did it with the lawyers who are going to argue that case please approach the bench and introduce yourself several reasons one of which is that the official in constitutional statute is it unconditionally prohibits a civilians right here right to keep and bear arms for self defense outside the home and so you've got to change existing law that's what you're doing well no i mean that the the controlling all right now is helen mcconnell which basically you know cited to some of the historical a not explicitly but at the very list at the very least implicitly and here's why because again they they spent some considerable time discussing not only the tax but the historical aspects o what was you know what was in place at the time that they that the amendment was ratified and what they talked about specifically you know a couple of things one is they of course cited approvingly to done a couple of state court cases  prohibition on possession of guns outside the home for self defense and what howard to say was that none capture it capture what's the scope of the second amendment was all wish you know that the approving citation to nine and angelus they also talked about they recognized that that or right is most acute or most notable in the home ok now that language wouldn't make sense there's no taylor whatsoever it proscribes the right the core right to keep and bear arms for self defense in all situations there's no exceptions whatsoever and that's the problem there and these are any evidence that this fifteen year old and this country self defense well that's that's not the part that i guessed that's not really relevant what's relevant is what the market scribes if that's sad relevant then every fifteen year old should have a gun w protests it is it is at which you think well that's what's protected is the right to keep and bear arms and again how we spoke at length about what's healthy for self defense but it but it's a web these doesn't have to be i mean it doesn't have to be so then we should allow every fifteen year old to walk around with a gun read the constitution again among the twelve year olds and eleven year olds right where is it stack i can't speak to the letter tomorrow but i would certainly say the fifteen year old and again looking at the historical aspects of the second amendment and i discussed some of it you know of course in the in the brief itself it talks about the rights of men and women boys and girls know and you know there's reference there in that decision to you know letters you know the jeffersonian encyclopedia to this fifteen year old nephew and it's so it's been historically recognized that the right to self defense and certainly constitutional some certainly have a dinner purpose in keeping them out of the hands of felons the mentally ill and things like that but again i guess it related to your question as as far as juveniles or again the problem here is that the possession for all people under eighteen years old i guess it would be a different matter if there was son semblance of tailoring if there was sound you know for example maybe some requirements for licensing or and things of that nature but again the problem with even the statute that's directed to juveniles or those under eighteen it's the same problem that exists with the egg heat of the century it's a flat out prohibition based on the arbitrary age of majority and there statute it applies to everybody it's a blanket prohibition and it's because it's a it can force a fundamental core right it doesn't matter whether or not there's some other legitimate interest or read or i should say in the fact that illinois stands alone in this type of blanket prohibition that's not too surprising i mean all the other states correctly recognize that who are right by devising some form of carry and possession in public and marijuana he's found a link one of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and unlawful possession of a firearm so he's not challenged challenging the constitutionality of the statutes under the second amendment however there is no illinois authority that supports his contention in fact every single illinois court case that has reviewed the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon sacks you has found and based on heller macdonald have found that is constitutional and i'm like the laws that were challenged and heller macdonald illinois williams and it found there was a rational basis for the statutes ban on carrying in possessing a loaded firearm outside of the hog and that the protection of police officers and the general public from gun violence in our community now may recently the important governmental interest of protecting the police and the general public from the inherent dangers of gun violence now the council said that the statute is not substantially related however it does contain several exemptions so individual carry or transport firearms as long as they're in a broken down or non functioning state if they're not immediately accessible if they're unloaded or if they're in case now there has been there was there has been no case or any authority that says that these statutes must reach out must be reviewed under strict scrutiny however even if strict scrutiny does were used the statutes would still pass constitutional muster because there's a compelling governmental interest in making the community safer and carrying a loaded gun case immediately accessible firearm in public even for sock defense purposes or is a severe danger to the public there's a danger of saying making a mistake in thinking they have a need for self defense that's mistaken  has these the consequences there can be someone who intends to shoot someone has a poor shot and hits an innocent bystander there can be accidental shootings malfunctioning of the weapon that to mention the danger that this person police officers when they stop  vehicle or a person on the street and they have a loaded handgun either on their person or in their vehicle is a very real danger and a compelling governmental interest and the statute has been narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest as i said exams firearms that are possessed in one's home business land or on another person's home business or land place of business when they're invited not property extends a firearm that's been broken down nonfunctioning not accessible unloaded in case and not only that but they possession of the fire mostly in public there's all of all the subsection thing that saturate the focus on those areas that there's the highest level of danger to those people around them situation we talked about felons juveniles who've been adjudicated delinquent someone has a recent order of protection that would also apply to minor circuit found there's a long standing tradition of prohibiting juveniles from receiving and possessing handguns that's a mention compelling reasons why juveniles should should not be afforded the same constitutional rights as adults they're not mature enough they lack judgments they like health control and they still need that parents and adults to help them put to make informed decisions second amendment is not the only constitutional right that where juveniles are not they're not afford the same constitutional rights as adults they have limited at the moment first minute rice in schools they're not allowed to vote until they're eighteen they cannot join the military without parental consent and they must be adjudicated in adult court and that is because juveniles and adults are different moreover there actually exceptions with the statute juveniles can possess rifles and shotguns or larger firearms they can use a handgun for hunting fishing or target practice so there  facial attack is it's a given strictly prohibitory there's nothing regulatory about it you know it in terms of the concerns about you know are minors able to function and like adults and make decisions and what not w did it but the statute doesn't even a fourth in the back door right to defend himself inside of his own home or to do it and it's not like you'd still have some interest or some location to have to defend themselves you exception of the state police power well i mean you know that they think the framers of the federal constitution in vision fifteen year olds you know smoking marijuana and carrying