that it doesn't prohibit the exercise of the constitutional activity but the case of whether we're looking at murdoch or the war on terror the canadian case they look at it are all of the funds that are collected when regulating a constitutional activity are is all of that money spent soley for the purpose of regulating that activity and if it's not the the provision of the statute it's unconstitutional fees not being stoned accordingly that are in the briefs the first is the fee that's placed into the state crime laboratory fund that both has nothing to do with the licensure or regulation of someone who decides to carry a concealed firearm those  briefs that indicate anything regarding the firearm here there's no evidence that i'm aware of that arm was sent to the lab at issue in the case that received these funds as well the rope and statu carry act the portion of the that we're challenging here in the statute because on to say that the state crime laboratory find here is used to offset the actual criminal investigation so the state has acknowledged that it has no bar wise for the state to maintain the database in the background checking everything so in that sense the fact that there is no equality isn't a material factor in the analysis where where you're looking at whether thirty five forty five thank you but then we have an additional problem with the statute which is the the funds that are not only sent to the have a card but not everyone with a point car carries a concealed firearm why is that well it matters because it is a if i wanted to carry a concealed firearm you have to do it for you right meet expense incident to be administration of the act and to the maintenance of public order in the matter liason it what is there about void cars you can seal you can as long as you pay fifty dollars that goes towards horn research to ensure that we're racing the best hybrids in the state of illinois it's you can't do that the money that you pay for the privilege of exercising a again the problem you run into your heart attack or i'm trying to answer the question earlier pose there's a difference between having x amount of dollars for the privilege of carrying a concealed firearm and painting x funds but the money is pooled into both of those funds under the provisions of the statute so it's for these reasons that we've made the argument that cheroots conviction should be baited because he has the right to carry remedy of saying let's save this for a post conviction petition he is unable to file this time as soon as i learned that i contacted the state to let them know that i was claiming filing a supplemental brief asking for a lesser alternative remedy which evidence he objected to on relative grounds so it's not a situation where he was stipulating to her he had an agreement with the state that it could be admitted he objected to it he tried to keep it out the problem was he didn't keep it out or he didn't judge it on the proper wraps  could be it could it that's a different case i'd have to look at the record in that case to see what argument i'm making but certainly we don't have that evidence here in the record and again we try to keep it out he failed in that regard ok concealed carry act are constitutional the fees are nominal it's only thirty dollars every year for a total of one fifty every five years and they're opposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of policing a regulated activity is in question and as well as importing and protecting public the public and what is was a hoarder the purpose of this act is to promote public safety prevent crime allows only law abiding citizens to conceal carry and carry a fire clearly this act and the fees are barred myatt are constitutional like i said the nominal and they are utilized to regulate and police the activities that are in question on any of this act as just as the arm and was saying all of these funds are utilized and enforcing and policing this act as the state crime lab wor whether someone qualifies to get a concealed carry while these sets my question what's it's a tie in the tie in is that it's all regulation of firearms in illinois in regulating  other cases where the in this case it was sent to the lab so he said yes i yes got it off for what reason off the top of my head i did not remember the exact reason i'm sure to make somebody to carry for me doesn't necessarily mean you're in a lawful yes that's correct so i think i understand your line of questioning since he violated that aggregate unlawful use of a weapon one of the requirements was that a other that he did not have a concealed carry permit then these fees of regulating this concealed carry act go to help in forcing and promoting and protecting the public as well as the activities in question that concealed carry act was designed to do which as i stated it was designed to promote public safety you know you don't want people with a crazy temperament to be able to possess a concealed carry gun so example of that that's why some of these funds go to the mental health reporting fund because there are people who are not mentally fit to possess concealed carry a gun as just as the arm and said they go to the state crime i find that often firearms are utilized in crimes and again that was a regulatory these are brave the tory fees designed to defray the expenses of policing or regulating the activities in question which is concealed carry of guns and those who do not legally do so  council did state that the fever of the state conceded that this state crime lab fund was not explicitly tied to the concealed carry act but that is just because th language with then this lab fund so that state police services fun and the mental health reporting fun both explicitly reference the concealed carry act within it whereas the state crime lab does not but we're not conceding that it's out i was merely stating that in regards to the two other funds to show that it was explicitly reference so there is no question as to whether those were explicitly tied whereas the state crime i find yes there was