have been restored as a matter of federal law first there is no dispute in this case that plaintiff has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of plastic violence second there is therefore an order and nor is there any dispute that section nine twenty two g nine of the federal gun control act applies to a player under section nine twenty two g not a person is for hit as a matter of federal law from owning or possessing firearms if that provided for to  effect should be able to figure out whether the plaintiff is barred as a matter of federal law for possessing guns that is true the trial court for require the state police to tell the federal authorities that plaintiff is not barred from possessing guns and that's not true as a matter of illinois law off as a matter of state here state bar as it existed at the time the and in fact the state police can immediately revoke any point card and it's because of that right now nonetheless nonetheless the circuit court took the act the problem is that the circuit court took the extra step of requiring the state police to tell sure and it didn't appear to me in their cases that i was reading that it's necessarily a settled issue but the restoration of the right this assumes under a state state statute is a restoration of the civil right but i think there are cases that argue that there might be some cases that argue that it is but the supreme court has made clear that the restoration of rights that are relevant to that are three right the conviction expunged has been pardoned for has had a restoration of civil rights why step restoration of civil rights provides that the person still kept his ass fire are another workers the last already do this is correct so i'm having trouble with your claim that restoration of gun rights is not restoration so i'm not saying it's not a restoration of a civil right there's many civil rights but the way no one on the rise and you can't meet it's inconsistent state by state would not be correct that's correct and logan specifically said that's ok that is that is that it definitely is you know probation has not been funded so in practice there is nothing they can do so in practice what practical hoops or steps taken you need to turn to under state law how can you have your values self up in one twenty one thirty t talking about there and therefore it stick to the court u s supreme court has never been faced with the exact question of are these the only three right and they say well been on that side and this court that it is has has refused to appropriate the dollars to permit the executive branch to do the very thing that congress told him that he she did and every and every congress since that has also refused to appropriate  going and there's no dispute here that under illinois law a trial court which you can see has restored in one sense his right no i don't believe so when this when corrine went to the supreme court the argument was that the statute was unconstitutional and that's how it was brief and you can see this in the facts related in the concurring opinion and in the dissent that some of the facts if they attach to your side are facts for instance that core made this admission or corin believe that his rights were not addressed under the illinois law ford act those rights could  down i said well that's my argument i've been making in court the supreme court came up with this argument on their own that there is not a constitutional issue and as argued and presented it's not if it's not reported to the federal database then there is a serious constitutional issue  get to that later but it's not a constitutional problem it's there is a merging between the two and i think with the concurring opinion my undergraduate degree was in philosophy and studying two thousand years of human thinking i going to conclusion that there's a huge number of arguments and disagreements that have to do with nuances in language whether it's the understand the meaning or the competition and i think that's where the concurring opinion in a lead opinion seems to pull apart from one another but they're that's a revocation or prohibition you can get relief under that law in order to do that you have to have your rights restored under illinois law and you get your point just as connect once that's done and the federal laws place that in the hands of the state to determine the restoration of the civil rights then it's by operation of law as counsel even said the prohibition goes away and i think the concurrence sort of missed that nuance because they agree on the one hand it can be restored but they say we're not restoring a federal probation and to some sense they're right but i think they agree with the lead on that there's a difference between same there is a federal probation over here that you cannot undo  can impose on the federal authority and the concurrent seem to assume that's what lead opinion was arguing but that's not what they were arguing they were saying that the federal statute gives us authority under section one hundred one to do the very thing we've done and none of those states have afforded like ours that takes away your right and gives it back after determination by a court so the cases cited by counsel dealing with this issue about rights and federal rights are an applicable not exactly the dissent clearly believes that because the senate clearly does what the concurring opinion says just as verb says it's an open matter or it's between the individual the federal court my argument is that's true but the federal  courts are the federal laws already spoken one twenty one says once the state does this then you goes away so we're not this is the point i was trying to make earlier we're not telling the federal government we're going to your territory and taking away one of your prohibitions we're saying that we've determined under the the second point card that was issued to him to the gun vendor the vendor and his number and said no it's not valid what's because it was a report of the database that's a ministerial affair and that's my problem