having said that we'll turn to the first matter on the argument calendar which is the united states for sport  i was just handed a case by counsel from the seventh circuit entitled united states vs share and all i would have to stay under that is number one that was a plain error case which is not the case here and also there is no argument that this gentleman didn't know the characteristics of the fireworks he had he knew he had display fireworks that is totally kind of the beginning and end of it attention to the fact that the secretary can create a list and then a flying explosives that's true and there is an eleven page lest of things and still play fireworks and i handed the court an outline of the c f r s on this issue yes thank you and if you'll notice and it's also in the case handed by counsel the difference between consumer firework of what i am challenging is the fact that mr port needed to know the characteristics of what he held just like in staples he has you know the characteristics of those fireworks what made them display fireworks and therefore illegal best to open one and actually measure it in order and then look at the regulation before he can be convicted while start with machine guns that's exactly the case you can't look at a gun and tell whether it's a machine gun or not  cases where we talk about all that's required is the knowledge of the possession of the device in other words the fact that you had a drug in your possession as opposed to ok what kind of drug or what quantity of their you're talking about public welfare legislation statutes and that's not what we have here knows or knows them because consumer fireworks are just as dangerous as display fireworks  sure we are far bigger i mean that's one of the reasons why you have to have a special if you're looking and i'm sorry for interrupting what's around it if you're looking at the size of these fireworks that were taken from this report none of them are any bigger than consumer fireworks you have half inch by two inch i think is what i believe is a sex change but if i mean as i understand it from my days of handling these kinds of cases an m eighty is the equivalent of a quarter stick of dynamite and some states allow them so you're telling me that some of these display fireworks warehouse and knew that he had in his possession some sort of a device because if they were consumer fireworks if he didn't know the difference between consumer and display fireworks consumer fireworks are not illegal for him to  to dismiss it doesn't preserve whether he actually knew what the characteristics were is that your point ok the first thing is we did raise staples said claims can be waived but not the arguments you can raise a different argument on appeal and not waive your claim and arnold might add that that's a different issue altogether from the one i'm bringing up when you say that this you entered your reverse for trial because with the correct directions that the jury be told that they have to know that that our client mr court had to know that these were  case as i understand supreme court that the holding in that case was a a narrow one i believe that's their expressed language limited to the circumstances of the case for an individual an unregistered machine gun and there the court was concerned that because firearms are so pervasive in society and because of the nature of that particular feeds machine guns are readily convertible to fully automatic status and even that it's possible that wear and tear over time can contribute to their becoming something that is been found to be a machine gun a fully automatic weapon someone making may not know what it's capable of doing however these display fireworks i w almost fifty percent of american households have firearms at least one firearm and display fireworks are not anything even come close to to that type of common placed pres in this case the plea is conditioned upon the right to pursue an appeal but our case law says that the defendant has to articulate fairly specifically what it is that he wishes to appeal which is being preserved and in this case he pled guilty to knowing possession as because it is as i understand it a general intent crime and the question is whether or not comparing that this was my point exactly when i mentioned tell era's get along is that you can change your argument as long as you don't waive your claim and the claim is he is not liable what you preserve was what was argued in the motion to dismiss so i look at the motion to dismiss and it wasn't a sufficiency can't be a sufficiency argument you know it has to be that the indictment doesn't charge a crime  i really urge the court to look at this case because it's right on point the claim has not been waived and in any case the briefs certainly know the fi the government as to what our argument was was that he didn't know the characteristics we know it should go back now to the factual basis for the guilty plea that i don't get it because he never admitted he knew what they were nowhere in the plea agreement does it isn't it that he knew what those items were what the characteristics of those items  have knowledge of the characteristics of the fireworks and my time is up thank you thank you for the argument matter just argued will be submitted