the court today i'd like to discuss issues one and two of the brief and i will rest on my brief next issue three turning to my first issue the state that the state failed to prove in this case that mr timothy nikko had possession of firearms and gone that was of sorry and of drugs that were found in the home that he shared with his family because i just did in this case that mr nikko did not have actual possession of these items he lived in a home with his mother stepfather his sister and two young children when the prologue first assist him to the home they conducted a search and one of the two bedrooms in their home they found a bag of marijuana on the nightstand they found a gun in the bottom drawer of a dresser we just talking about the bullets are we talking you're going to concede only true i don't believe that it is states to prove that he had the ability to exercise immediate exclusive control over the area which is required for constructive possession these drugs were not  acts contains no exception for within the home it doesn't only slightly burden his fundamental enumerated constitutional right it places an absolute permanent ban on it now simply because it has his held that strict scrutiny is the appropriate level and the fundamental right which we are here we have the gun in his own home and ross this quote say that at the second amendment can trigger you know more than one type of scrutiny depending on the type of law safety reason for extending the reach of the arm which will criminal statute into the home where the how does that protect the public from gun violence gun violence is already heavily criminalized in illinois there are numerous statutes personally penalizing gun violence there hand hansen's fifteen twenty twenty five to life and to almost every serious felony illinois those kind of statutes restrict or are in doubt gun violence the statute at issue that in this case puts a complete ban on someone's constitutional fundamental right to have a gun in their home so therefore it's not proportional to the state's reported interests of protecting the public from you know gun violence there's no evidence in this case and the serial killers ever involved in any sort of violen inconsistent  exercising their quick fundamental right in their own home you think this is really never been proven to be violent they've never had any kinds of violence their background and there's no reason why mr nikos interest in protecting his family in his own home is any less and by virtue is that this is defendant's bedroom defendant was in the bedroom others hiding in his mother's yes and his mother's or at least the bed he shared with the mother in the sense that she also uses it to go to sleep but clearly the evidence showed that this was defendant's bedroom and firearm was readily accessible to the defendant so wet the drugs right next to a bullet in one pro and a firearm is also not same chest of draws a defendant is in the room smoking the drugs it seems very clear that there is a valid legitimate inference of constructive possession that record that arrest will try if i could rely upon but since this is this big room is jointly shared these likely have been not there's no inventory of the content of the dresser besides that contraband the evidence at trial didn't go through each item in the chest of drawers over mother good here i use personal mediums there's separate from the evidence it's conceivable violates the second amendment but the constitution just to begin with the  those statements rather than let me complete agreement with you counsel but i don't think that the state law only streaks the position with respect to dig and that's what your opponent reads that in certain instances when you talk about having guns outside the home that's not your position right this dicta does not apply with something we don't believe that a robot the dicta is not saying that when the defendant says that the second amendment protections should extend to firearms outside the home or very situations like that when the court is limiting the language of heller macdonald or limiting the holding it's talking about limiting the extent to that right and so if the when the court is saying that we don't extend the language to protect firearms outside the home of a felons or whatnot that's limiting the holding and we're in full agreement that the individual right that was recognizing heller macdonald is limited but it's not limited in the reversed sense of saying that it's limited that you now can't recognize it's just a bizarre way to say that it's limited in that sense that now felons can possess and you ignore where the court said they could oh i'm going to agree with you in terms of following statutes impose any burden on the conduct protected by the second amendment and it clearly doesn't where as you said yourself the statements of the supreme court say that the statutes prohibiting or restricting should this court wish to apply some degree of scrutiny and find the second amendment is implicated the facial challenge is susceptible to a test under solemnity where the defendant is required to show there are no set of circumstances where support his drug trade or protect his drug trade or to intimidate people in his household there's a wealth of circumstances where these statutes could be validly applied therefore under salerno as well the facial challenge should be rejected but should the court still wish to apply a level of scrutiny then rational basis would be best and of course would be best from perspective under williams and dawson rational basis scrutiny was it's a small segment of the population and it is a compelling government interest to maintain the health safety and welfare of the people and therefore both statutes also supply also survived strict scrutiny now in regard specifically to that as some sort of homemade crude firing device where it's kind of a breech loaded section with a trigger on the bottom but no visible safety on it it's clearly some sort of clothing made device very unusual and the language from the supreme court specifically the second amendment would not extend to a new usual and dangerous devices like this so it's certainly not only easy as applied challenge not properly before the court where evidentiary hearing has not been held but it simply wouldn't apply in this case where defendant is a recidivist forcible felon who has an extremely long criminal record has actually been injured in a shootout during a drug deal and his firearm is an unusual and dangerous is the state's argument here illustrates the fact that they do not have a single piece of evidence tying mr to the dresser or the cosmetics case where firearms were found even if we were to concede that that was his marijuana he sat in that room