longer has authority to order the state police to issue a point card to someone who has been was barred by federal law from possessing firearms here because of petitioners battery conviction which resulted from an altercation with  the reason for the revocation was that the petitioner was barred by federal law from possessing a firearm and that's the case we have here there's no dispute that petition earth let me back up a second under federal law if you have a prior conviction for a misdemeanor yes there are a few different ways one is through there so the state system or whatever jurisdiction under which that conviction rose so if it's a state in fiction like you have here you can have that conviction removed in some way for example that that's another avenue for me typically generally under the statute it's not available here i believe because the rights at issue were not revoked in the first place i think i don't think there's a dispute here that a conviction in this case qualifies as a misdemeanor crime and mr violence for tisha and his brief concedes that it qualifies under the definition of a misdemeanor crime to mass violence under federal statute he did and you could make it a law enforcement officer that was just maybe somebody who was a hooker and he gets into an altercation with a teenage son strikes you charged and convicted  public policy behind the prohibition of firearms in the hands of domestic violence offenders really doesn't apply to that situation i mean that's not why the legislation is promot aware of a movement for some some legislation now in a way that would remedy that situation i know there exists a federal system has congress has provided a mechanism by which someone in that situation could apply to the s attorney general for relief but congress has not funded that system so one answer may be that on a federal level congressional funding of the system that would allow someone in that situation you describe to apply to the federal government and federal government i i believe in our state supreme court's reading of the federal system in corinth is that the feds have said the states should have some way to give relief opportunity to address the amended statute which wasn't even before that that's right and i think that's what you know my reading of that section is that those three justices believe that even under this system there is some  which is that right now as a system whether federal or further federal oversight would be necessary i can't say i just don't think we have a case that tells us just briefly on  banner said so as well as a little different context there was a federally licensed firearms dealer who'd had their license revoked but based on a prior conviction but if the dealer in that case made the same argument that guilty plea is not sufficiently reliable the supreme court said no that's not true he's guilty pleas are cornerstone of our criminal justice system they qualify they have the same full force and effect is it as a conviction by a jury trial   special concurrence is or a suggests that there could be a constitutional challenge here a factual situation like we have here in fact i think that's what if the court has no further questions thank you very much mr taylor this statute says seven twenty five i'll see it as five dash one twelve a dash eleven point one there's actually a whole mechanism whereby  leaders are tied in some loose or close way to domestic battery and you have a problem with all these people were young and pleading to a felony not knowing any better years later state police are