in may please assignable court by name is john walters and i represent the people the state of illinois in the matter before in this particular case the circuit court judge invalidated the entirety of the aggravated unlawful use of weapons in the watershed case of hello versus district of columbia and this case is the watershed case on the second amendment the the united states supreme court made clear that this was the first meaningful examination of the meaning of the second amendment and in in that mean first meaningful examination the court essentially define the terms of the sacraments right in so doing they located their right in the rights is a ri not pertain to it gave these examples people that are felons people that are mentally ill and again this is this is including but not limited to the seventh circuit looked upon that decision and actually noted that there are other individuals to whom second amendment right does not pertain to and among these are children are minors the but the seventh circuit opinion did not invalidate the entirety of the a statute in fact in the last paragraph or so all the seventh circuit exhorted the state of illinois the illinois general assembly to enact reasonable reasonable regulation on the rights to publicly carry a firearm outside in this court's decision which followed this court's decision of people versus aguilar which was issued actually thirteen months ago this court did not invalidate the entirety of the statute which would have made all the sense in the world if that's what the seventh circuit had done but this court was quite particular in limiting its hold to the class for for a what's really telling about that is that there's a class to four of the of the same effects that involves probably carrying firearms but this class two form of the offense only applies to people with with prior felony convictions and the court point you pointed did not address the validity of that particular provision it did rule however that section eighty three a as applied to well the aguilar's a right to publicly carry a firearm and there is a right that belongs to law abiding responsible citizens now the court the circuit court in this case struck two provisions in particular that do not have anything to do with the rights of minors in the state it is nothing to do with the rights of law abiding responsible citizens adults of the state these provisions seek to seek to inforce the division that was  responsible these two provisions are valid they seek to seek to promote the public safety of the citizens of the state by ensuring that firearms are not in the twenty seven but the record indicates that he was charged with a discrepancy here possibly or i'm not aware of it but but if your honor is noted yes the minor in this case was charged with unlawful possession of a fire just for clarification he was so in charge so charged with that struck by the supreme court in this case which are all with respect to the aid of the statute what's what's interesting to note though about the unlawful possession of firearms that is one of the one of the issues taken up by th aguilar thirteen months ago was the rights of minors to to publicly carry firearms or to possess firearms in this court said that in the strongest possible terms that it was obvious i have the protection of the second amendment to carry firearms that that's this court's on ruling for thirteen months ago and so as applied to this particular individual this might respond state but that was an issue that was not it could not have been in this court's mind when it made a ruling about of the statutory provision being facially unconstitutional and keep in mind that the difference between something being as applied and facial is that if there's any circumstance whatsoever under which it a provision can be valid as applied in those particular set of circumstances in the state you cannot be facially unconstitutional so we  this was this was a situation that this court could not have been aware of at the time it ruled an area where was it wasn't presented with anything like this set of facts where in addition to this being a miner who could not be bothered to get an  id card this was a minor who had a who had been given a second chance at rehabilitation had been given in order probation and six and explicitly spelling out that he was not to possess a firearm and if he went out and publicly possessed a fire anyway with respect as applied so this particular new individual this is not the conduct of a law abiding responsible citizen is exactly the opposite of law abiding conduct as in question so that it can be clear  your argument and i think you sent two different things one is the fact that he had been convicted or is a minor been found to have violated a misdemeanor statute with that was a misdemeanor that's one argument and second argument is that he was on probation and violated the order that he not have a weapon which is it is it both is one one we should focus on of the other the point i think to focus on is that he was on probation but there was an order issued by a judge of the state that he disregarded that work and therefore did not engage in law abiding conduct and therefore did not have a second amendment right if he doesn't have a second amendment right in the statute cannot be invalid under the second amendment it's just alternately it's a matter of applying logic to this this particular set of facts i think the focus then is more on the fact that there's a there's a l out there that's being disregarded rather than the the prior prior adjudication of warship under which this minor has been found ali that the provision could be valid and i would point out that your honors have accepted appeal late in the case of people