questions about my nd issue i'm more than happy to answer those as well their dollars was arrested after one of the arresting officers officer ferraris allegedly saw him in possession of a concealed firearm this is best without carry act defines a concealed firearm as as you just mentioned a loaded or unloaded handgun carried on or about a person completely or mostly concealed from view of the public or on or about a person within a vehicle and so we know  that they be completely or mostly concealed from view of the public but that language only applies to firearms that are being carried on the street otherwise it would render that whole nd clause that or under and out of her so are you contending that anyone could have a fire the circumstances within which they licensed see what this permit allows them to and i don't know if you want to try to address that now because you didn't address it in your supplemental  statute says st of all it says that these exceptions are for they don't apply to or affect transport haitian of weapons so st of all i think that  in accordance with the firearm concealed carry act by a person in accordance with that's the operative that operative language who has been issued currently valid license so the state in their concealed firearm but i think the state is incorrect to that they say that the definition in sixty six slash five does not apply to section sixty six slash ten but the definition of a cliff does but that's not really what i mean i  you to explain how you could argue that illinois has that open carry policy in cars when the permit only allows you to have hearings to citizens in the well i think it has to do with the fact that a concealed firearm i mean that i think that the use of the target seal there i think is important keep in mind that it's a term of art and i do think that based on the definition in sixty six  slash five that it does what somewhat conflict with you know the normal everyday understanding of the use of the word concealed but as we know from sixty six dash or slash five that concealed firearm in this case does it doesn't mean that doesn't mean that it's not visible from view it just means in the view of the context of the vehicle that means that it is on or about the person and as i said otherwise there would have been if he had legislator intended for all firearms even those carried within a vehicle well i don't think that it's just i don't think that it's subject to no requirements i think that as i pointed out in my brief the language on or about a person it has a very specific meaning under illinois law so it would have to be is it have to be readily accessible to the person so i mean h no we don't you're either so is it absurd to say that in public you have to have a gun but if you're in a car the legislature in ten carry no i don't think that's absurd because as i said there i mean that is clearly what the legislature intended based on the fact that yes i do inform saying if they had intended for the requirements to for a vehicle to be exactly the same as on the street they just would have tracked that exact language in the the portion of sixty six dollars dash ten that relates to a vehicle but they didn't do that and all of those things concealed is an element and it means it and so you're saying the legislature didn't really understand or didn't mean to have plenty of fun in it are no unfortunate drafting choice but i think that when we actually when you look at the actual definition of a concealed firearm it very clearly does not impose a requirement that it be you know in and as he said the legislator was aware of the was aware of the history of these cases and they they made an informed i believe that they made a informed decision here not to impose that requirement on weapons that are carried in a vehicle and i think that's reflected in the definition and it's also reflected in this i mean as i mentioned in my brief you know the the governor would have quinn wanted to change the definition of a concealed firearm to a loaded or unloaded firearm carried on or about a person completely covered or not there's a hole from view of the public or carried in a vehicle concealed covered or not visible from the view of the public and the legislature overrode that veto and they have not amended the definition of a concealed firearm since then i think the p d yet when it's already well i've got  well i mean i think the big they did they did what the governor pointed out to them was that maybe that to his view that their definition was unclear he was asking them to clarify to the state you know very clearly in the in the statu when you have a gun in a car it has to be covered it has to not be visible from view of the public in order to be a concealed weapon and the legislator as i said they chose not to go that route they chose to override that veto and so i think that if you know if the legislator had wanted for vehicle for guns carried in vehicles to be completely concealed from view they had a very clear opportunity with the governor's veto to adopt that language and they as i said they chose not to do so what is the meaning of transportation correct ok i think to go back to your problem causing just a minute ok so you are then correct me if i'm wrong is that officers have no problem because they didn't have that extra knowledge of whether that the police had probably cause but they at the end of their opinion they you know they said that we wish to emphasize that under the current legal landscape police cannot simply assume that a person who possesses a firearm outside the home is involved in criminal activity they say we must caution against  licensure later method of police patrol and so i think that it's clear from that decision and also other illinois court decisions that you know just seeing someone on the street or seeing somebody in a car that has a gun you know unless they're unless they're engaged in under those circumstances their investigation was sixteen and possibly but i would i would submit that at that point when this crowd started