contrary federal law in this case the petitioner matthew flood and applied to the state police under under the floyd act in order to get a point card state police are denied floods of application on it because you've been convicted for a battery and th or a no defense at all to the petition but then denied the motion it's moot so the primary issue on appeal is that is whether or not the circuit court had abused its discretion when it denied state police motion intervene as a matter of right state police and the with terminations of the issuance of white card while ministerial while a ministerial function should have the same about purpose as the moultrie county state's attorney that is they each act in their official capacity to represent the interests of the people of the state of illinois as they are equally sworn to uphold forceful laws of the state of illinois then in finding number for estates there or the court cannot find that the interest for them is fit lease is not adequately represented by the military county state's by that logic what the the frog court is saying is that there can never be intervention by the illinois state police because as long as there is a county representation whether or not the whatever the existing party is adequately represents the state police now already we have a binding authority here in the appellate court twice over looking at almost identical circumstances which said that yes the state police aren't it's entitle to types of petition and when someone goes under section ten to challenge the state police order that is under section ten they can either go under an administrative process under the director of the state police or they can run to court they go to court the state police is the defendant but court has twice looked in almost identical circumstances and found that it is an abuse of discretion to deny the state police intervention in order to challenge just this type of work when he is directing the state police to issue for even though the state police already found proceedings but the court need in reach that issue we do raise it here that is an alternative basis for us came for us to challenge the march tenth order but because it's so clear already under appellate court authority that we  party and figure with which seemingly they do the vigor with which they enforce or try to represent those those interests and that would be you know depending on the backs of another case we would have we would look at whether or not we are we were to be entitled as a believe the court needs to reach that issue unless the court has any questions about that issue i'm just going to rest an argument and briefs on the issue of nonprofit standing if the court agrees with us we do ask the court for their certainly that the court should be able to address that question first the problem the march tenth order is he issued an order already against the state police to issue a forty card without making that finding out addressing whether or not issuing it the country but what law indeed appeals both the denial of its intervention but also asked this court to rule on merits of a question of the court below didn't actually address because it dismissed as moves the motion today so our position at least with regard weighs in favor of bias i think there that it does the winders case out of thirty districts and then also the bailey case out of this district to the extent those cases are potentially distinguishable i would argue that they both were the result of the trial clearly applying an incorrect standard other than section four away day two of the code of civil procedure  the instance of winders the court imposed a sort of strict thirty day requirement of timeliness which that doesn't really exist in the case law and then also dismissed intervention on the basis of a perceived answer did justice harris's question the i guess i would say that the courts comments regarding the  court i guess the question was whether the say police should be forever denied from intervening in the case my response would i guess be that those comments go to the adequacy prong of obsession or a way to the judge i guess wins was concerned about issues of encroachment by the state police on the autonomy in authority of the state's attorney and after all that the statute does only designate the state's attorney as the respond reminded with instructions that they be allowed to intervene there was no going to the merits of the post judgment motion or anything like that we think that would be appropriate in this case so we for the reason say in our brief i will span our to issue indians for each of the districts reminding the circuit courts that since the two thousand and thirteen amendments they have to make that finding out they don't have discretion to issue one hundred even though it would be contrary to the federal gun control a