and it gets back to just a statement originally asked isn't this about requiring the state police to report to the federal database that illinois done its job and says no we've restored this person's rights we've dealt with hard expunging our rights are restored for instance this is the state police's argument if the governor pardons do we have to get federal permission that that's ok or if it's expunged we need a federal affirmation that's ok it's the same thing with restoration of rights so off i'm curious is that the state police reports this database that illinois has restored his says this is the state's venue the state's purview not the federal government there and this is my problem with the concurring opinion to inquire and they say well they need to go to the federal government to get it done you know the federal government says you go to  they report if they report to the federal database that and i don't have a picture of the database i don't know what it says it may say mr khan our ineligible to misdemeanor battery conviction they say that that disabilities been removed by the state of illinois but i don't expect the federal government say nothing about it because under their own laws it's not their purview under their laws it's the states through terminal this is really the state's right issue and that's your state is permitted state they're looking at wisconsin and minnesota massachusetts law carried which massachusetts allows it to do it and even they gave some of the rights back but as corum said they didn't get all the firearm rights back the only give a couple guns back the language of the court added so that there's no question about that this is the new state of illinois concerns under state concerns the plaintiffs rights will see the problem is you're suggesting that from the feds point of view that means this language words that distinguish between the state federal especially given  maybe this purports to be a statement by the state trial court as far as the federal law is concerned well i think abuse of purpose to be honest if for instance i were to say well it would be surprise if it was your unnecessary then what would be the harm of including it well when this one came apart there came one gun court we had walked in and i said hey mike they gave my client a foid card judge and you said to make it usable and valid it's not in this well there's a hick up in the system and i got them to admit finally that they didn't actually turn it into the database so that's when they tried to ask the judge well you don't want to you want to pretend there's no crime and so should the judge look to me  no we're not asking that we're asking you to restore his rights which is what you've already ruled back in may the crete months before she had made it explicit that if the two thousand and eleven order wasn't enough for you attorney general we told you in may those rights are being restored for may to august the attorney general foch putting that language in they didn't want to say that the court could reinstate your rights restore your rights to firemen emission under illinois law so that's why i said just put in there you restore the rights of the judges not taking that we didn't take the position that we can the federal government like to do but the federal government in this in we did talk about nine twenty one which i think in the d o j brief they said it wasn't mention we talked about one twenty one in one thousand two extensive giving that corum came out afterwards somewhat of a p a correct statement the fact is that but it's also correct to say that his rights have been restored to possess firearms and ammunition the jurisdiction and authority of the circuit court as is based on our firearm owners of what act and so again i think it's a might suggest well are are they trying to limit the restoration well normally the the records have no control over what the feds there were and how they view what we do so that would mean  and and i would not want them to that this is where they might be able to parse that and say well there was some sort of limitation here because maybe they're not addressing each and which is the federal probation for domestic violence and so by making it plen we're restoring his rights again doesn't hurt necessarily i'm not trying to avoid a consequence i know that that really didn't go through my mind when i wrote when i suggest that language i just figured that was the plenary whole language  foley when they brought that into the last hearing i had no notice of it she asked me if i wanted to delay it and briefer up i said no it doesn't affect my client whatsoever the amendment was to i believe section ten something for  before before it said intent be the court shall not do anything contrary to federal law that was already existence and the concurrent opinion justice burke said that the attorney general's argument that well we can give you relief under eight ten which relates to the federal domestic violence that's allowable but then under the broader paragraph the not contradict federal law because of the domestic violence we have to deny it to you is just in his words nonsense it's a circular argument they're trying to tie you to unrelated statutes together to say that the federal government in the  agreed that we can give you really for domestic violence but then you know you can't have it because of domestic violence there is no independent federal violation of any law this prohibition came about solely because of this one misdemeanor conviction once released ran into that there is no other federal law that's contrary and the federal law itself is a contrary because it says you can have relief if these things are done so the only real question is they don't want to restore his right your the question you asked counsel about that is the interpretation i had there may be some rights have been taken away and if those rights are restored maybe it's the right to vote or jury or hold office and those are going to be restored but like many states don't also at the same time restore the