amendment but the first question this court must answer is one of statutory interpretation does the unlawful use of a weapon set you ban the carriage of some guns and tasers or merely regulate the manner in which they can be carried and the pla language of that sat you unambiguously does not then the carriage of stun guns and tazers it allows for the legal carriage of those weapons so long as the carrier has a valid concealed carry license and carries the weapon in accordance with the concealed carry and it could have used the language it used to ban those types of weapons to ban the carriage of stun gun tasers it didn't include them with handguns in a section of the statute that allows for the legal carriage of those weapons and there is a second matter of statutory interpretation of course because the concealed carry act defines concealed weapons to exclude stun guns and tazers so this court is tasked with harmonizing those two statutes  its definition of concealed weapon and say that well therefore under for example section sixty five section seventy which banned the carriage of concealed weapons under the handguns in a certain sense of locations or while specifically excludes two users and stun guns from its airport commission i mean it's pretty counterintuitive and i don't think it is your honor for a couple of reasons first off is section eighty four of the unlawful use of a weapon statute that defendant has been charged with violating that gives rise to his criminal charges in this case and that subsection of u w explicitly says it doesn't apply to weapons that are carried in accordance doing i think we we have the plain language of the on lawful use of a weapon statute which is of course our best guide as to what the legislature did to them what they said is that it doesn't apply if you've got a valid conceal crafted with handguns in mind before allowing them to legally carry a sun gun or taser however the concealed carry requires instruction and lessons and sixteen hours of work and mental well being but even the instruction on the instruction includes instruction on when someone can legally use a weapon for self defense under illinois law how to interact safely with law  enforcement carrying a concealed weapon a report from the instructor on whether the applicant follows instructions can safely handle a dangerous weapon these are other lethal weapons than handguns but you know safe handling of these weapons not pointing them at someone carelessly for example are relevant considerations and it's not unreasonable once you have a concealed carry license you have license under illinois law to carry a already existed which provided licensing which provided background checks and instruction on the law and so on to cover even the more lethal self defense weapon a handgun and so this  someone has a valid concealed carry license so by its terms by its plain language which you know is this part always reiterate it's best indicator of the legislature's inten carry well the concealed carry act was initially and acted out in response to more of humanity and which dealt with the specific question of allowing some form of regulated know relationship between these two stations i do think that there is that this court is tasked with determining how to harmonize the concealed carry out and the on lawful use of the weapons handguns and the court we're reasonably possible has undertaken that task in a way that preserves the constitutionality of the statute if it chooses to adopt defendants approach which is to say that somehow in creating a licensing scheme to allow for the concealed carry of handguns that that bans the carriage of safely with law enforcement while you're carrying a concealed weapon that doesn't change depending on whether it's a handgun or stun gun or tazer the marksmanship proficiency training is specific to handguns but of course different kinds of handguns would require different kinds of specific training to demonstrate proficiency with them and the bill would be to hit a target seventy percent of the time with one kind of handgun doesn't demonstrate that one could hit a target seventy percent of the time with a much larger handgun or much larger caliber handgun the state hasn't determined that back kind of proficiency training specific to the weapon you intend to carry is necessary to ensure its interest in the safe carriage  weapons it's not unreasonable for the state to have said look you have to have a seal carry license which gives us a contemporaneous background check which ensures that you have received instruction on the law self defense in illinois on how to interact with  police which put you through a firearm training program that is going to instruct you on the safe handling of deadly weapons even if it's the more we saw handgun rather than the now we feel that that but if you've done those things if you've got a concealed carry license if you've acquired a license to conceal carry a handgun then we're not going to apply the unlawful use of a weapon statute to your taser stun gun either trying to take other things out there other things and where they don't fit i don't for shiner just to clarify it's clear throughout the throughout the states legislation but the fact that even in the c c a they felt the need to clarify that what they did finest and see a weapon which is handgun and that handgun doesn't include stun guns or tasers but the people absolutely can see that you can see a carry act it's if it defines handguns which is what the the license was originally designed to allow for the legal carriage of it defines handguns as not including stun guns and or tazers but that doesn't mean that the general assembly couldn't subsequently say we're not going to apply criminal liability under the unlawful use of weapons that you if you've got one of these out there is work to be done harmonizing those two undoubtedly because the plain language of the two statutes is in some apparent conflict but it is possible to reasonably harmonize them in a way that preserves the a complete ban into the unlawful use of a weapon set you where it's plain language doesn't in act one would be contrary to this court's ordinary approach especially for interpretation  is that the unlawful use of weapon statute is playing and unambiguous and specifically allows the killing of tasers and stun guns as long as it's in accordance with the concealed carry and you have a concealed carry license we don't think that's right it's not plain and unambiguous at all what the statute says just pick it up and quote it here is that it's unlawful use act me and we don't think that that means what the state means that it means of the weapons that are mentioned in the