versus burns that addresses exactly this point this tension between whether the statute is unconstitutional or whether it might be validly applied in certain circumstances particularly felons that's the that's the as i understand of the exact issue presented to you in in the burns  by the mere fact that he was on probation was prohibited from carrying a firearm from possessing carrying a firearm and actually the court applied strict scrutiny to that to that provision and yet still found it to be valid and in that case i believe that the individual was on probation for this demeanor i'm not i'm not completely positive about that i do know that i did cite other cases where individuals were had committed misdemeanor document of course is the second amendment but really the other source document that we have is the hard decision because that's that's the decision that unlocks the meaning of the second amendment and in that in that case the court made very clear this distinction this right belong to the law abiding responsible citizens and a right that did not pertain to those who present a high risk of danger to themselves and other people by carrying firearms this is a very responsible line drawn by the united states supreme court be the provisions an issue here again seek to seek to enforce that provision and by the same token our argument with respect to to section eighty three a is of the same it's cut of the same cloth it's from the same logic and that is that those that are not law abiding do not have a right to threaten the public safety of others that they are not the people who the second amendment trusts to publicly carry firearms to  and actually nothing that i say here today impacts or impinges on any way on the law abiding responsible citizens of the state to possess into publicly carry ready to use firearms nothing that i say nothing none of my arguments impinge on those rights whatsoever my argument today to you is directed soley to those that are not law abiding that are not responsible and present a heightened risk to to the people of the state applied to this limited circumstance where there is not a law abiding responsible individual and that this court then remand this case for for further consideration the state chose to charge jordan g under the aggravated on lawful use of a weapons section of the statute which has a blanket prohibition against anyone under the age of twenty one from case under this statute and without lation the probation the second amendment recognizes that the right to bear arms is fundamental and clickable to all here the circuit court recognized that the w statute there requires parental consent for anyone under the age of twenty one to obtain a forty eight card and the prohibition from any person under the age of twenty one from lawfully possess firearm in public are impermissible restrictions on the rights guaranteed by the second amendment in illinois the age of majority is eighteen therefore it is  based on the statute a person under the age of twenty want cannot lawfully possess a firearm he can only possess it in one of two circumstances if he is engaged in hunting or if he is a member of a license  licensed club or organization created for shooting at targets but he must have before he can only get a four car with the written written consent of a parent gardening that parent or guardian must be able to get a four card on their blanket prohibition that prevented aid to base restriction violates the second amendment and is unconstitutional so there is no age restriction it could be constitutional given that the concerns about people eighteen to twenty one how does he have standing to do that you are not because he was charged under the this law and aguilar this court knew in the beginning of his decision noted that if the person charged doesn't have standing who does and here jordan he was charged and as i was thinking about this if the charge is the right to vote not the right to vote is the court if there was a statute that place restrictions on those under the age of twenty one we would not have any problem saying that that's not right and we will strike the statute and that's the same situation was presented with here the second amendment as the heller and mcdonald tell us is a core fundamental right and this statute as it is written for those under the age of twenty one i unconstitutional patiently it doesn't matter what we do with the application because there's something here that is star by our sensibilities the state are used somewhat differently in terms of the sense of just as so so the minor in this case additionally says heller and mcdonald tell us that we need to look to his the historical context where the second amendment was in  the age of one hundred one hundred fifty years before the last to some was written and sixteen fifteen sixteen year olds were expected to bear arms and be able to engage in war so the right it is conceivable that sixteen year olds have was that true at the time of the constitution was adopted but that was considered  writer or conduct right under twenty one's to bear on connection with the right given a second amendment the right it was true and sixteen fifty and if we employ the historical analysis of the state asserts the thousand under the age of twenty one are less mature and more likely to harm others this is an argument that the mcdonnell court rejected when he stated that the right to keep and bear arms as those other rights have controversy or public safety implications here the state charged jordan's you with validation of the egg into the statute created to reduce gang violence by making it impossible for someone under the she is outside walking needs percent protection in that circumstance as much and if not more