right to bear arms then a separate unless notice can be given it doesn't imply that those rights have to be the ones that are restored or lost that one of the cases side of the council booth meyer he only lost two of the three big ones they still don't know that we don't have to tell him that his right to jury's been restored he never lost it so i think it is right or recognize that a right you like constitution recognizes that a right and that's what you are once the length to say in all these are the cases where we're dealing with the arm career criminal act we're trying to determine whether or not there are rights restored for purposes of determine the penalties enhanced and all these for multiple convictions not one of those cases involve someone appling for individualized assessment as we do on our board act which mirrors the federal statute to determine whether you're a danger to society and so that's why i don't believe we would be stuck with this mr connor you've lost your rights because of domestic violence mr connor we've examined you and determined that in using similar analysis of the federal government would use that you are not a danger to society we're going to give your federal fire right back except you don't get it because we never took away your right to vote and because you never took away your right to vote and your right to have a hold of office and right to sit on a jury and even though you're not a danger we've examined you because you did lose other rights and because you didn't get them back because you never lost them we're not going to let you have your firearm and i think that just like justice work that's nonsense we can restore with it not one of the cases cited as individual lies attention and alice as the person's right to bear arms which is under our for your honour's first touching on via two twenty thirteen amendments ten c four wasn't the only thing that was amended certainly in the statute section eight and it was also amended to make clear that for your card can be revoked if the state why not let the process take place why are why if the language is correct if the language is factually accurate why would this the state police resist providing the federal government the opportunity to say you know you're ok and on the right because you've got that floyd law and you gave that individualized attention and you re stored the right to keep and bear arms we're ok with that we won't find out whether they're ok with that unless we send the information because that's not what happened it happens generally or what happened in this case in this case the circuit court in its order specifically said it was the intent of this court in issuing its r that point if issued about forty cards if you could actually empowered leaves the point was and this is in response to the language that the state police added the point was the circuit court was trying to give them a point guard that meant that he would pass the federal background check that meant that he would not get in trouble as a matter of federal law if you try to purchase a gun well we can't say she can't meet that let's assume she can't make that determination ok and the language just says i have restored this gentleman here keep an possess the ammunition and a firearm under illinois law and i followed the process of our law and i'm asking directly that that information before were by the state police to the federal government what's wrong with that simply because that's not what they were saying in this case i understand that's no call comes through though through the next call comes through the state police they'll say you cannot have a gun why should the state police interpret the federal law because the state police by virtue of the way the next system operates the federal government why can't they say they have this to this trial court looked at this guy and why do they get to offer an opinion it's not offering an opinion it's offering a fact there is a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence through that means he's federally prohibited period that's that's all they ask they just say hey wait a minute we got we get this information where you run through the database there's a number of databases that will come up and it will show for instance this offline convictions he has a disqualifying conviction that that the person is trying to sell the gun but call comes in from them to the state police the secrets answer the next calls so in these calls coming from the gun do you yes but the state police have already received the information that under illinois law that right has been restored and other federal government who's made the original prohibition is never even quired about is never even required up the state police has to as a result of this agreement the process participates in this process has to answer the question the question is whether there is any state or federal prohibition the state police knows that there is a federal probation because the conviction conviction from the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence therefore it will say no he's not cleared well what we're saying is we don't know if there's a federal probation we don't really know that because of the arguments that we're we wouldn't be having these arguments today that was a dead certainty that it is  his right and then the federal government can decide what they want to do because it's impractical best in that country decorum and that basically results in the state police giving false information the federal government you know it basically means that the state police are failing to give information that has been directed to be provided by you know like court of law that is interpreted in both illinois law and anticipating there will be a later federal process which may or may not a year and a half but they know there's a problem while he's there to put faith into the database you that there's a serious problem that you step into a mandamus complaint or something along those lines but you are in this case the state police will look to see