they had a very odd reasoning in there while admitting that the legislation legislature can draft for a statute every eventuality that happened so possession let's say of a firearm someone goes through all of weapon out of someone's hand about ready to commit suicide the person who's saving that would be a suicide victim happens to be an ex felon i think the suggestion of the court was that if you have that kind of an absurd circumstance for prosecution has actually gone forward the jury is going to do the right thing ultimately it will apply to common sense i think that that's what the court was saying in team well plus rid of it as quickly as reasonably possible and that's exactly what army and did and that's what he testified to in team or you had a guy had been driving around in a car with a loaded gun there was testimony he brought the gun into an apartment he'd been carrying the gun around he had the gun for days so there's really there's not the same situation our situation is much closer to a mason where did the defendant did find again and as soon as reasonably possible because if you note from the record there was an altercation at his apartment before that and as soon as reasonably possible he did go to the police station without carrying the gun with him near the las vegas academy and that probably wouldn't be the best time to start looking at the gun and with that is a school for gifted students in the arts so there's a wide range of ages age group that goes there and that's what he was looking at but in any case i still believe that team or is advocating a jury nullification system because they're saying why would they have to be instructed and juries do what the judge tells them to do if the judge tells them there's no defense they're not going to consider when they're not supposed to consider one and this court that jerry does look to the court for instruction on how to interpret a statute a strict liability statute basically and that brings me to the second case united states versus gilbert before you get to gilbert you brought up the magic words in my view this is a strict liability statute what is wrong with strict liability we see strict liability in the largest category of federal crimes that being possession of drugs of illicit drugs and it's never this this court is never crafted or a rule that if there's an innocent possession of drugs under the same circumstances the defendant gets a pass if the strict liability statute was something that had been held for one hundred years in common law i could see that but this was a legislatively created statute that excuse me does not take into account every eventuality and sometimes weird things do happen and when those things happen you have to at least instruct the jury on what may fall outside the penumbra of that strict liability statute and that's what's happening in this case and in mason they recognize the fact that well for example they said  s we don't always do what is reasonable we shouldn't be punished for not always doing what is reasonable to me and did what he could do as soon as he could and that the his testimony upholds that the police testimony upholds that that he did go to the station and report it he didn't take it with him he left it right we left it right on top of the bat he didn't hide it and he just wanted to get rid of the thing he knew it was trouble for him so want somebody to do if they found a gun near a school to move it away from the school and that's exactly what he did maybe he did the right maybe should have just left it there for some kid to pick up but he didn't do that or called police and so forth  from with them well with their phones around it strikes me that the word knowing knowing procession that's the key is that to do that however the government would suggest that under the unique facts of this case that certainly is not necessary in this case the facts of this case in the district court grappled with this  really should never be given in the government's view for a lot of reasons decided by the gilbert court and almost has to be your argument that should never be given what i would like to ruling in this case that such an instruction if it were the law of the circuit was not warranted under the under the special scenario every eight and instruction a defense not entitled to every legal instruction that they request there has to be keep the community safe he only had to the farms in that case of for a few minutes ten to fifteen minutes he was on his way to a friend's residence or been it's to take them to the police station they're the court upheld the district cour that saving the school children isn't enough even if you take this defendant's viewpoint and what had happened and what he did and the responsive that if if when the facts of this case would justify warrant such an instruction then then virtually the facts of any case would be given the all the parameters if the defendant had that opportunity to surrender this that it will become i mean i would i would hope that it would not after your hearts decide the history let me let me just ask you straight out you you open your argument by saying that if pressed the government's argument would be that this is not a viable defense of this defense should not be recognized in the circuit but you're also in the argument arguing the facts basically making injury argument what is your threshold argument here is your threshold that we should join the first fourth and seventh circuits or is it that the facts of this case simply did not do not merit this instruction i would ask the court  himself and rushes over and and grabs a firearm out of that the individual's hand and and has a for a period of time a few minutes while looking for a place to dispose of and whatever are you going to recommend prosecution isn't a usa in that case under those facts i anticipated this question in my preparation i would not recommend prosecution however if i had if the courts found why wouldn't sense just dictates you would not prosecute in that case just as each other cases say that the jury ever gets ahold of a case like that they're going to they're going to acquit the defendant just because of the facts and valcke i want to urge that to the court but i was can't there be a defense a commonsense defense of innocent possession because there's no common law statutory crime time and i would point out that  in our district anyway prosecutors have charged where the defense is that somebody was trying to keep somebody from committing suicide they have charged it so maybe mr reed would not charge it but it has been charged our district  so the jury needs to be told i'm not saying it's going to fly with the jury i'm just saying they need to be told what the defenses are and if you go to hendricks if you go to team or and you go to gilbert towards a police station with all this stuff and in a backpack he was walking away from the police station our guy did the right thing leaving that gun at home and going to report it to the police of course he's not going to call the police from