an advisory opinion because we are saying it is a matter of the song battery with a dangerous weapon cannot count as a crime of violence or guideline sentence and purposes section sixteen and the guidelines were all but the court also said that you can't have that you have to look at the different contexts and purposes of statutes in determining what the word use is and i think that one of the difference is is that for the mystery to domestic violence first of all that statute speaks simply in terms of use of physical force better than the definition on a crime of violence in the guidelines and in section sixteen talk about the use of physical force against the person of another which may impose a in more focused view of use and and  well massachusetts has defining to the fantasy as it doesn't say you have to use it in any particular way said oh i don't think that the if you touch someone with an ohm load it gone you have used a dangerous weapon but that doesn't mean that you have engaged in the kind of violent force that would be required to give you a crime of violence to make a song better a dangerous weapon a crime of violence you have both the intentional and reckless aspects and you have the force as x johnson one speaks of the kind of physical force that is required the intentional touching is not enough it has to be violent force that can be sufficient to cause bodily harm and an intentional touching with something that could be defined as a dangerous weapon does not necessarily rise to that level of force  perhaps there's a different analysis under the residual traumas where most of these cases were discussed but we are now focused on the elemental force clause and i think that that requires a more focused and different analysis looking at what is elementary required and the end of mathis into a calm have made that quite clear that we are only looking at the elements of an offense and that may qualify as a misdemeanor crime of violence in the domestic setting but is that really the kind of crossing that congress was trying to get it out in talking about rely on but there's also the division in the use of force the offensive touching and the crime for and reckless batteries that the massachusetts court has recognized is different now there are necessarily different elements because the massachusetts courts have said you do not need to distinguish between the intentional or whether it was form of assault and battery  must find in order to return a verdict is the way that you define what the elements of an offense are that that goes back to the way the supreme court has discussed it from as a crime of violence now it may seem counterintuitive that some of these offenses that we're talking about wouldn't be viewed as crimes of violence but we're looking at specific statute with a specific purpose and if congress needs perhaps needs to revisit this whole area and see how you actually deal with fifty different states that define their crimes in many different ways but right now we are bound by the supreme court's most recent discussions of these issues in mathis and income and they clearly say that the court is to look only at the elements of the offense to determine once whether it whether the elements of the offense established established the key requirement of use attempted use or threatened use of physical force against the person is another and if they don't  context where there is no longer the basis for their career better without a single predicate but then another person and i do this simply because it is important it worth noting that this is an offense that has spent a great deal of litigation we did an informal that the threat to put a gun against somebody would constitute an adequate show of force to be a threat of violent force but proceeding to actually touch them if it would not and essentially that's what they're asking the defendant is asking here is to distinguish a lesser included of throwing the plate at the wall at a not intending to hit the spouse but a shard hits the spouse and cordell bad same use of force it doesn't seem to be though that it's necessarily a useful force have a different meaning and i would argue that we wouldn't necessarily assume that they do and that's why the argument based on a use of force having a different meaning in one context another again question of the language which i think is an important one but just from a sort of starting dress the use of force against language in any of its iterations had been formally held that intentionality is required is one of the elements recklessness isn't enough and if the supreme court understanding of what the word use means says a lot about what they would think in other cases where that use of force language is used acknowledging that the additional right which provides some reason to come further for further consideration rather than a direct along intentional first reckless divide the defense counsel sort of suggesting that the that there's been doubt cast on that particular division i think that that's really not the case and in fact the as was pointed out in the briefing earlier in the case of the supplement way that we consider them you know is one is there an elemental subset by that is they can in certain instances look at them more broadly and in fact that saying that the