unlawful use of a weapon act in that section what it means is weapons that can be and i being carried in accordance with concealed carry act and as your honor said pointed out that specifically excludes stun guns so we think it's plain the other way and that it doesn't include things that cannot be carried under the concealed weapons act and that you can just stop there because we all agree that if the statute does not allow concealed carry a stun guns and tazers that isn't constitutional on its face there's no dispute about that but if you think that this is thank you us your honors i think you have to look further to the entire statutory scheme that deals with the unlawful use of weapons and look specifically at the aggravated unlawful use of weapon statute which is one or two sections away from this and that and the illinois legislature at that point that's when in twenty thirteen when the legislature adopted the concealed carry out the legislature which in their own eye has always been resistant to any kind of concealed carry of weapons and when i had the strictest laws in the nation the legislature decided we're only going to allow handguns to be concealed carry because that was the only kind of weapon that at that point was subject to second amendment protections and that it created a two categories it's sad it's unlawful to carry a concealed pistol revolver there are taser or other firearm and it's  a pistol or handgun it was an aggravating condition only if you didn't have a concealed carry permit so he aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute specifically distinguished between tasers some the one hand which if you carry them in your backpack as one of the defendants allegedly did and it's ready to be used that is still today aggravated unlawful use of a weapon so how can it be that the legislature has said it's a felony to have concealed carry of a stun gun but it's not a misdemeanor can't be charged just in this demeter and draw unlawful use that just doesn't make sense it doesn't make any more sense as your honor said it's pretty counterintuitive the face allowed you in the concealed carry act to carry a handgun but not a stun gun but now we're told that you're allowed to carry one couple moves to include tasers and have a special statute for tasers that would have training that would tell you how to use a taser because this state says people think that they're not lethal but they can be lethal so you do need special sad for the first time that tasers are subject to the second amendment so what happened here if you look at the arc of what happened is that in twenty thirty mm the illinois general assembly decided ok we're going to do what we have to do and create a statute that allows concealed carry of handguns the only weapons that then were found to have been protected by the second amendment and then later on it made this change in twenty one would assume so your honor that that assuming that the state doesn't want to allow everyone to carry a taser and wants to regulate it as and we're not saying that the state can't regulate it a vat it i should also mention that in two thousand and thirteen at the state says by the way don't look at the law for your statute because they weren't charged under that statute but that doesn't make any sense because the statutes if two statutes have to be harmonized it's got to be aggravated assault rifle use which is a felony and the mr meter on lawful use and you can't be guilty of a felony but not a misdemeanor that just doesn't make any sense at all it's also notable  twenty thirteen the unlawful use of a weapon statute there are exemptions in twenty four to that were amended and that amendment says that the unlawful use doesn't apply to a revolver pistol or a handgun that is carried by somebody with a concealed carry license so in twenty thirteen the legislature not only did the the concealed carry law but they asked so amended both the aggravated unlawful use a weapon statute and the unlawful use of a weapon statute to make it clear that if you are carrying a handgun and we are licensed to carry a handgun and you're doing it properly that you cannot be charged with either mr mean or family so the stay the stay just trying to defend a statutory scheme that just doesn't work and if you look at the plain language and you look at the plain language of the entire unlawful you statutes you can see that they do not allow a person to conceal carry a stun gun and then we have t a problem with the concealed carry statute and i think counsel said well you can interpret it two different ways you can say well i hearing aid it was the conceal permit and it doesn't matter if you carry the stun gun in accordance with the concealed carry act which is of course with the unlawful use of weapons the exemption they rely on says but how do can be what anybody intended if we look at when i walked into the building this morning they're still here because this signal of the gun with the with the red slash through it saying do not bring a handgun on these premises the simply provides for that type of fame that's on buildings government buildings it's stores it's all over the place but it's a handgun and it's a picture of a handgun does that mean somebody can bring a tas i mean here of course not you wouldn't want that so well is to have the general assembly fix the problem not to have this court basically twist itself into knots to lawful useful weapons that you does not cut in there in their favor and this court need not look to another statute under which it was not charged in order to determine the sets that points to the fact that there are sort of two questions here there is this question of is it a complete ban in a factor is that a regulation and then second if the people are right that that it acts as a regulation that if fix of applying the c c a to someone then tasers would would in fact create a constitutional regulatory regime but if the court holds that that there is no way to harmonize those two statutes xen with specific stun gun taser training would be necessary in order to create a reasonable regime under the second amendment or as the people have argued that having a single licensing machine even if it requires handgun training when you weapon statute together whether that creates a constitutional regulatory regime and there is certainly a sense of briefing from both parties on on whether it does whether the requirement for firearm training  some additional training on the more we saw of those two weapons and but that that question is in front of this court as part of this because as mentioned the ultimate question here is whether the unlawful use of the weapons actually does apply to s