decided that it could be a broader definition and then judge kozinski had decided specifically because the words during and in relation to would be the limiting factors in the statute that would make sure it was applied as the one that the defendant in that case always took with him whenever you drove the stolen car and therefore the implication was that he took the start the firearm along with him when every girl the strong car because he wanted to have access to it at the time he was driving the stolen car does the phrase in the statute in relationship or in relation to go by that i mean is he carrying the gun and the firearm in relation to the crime if later on to within the meaning of the statute and the way i understand your description judge it's rather attenuated but i guess that could indeed be related to the drug crime if it's used to intimidate or when well the reason i'm asking that of course is that the prior crimes that we're talking about it's during a different crime i think that's why it's not varying but i'm asking about a different question which is this raises relation to yes judge but it wouldn't qualify at that point because it wasn't during ok that's that that's really a different element i think that's what during it's related to it's related to the timing as opposed to the connection that even though he is wearing the gun during the commission of the crime hops in the hops in the car he's looked at you look the fire the storage unit he he jumps in the car pulls off his coat exposing the gun to kandor stevenson drives off tells her she's not that she's not to talk about this and later on apparently and on another day after she  put two and two together and figured out that he was that he probably look this fire tells her to keep quiet if she knows what's good for now she has seen the gun and the gun was on him during the commission of the crime you know does the gun did he use the gun during the commission of the crime in relation to this crime when he when he intimidated in other words as he as he facilitated the commission of this crime by having her drive showing her the gun and telling her later on you had to keep quiet if you know what's good for you i don't i don't believe that that makes the possession of the gun during the crime in relations with i think that both during and in relation to have to be at the same time know so so i'll just make sure i understand your answer which is to send now reading more than the phrase i initially quoted to you the statute stands a person who quote during and in relation to any crime yes the two separate elements josh i believe so and you're saying what after the fact even a fairly short period after the fact is no longer during in this particular case my understanding of the facts are that was very quick and that the crime happened mr cameron nobody knows exactly how it was done because nobody saw how it was done the only thing that we know is that kendrick drove him to the storage locker tha apparently went in the storage locker at a point when she could not see what he was doing that he came out of the storage locker apparently the theory of the government was he may have dropped a match and some paper in the storage locker closed the storage locker him and and and freedom on the other side of the gate kender statements kendra stephens them and he has known her for several years and is he as he comes back to the car to complete his getaway which is still a part of the crime under our law still during the commission of the crime he exposed was exposed to the gun to her now we don't it wasn't displayed it wasn't sort of menacing but he exposes the gun to her subsequently on another day after she's put two and two together that that by carrying the gun during the commission of the crime including the getaway where he deliberately where he exposes that that it was deliberately exposed and to stevens and in order to in order to emphasize to her to reinforce what he's going to tell might shoot his way out of the situation why can't they conclude that because there's no evidence of that there is no evidence that he took the gun with him because he expected to be met by other people there is no evidence at all that's that's away and trucks mom and graphs in law and when he says keep quiet about her words i'm paraphrasing but i think more or less right he kind of intimidated me that's happening two page three forty four basically i was told mike told me this is the thing after when i went to drop him off for me to go straight home and nothing anything to anybody and basically kind of intimidated me into keeping my mouth shut by saying you know if i knew what was what was this particular crime was not a spur of the moment type of thing is as you might think it would be he planned it out in great detail at least for a couple days was in and out of that storage locker had to find a way to get in and use her pass get inside his mind whether he picked candor or whether he was playing to pick someone else but if you look at the evidence i mean obviously he can't do it at night because he's got julie starkey's ian's code but she doesn't get this twenty four hour business he she can't get in that very night when there's not people running around so we've got to go in the daytime and so you don't want to go in with your own number or your own car because they know you and they might see you and you might get  know he has a lot of friends whether he picked her or he was going to pick someone else and that was just an opportunity that happened to be kendra stevenson's car was kind of it was a little less ten blazer that she referred to as a piece of junk was always getting repaired and he would help around whether he was just going to wait for that or use another friend that was close enough that he could trust there was no way of knowing but the point is is that he went to a great deal of planning it wasn't a spur of the moment thing he goes over there he knows you going over there that day of course he's got her vehicle because he was fixing it that night you know this isn't you know it does get cold in arizona occasionally in november and people put on jackets and he wasn't wearing somebody else's jacket and it wasn't zipped in the pocket he wasn't carrying it along in a briefcase from somebody else's briefcase and he didn't know it was there it was in his holster when he got up in the morning he put his gun on and he knew he had a vehicle and he knew he was going there he consciously put the gun to go there and that's his problem not how why it's in relation to under your theory of the case you think  carry the gun in order to help him commit the arson itself that is to say to do what he was going to do in setting a fire or was it for later intimidating stevenson i me in his mind what is what and what aspect is used in relation to entering the crime well the government's theory to the jury was that there was all of these folks you know this got to be in the daytime because you can't get in there at night without using his own card so it's going to be in a day time there's four hundred eighty storage lockers are there a lot of people that go in now plus there's these maintenance guys and delay no over me was in there with the crew and there's next door there's a plant propagation nursery so we're all those guys and there's all kinds of people that can wander by and see you and might do something to stop you or call the police and on your way out you need it or theory that to the jury was that he would need to escape or to keep someone from stopping him doing it starting the fire was took no time at all he'd already gotten here he changed the locks so he had a key for the new lock all the to do was open it raised the door him and you know that's the way it came across kendra stevenson was already intimidated all of their friends and they were already intimidated by him didn't need to wave a gun and threaten him because they all said that they were intimidated by him he was big probably had a gun and they're all afraid of him and so you know the cases that i cited i had a hard time trying to fight i look for cases where people had guns in their possession but didn't take them out and brandish there's not a lot of on there just that burglary case which is a sentencing guideline case now the felon in possession case them i think was a cop the sign put it in the bush jeffrey got out of the check cashing place found that was cited was the power case it was the guy that was walking around behind the drug deal him sort of the muscle man never actually did anything i don't think he ever took his gun out and brandished it but he was there in case things went wrong needed to get away look what he did four months later is really instructive of what his intent was you know he's getting pulled over now i don't know what i would be thinking i'm getting pulled over that i stopped at the stop sign or was i speeding or something like that but was also instructed of what he was planning to do with a gun to somebody trying to stop him and you know four months before he committed by dangerous telling and you know then he gets to the police pull an e mail over it shows what you know used with having a grand jury subpoena has been changed from down all of his friends from a little while later he gets pulled over by the police and he's obviously making a play for the weapon shows like just what he was going to do that day  this skate from the police you know i look everywhere to try to find a case where it wasn't in relation where somebody was you know carrying carrying a weapon the didn't brandish and i couldn't find one because i thought that you were going to cross examine me with that but i don't think there are any that i'm aware of where somebody has a weapon that put it on a day and went to a violent crime you know and had it in a possession  you know would be a different case if it was in a pocket and he didn't know it was there it was where in somebody else's code or something else that he had in his pocket or in his holster that they when he went to the crime thank you