to gather there they'd already been removed from the vehicle and placed in handcuffs so i think the arrested already did again no i don't think that the crowd as they're being ordered out of the car nobody testified that this crowd had gathered yet at this point so i think it would be a simple matter of as you know as valid stepping out of the car or as he testified being pulled out of the car i think it would've been a rather simple matter of saying hey do you have a license for that gun you know that i thought i saw you put in the glove box and and so i don't think that it would have necessarily if we wouldn't have been not asking the officers to engage in any excessively burdensome activity we're just asking them to you know before they make a decision that could potentially infringe upon somebody is you know a constitutional right that they make sure that they're doing that you know in the proper got left hand on the wheel and you got the gun sitting right to your side and you're holding onto this is that sampai i mean at that point the officers might have probable cause based on the fact that so in undergo training and part of that training involves you know safely handling firearms so if a police officer so you see when you're driving in your holding a firearm at the same time doesn't that pretty actually tell you exactly what you can do you can't concealed firearm on or about person with him i'm not saying it means nothing i'm saying that it has to be read in conjunction with the definition in sixty six dash five it has to be read in conjunction the concealed carry license training because i believe that you know you could be you could be committing for one thing if you're you know if you're engaging in excessively reckless behavior with if you're waving a gun around you could be committing various other criminal offenses such as forms of reckless conduct but i believe in that situation as well if you're if you're waving a gun around or if you're doing something unsafe with the gun in the car the officers would have probable cause to believe at that point that you don't have a concealed carry license because somebody who did have a concealed carry license would have got the training they would i mean yes your honor and i don't i think that it's appropriate to at there's you know there's a provision of the concealed carry act that says so you go to a school or you know a government building when you enter that building and you leave your car you've been required to take your think i think that it does i mean obviously it's because people who actually do who obtain a concealed carry license you know have to undergo significant training and so i think that the legislator made an informed choice there to say well no these people have they've they've gone there through their training they've proven that they're capable of handling firearms and so we don't need to require them to necessary to have their gun be unloaded when they're in a car or to have them place it in a case when they're in a car it's a decision to grant these people you know more rights i mean so if you put a gun in a paper bag so longer visible to somebody standing outside the car like for ours is but that doesn't necessarily make it any safer i don't think there's anything in that area anyway f i'm not certain your honor by no i think it's covered more closely by cases like people be thomas and the other and even though you know they were held and one and the other thomas and even though those cases obviously i think the principle though that just seeing somebody in possession of a concealed weapon from those cases i think that that's still that's still good law and in those cases and in the cases that the sta possession of a weapon and the court held that there was probable cause to arrest them based on seeing them possession of the weapon there were other circumstances and almost i think in all of the cases the stateside still there was some there was flight involved people were people were fleeing the scene and i mean my position is yes my position is still based on the definition in sixty six that's five that this was that this was a concealed firearm i don't think that the legislature would have intended it in this kind of situation so he he commits a crime him because my client is trying to remove the firearm from his person and place it into a glove compartment where he both he and the officer will be in a safer position i don't think that the legislator could i just don't see that there's any other way to explain that nd clause in the definition on or about a person i don't think that there's any other way to explain the legislators decision to reject the governor's a mandatory veto i don't i don't think there's any way either way i mean we i'm not i'm just asking you to look at i think that it so you look at if you look at cheaper care keep or carry a loaded or unloaded concealed firearm on or about his person within a vehicle that's the section they are referring to i think in the next the law yet if you plug in the definite what we have a definition of a was driving back to the station tell the other officers then he told the officer that he was driving back to the station with that he saw a firearm at that point but he did not tell the officer who was actually transporting the vehicle in which the firearm was contained that there just think good there's i mean because of the many factors i think that it's impossible that he wouldn't tell the other officers at the scene i think that you have officer edwards who is directly behind officer ferraris at the time that he allegedly sees my the definition of from that provision which is the provision of the act that empowers individuals to carry firearms on their person the other provision that i believe the court should look at is subsection each which specifically deals with risk the rights and responsibilities of police officers and licensees during investigating all stops that provision provides that upon request a licensee in a vehicle must do t face st the license he must tell