than the person on the third floor of a high rise apartment in their home to limit the right to bear arms did not validate the rest of the statute those actions were not litigated in the case in jordan g was charged with aggravated i'm lawful use of a weapon because he was under twenty one and he they held the court ruled out rational basis as a part of the school as stated in mcdonnell the right to bear arms is a fundamental right fundamental right fundamental rights require a showing that the statute is justification for creating this legislation it's contrary to the decision the more the second amendment has the saying right that all young adults even those living in high crime areas and who are the most the my response position is inherently contradictory if a provisional only applies to a certain group of individuals in this case under twenty one it can't be a blanket prohibition but it was a blanket prohibition that was involved in the war decision because it flatly applied to everyone in the responsible along with everyone else that's what made it a blanket prohibition and if you noticed section eighty three is is a little bit different than these other provisions these other provisions a specifically apply to a defined group be the floyd card provision only applies to those that don't have enough id card the under twenty one provision obviously it's of the fine only applies to those that are under twenty one this is not a blanket prohibition it's so it can't be asserted that it is a blanket prohibition just because it applies to a a defined group with respect to the rights or the age of majority the the defining the general in chief of the united states of america in the first president united states of america george washington decided that the ideal age for young soldiers to begin service was eighteen not sixty and it was not upon his advice at the first congress the united states an act of the federal militia act which you get started with age eighty not sixty but this is extremely important because as i've already argued that is of already pointed out this statute based in in this court's own language you are is undeniably valid as applied to sixteen year olds this court has said as recently as  that individual cannot assert the rights of others that this statute may or may not be conceivably apply to others if the statute can be validly applied to that to that individual or individuals similarly situated and in this case there's no doubt that this that this provision that a provision barring firearm use and possession by those under the age of eighteen can be validly applied to the sixteen the just tissue billeted of the particular argument that my respondent is raising to you is a question for this court to decide really must be decided before this court engages in the question of whether the rights of eighteen to twenty year olds are involved but if the court does somehow find that the issues just fishable there is no doubt that this provision can be applied to eighteen to twenty year old because the common law because president george washington because the first congress the united states of america record recognizes the age of majority was twenty one and not eighteen and that the the change in illinois law to reflect an age of majority in eighteen primarily the effect of the vietnam war i believe constitutional amendments enabling eighteen year olds to vote again that was that was by force constitutional amendment but second of all that's a fairly recent in terms of the history of the united states and seven hundred ninety two it's a fairly recent modification in fact really irrelevant for the purposes of the meaning of the second amendment which is an act of seventy nine two united states supreme court looks to the intent at the time that the that the provision that that the amendment was enacted that's what governs and in this case the common law the authorities that i've mentioned recognized that the age of majority was twenty one if if you are to look at examine the rights of eighteen to twenty year olds i want to just clarify something it is not impossible for each new twenty year olds to be too used to very few barmes under certain circumstances while there may not be a constitutional right the general assembly here has provided many opportunities for those eighteen to twenty year old eighteen to twenty to bear keep arms usually under the guise of also expressed it does not apply the age of the statute expressly does not apply to certain employments that require the use of a firearm like serving as a peace officer serving as a deputy sheriff it doesn't apply members of the military  these these provisions do not ultimately result in a situation where eighteen to twenty year olds are blanket be prohibited under all circumstances from bearing keeping in arms quite the contrary there number of exceptions amendment right is a right that belongs to the law abiding and responsible citizens of the state of illinois and to the fifty states it is not a right of those who present a high risk of danger to the people and with that  one question yes you are you are you in that juvenile who's been adjudicated delinquent and or violates in violation of the juvenile probation has forfeited their second amendment rights who best of their life  don't for instance the the authority carpet act i think allows for an application even under circumstances where there's been a prior conviction well clearly in this case we're dealing with a minor but with respect to this particular section a three a and it's it's politically validity as applied to this particular minor given the circumstances this minor is not law that's what makes a three a valid as applied to this particular mine with respect to that particular