no explicit link but if you look state also contends that the fees surviving are many intermediate scrutiny as illinois has a substantial and legitimate interest in ensuring the safety of the general public from individuals who don't have the sensual temperament that should be present and want to trust with a dangerous weapon and that these fees are substantially related to illinois interests of promoting public safety and preventing gun violence and regards the sever severability the state will rest on its beef and that because as the statute is constitutional there's no purpose to discuss that also in regards to defense counsel's alleged in effect of assistance the state did receive the call from counsel and appreciated that but the state posits that the record does affirmatively show that counsel was effective for example one of the there's a big wording thing and he's an effect of the system findings council's arguing that defense counsel at trial on page twenty five of those the trial transcript where the fence counsel after being asked about this video that states trying to introduce she is intending to use a video and then at the end of that paragraph the video that she is intending to show begins when defendant is in the vehicle for it says and what vehicle defense counsel and the police tickle ok and then defense counsel goes on and saying his objection we based on a foundation he would like the jury to see the whole video showing that he knows what's on all three different videos he wants them to see the events leading up to the video that would include the officer approaching the window the echo with his hand gun drawn pointed out defendant from a close range the finance is fully cooperative this place in handcuffs and then taken to the car i think that sets the proper foundation for the portion of the video that the state would like to show the jury so yes counsel does state in his briefs that maybe defense counsel never received this video and it does say the post from ocean that he didn't but the fact remains that he was aware of what was on these videos so the state struggles to see how that would lead to an effective representation based on that fact more over the fence counsel did object to this video as i stated he was aware of what was happening and his counsel her strategy throughout trial varied on very different aspects if you look at the closing argument he had which is set forth on the state's brief on page thirty two he put forth various theories growth rate of the semi truck driver apparently trying to frame him here attack the witnesses credibility the state's witnesses he also tried to state the defendant's confession was made under saw on the police officer coming up to the gun with her upcoming after the gaar car with his gun drawn and he hit another big factor was that he argued there was no evidence that the gun was loaded when defendant waived it and i think that's an important point you know and regarding is ineffective assistance claims because yes defendant did make an admission which counsel was aware of but he waved the gun but then mission did not consist of him saying he waved a loaded gun which the gun being loaded was essential element of the accurate accurate unlawful use of a weapon then if you look at the cross examination of the officer in this case the defense counsel defense counsel was very cognizant of not asking questions regarding whether the defendant knew the gun was loaded when he waived that and other strategies such as that simply because the jury believe the state's witnesses officer sitting the fifth never applied to concealed carry license as your honor just a statement of stating this this was not an issue that was contested below it would have been easily proven oh the fact that trial counsel just decided to not make an issue was not ineffective assistance of counsel because the strategy was like i said previously trying to argue the gun wasn't loaded when it was waived or just trying to put reasonable the state argues that there was no effective says of counsel because in closing arguments defense counsel argued road rage witness credibility that the defendant was under giraffes and also that there was no evidence of guns a loaded when he allegedly was alternately there was a directed verdict on the count of him waving the gun the threatening manner so that there was a directed verdict as to that count regarding whether they could see the gun it really becomes irrelevant if they can see the gun or not if on the videotape jer says yes i reached over after i got boxed in by some i grabbed my gun and put it back and that's one of the things that that kind of confuses me about argument prove your argument resumes that the would the stove upon my attorney the belief that he is a good attorney he prepares for trial he understands what the evidence says and i think we give attorneys that presumption that they prepare for trial it's one of the the base level of being  in this case the record shows counsel wasn't prepared for trial he indicates no and in fact as the state noted in his post trial motion he explains that the figure that they showed in court a reading of the entire conversation that takes place there indicates that during the recess counsel i talked to the state and that's when the state you say that but that is not a record of life like this there is nothing in big change that i recall is that that was discussed with the state and then when they come back from a recess that's when the discussion takes place the defense counsel has then been notified that she plans to raise this video her pla conduct and what takes place during the actual trial but those comments out against the defense counsel haven't seen this video before trial and i think it's one thing to watch a video even if even if i'm wrong about  counsel watch that video during a recess i think that's an less egregious because by that point you've already set your defense up you've already cross examined these people trying to undermine their credibility more likely than either liars or both i t