the officer whether he is in fact carrying a carrying a concealed firearm and nd the licensee must tell the officer where that firearm is in fact concealed indicating that the legislature in passing the act fully intended that firearms carried by licensees be in fact concealed within vehicles otherwise it would not have specified that the obligations of licensees include informing officers whether they have them or where they're hidden or if they were openly carried that those questions would be on those that information would be unnecessary now the some states  it that's right your honor that is i believe i cited that particular statute i can't tell you off the top of my head what it is but it's in one of my footnotes but it's obviously you know the entire regime here was crafted in response to the seven circuits holding in and more versus mad again that the illinois illinois firearms laws were unconstitutional in light of mcdonald heller and this legislation was on a timeline it was given leave it six months from the region in madigan versus more to come up with some kind of concealed carry legislation and when i was the last state in the union to endorse any kind of carry they resisted for best applied so officer safety is certainly a concern as we can see by subsection h the right to carry in a vehicle is indorsed but with the condition that that the weapon be hidden carrying on the public proved with the condition that it be mostly or entirely hidden from public view and i think that subsection h is is really telling in this regard because it it reflects both it balances the rights of an individual to in the most common sense manner in light of the entire statute as a whole as your authors talked about and in terms of the results that would obtain if the defendant's position correct and i outlined just a couple of intended especially considering the nd it was so resistant to any sort of carry legislation up until the point it was forced to do so by the simple circuit discussed briefly the now briefly in part two of our argument the court had some questions about the sufficiency you have a dense this is a classic case of the swearing verdict any discrepancies or any questionable testimony by officer fergus was addressed was cross examined and was considered by the trial judge and make their decision and the judge actually did make an express finding that she found that the defendant was not credible especially with respect to his testimony that he and his comrades were handcuffed behind a car while officer edwards conducted a search and watched them simultaneously she found that simply didn't make sense that officer for ursus decision to proceed as he did was really the only one he was the only one who could do with any safety because of the conversion crowd and the escalating situation the fact that there was a firearm and somebody had cannabis so under the circumstances the proof was certainly that quick and sufficient to uphold the verdict and we ask that this court for those reasons affirm the judge's thank you follows from that provision under my reading of the concealed firearm act you know it it's possible i'm not saying that a firearm you know has to be out in the open it's possible that a concealed firearm would not be visible to the officer it just doesn't have to be and so i think that that provision was included in zipper situations in which the firearm is not visible to the officer but i don't think that it necessarily follows from that that it that it has to be not visible from the to from the view of the officer i'm well i mean i think that when you look at that when you look at it on or about a person i mean i think that if you if you have a gun that's on the dashboard you know it there you can make an argument there that it's not readily accessible to you that it's not that you can't that provision which you know which applies to people on the street that sixty six dollars das sixty plus ten deg c that are the provision that provide applies to people on the street and in that provision they say that it has to be completely or mostly concealed from view of the public that portion of that combat language completely or mostly you know conceal from people the public is not included in the nd portion of that definition and so i think that i think that when you consider that when you consider that fact i think that i you know if a gun is if a gun is on your lap or something like that it's not the same thing as as walking down the street holding a gun in your hand it's a i think it's just to reflect the fact that there are two different universes and the universe  vehicles are different even though the and and you know it's a car and that is you know the car does discuss that but as i said there's numerous other decisions that say that when you see somebody with a gun you know they're obviously i'm not discounting you know the officers fear for their safety but there's case law in illinois says that you have to determine st whether they are in legal possession of that firearm and i would just like to know briefly that you know in the cases that i cited that you know these older cases interpret in honor about a person you know and in the or the cases i cited you know that they said that the firearm that was found underneath a leather coat next to where the defendant had been seated in his car was on or about bennett's person i just don't think that it really makes sense for these kind of cases to really turn on the fact that it's underneath a leather coat so it's not visible from view of the public i don't think that the legislator really intended for that to be the operative concern here and the people he would worth the gun was found partially proceeding out from underneath the defendant seat so you know if somebody is walking by they could have seen that gun and so i just don't think that based on the case law based on the definition i just don't think that the focus is on whether or not it's visible to the view of the public from somebody standing outside and if your honour's have no furthe