a two tiered system for challenging the denial of a fourth card application depending on the reason for the denial for certain numerated offenses the applicant may file a petition directly in the circuit court for all other offenses the applicant must appeal to the director of the state police first mr lewis indiana drug conviction is not one of the enumerated offenses and therefore he was required to appeal to the director whose decision could then be subject to review pursuant to the administrative review a nd the futility exception to the exhaustion doctrine does not excuse mr lewis his failure to seek relief from the director futility is a limited exception that applies only when it would be patently useless to pursue relief before the administrative agency it is not enough that the atwood can't believe that the agency will deny really and here mr lewis made no allegation that state police had a policy or practice of denying applications without reviewing the particulars of the provides that relief from the denial of void card application is not available when granting a boy card would be contrary to federal law this court will double and every court that has addressed the issue is in agreement firearm and mr lewis here is federally prohibited from possessing a firearm and he really doesn't appear to dispute that fact under section nine twenty two g of the federal gun control it's unlawful for any person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year to possess a firearm and while the federal act recognizes and narrow exceptions for their probation and section nine twenty one jurisdiction and here that india in particular with respect to whether civil rights have been restored on it would be under an indiana while whether civil rights have been restored and you would look to the core civil right and finally this court should reject mr lewis his constitutional challenges as an initial matter they were worth it and not and not properly developed on the field but even if the court reaches the marriage should within a related exception to let go back to the state court and the primary reason was that he would prohibit under the federal law the problem the problem with that position was my plight right that moment lost the ability to restore his rights in illinois as a citizen and then approached the courts to have that done this was discussed in great detail in the courtroom supreme court case of coral where a similar but not exactly same case arose in connection  citizen who had a domestic battery this demeter conviction that exclude him under federal law from being able at that time the statute effects that you could have afforded card if you had a federal probation of that supreme court in affirming the issuance of that void card to this gentleman from david's county mr coroner said we don't have to get to the constitutional issues in this case because there is a mechanism of bailable to any violation they don't control subsets of that in other words if you're an illinois citizen has a prior cocaine or drug conviction that has been a dog bite system for a number of years you can file a petition to restore those rights in a circuit court if know that the court system can't restore rights to protect a constitutional protection in this case the cases developed through the heller and some other cases as to a more more heightened review of your  twenty five c by the way ninety nine twenty two g one is the section of the federal statute that says that if you're convicted of a felony for defense will by more than a year you're prohibited from having a firearm but the originally they provide they proposed a statute nine twenty five c that allowed a mechanism whereby citizens of the united states could could apply for and get their rights restored under that mechanism unfortunately that was never funded by congress and that that does not exist at a part does not exist and that is mentioned in the supreme court case whenever they're addressing the issue of whether or not a citizen has a right to petition for have their rights restored and it specifically in that  our court quoted without the really authorized by section on my twenty five c the federal firearms ban will remain vulnerable to a properly raised as applied constitutional challenge brought by an individual who despite a prior conviction has become a l abiding responsible citizen in silence an instant title to use of arms in defense of hearth and home in other words the supreme court was saying that you have a constitutional right if you're you know if you're a good citizen long enough that you have would be there regard so you know basically my client's working guy been a citizen actually worked in a coal mining industry for over twenty years as a believe it or not explosives person in the director is futile they basically said we can't do it and mostly people back before you in their brief they said we can't do it so for us to go up there it would have been a waste of time i don't think that should even be up for the debate i mean i think that's a position that they're heartfelt position i accept that  that's why i'm here to argue differently  same factors that would have been reviewed had my client been convicted of cocaine under illinois statute and there were just you know there's a different review standard it applies and their argument is that we have to go back to indiana to have another state restore those rights and i argue that if if i only course can restore the rights for one citizen they ought to be able to restore their rights for a better system using the same factors and when they were in when the legislature amended the statute to say you can't go to the courts to restore your rights i don't think that ever speaks to your constitutional right to voice go to the courts and restore your rights the end they argued these things weren't argued they were brief if you look at the record of their briefed and discussed in detail in the trial court arms in defense of earth and home shrader and in part quoting from heller that's the citation however as explained here after this is that this is our supreme court case i'm quoting from this quoting from somebody else however as explainer after the constitutional question is one we need not reach we must consider not constitutional issues first and consider constitution it constitutional issues only if necessary to the resolution of this case as we construe the interrelated federal and state statutory schemes quorum has because there is a remedy we don't have to get to the constitutional issues although they talk about the constitutional issues but they say they're not really not ruling on the constitutional issues at the time because there was a there was a remedy mr graham got to a point guard it appears to me that the the director is following what the statute that they have so i can i don't fault that because it says exactly what it says it says you have to appeal to us and but we can't give it to you and then you can only appeal to the circuit court really should be the focus i feel in reviewing the case is whether or not my client is a safe responsible citizen is going to contribute to our society and the evidence of what he's done the past not some arbitrary if somebody else did it that's that's the problem out there isn't there is a third argument that's being made by mistake which you know i understand but it it's that you you need to go back to indiana and in my argument is there's nothing in the cases they say they cite that ever says that you have to go back to that state it does say it does say in there that you have to apply the standards of the state in restoring that all those cases restoring your your rights all those cases pertain to either a federal prosecution or an a  t should be dismissed or not that's the context that comes up in or enhanced sentencing if you've been properly convicted in were your rights restored or not because if they were restored get one sentence if they were restored in another sense no where does it speak to the issue that they're arguing we got to go back there i submit to you that illinois citizen i have the right to apply to our courts and get it the relief requested there's nothing there was nothing presented at the trial court or even off appeal that my client is not just as qualified or entitle to offenses they have to appeal first to the director but the standards under ten c are the same whether the application goes to the director who are directly to the circuit court and the director's decision is still subject to review pursuant to the administrative review so it's not that there's no relief it's that the there's a two tiered system in and the procedure that you all of is different depending on whether it's one of the enumerated offens and i'd also like to point out that under issue with the fact that somebody convicted out of state has to go back to the jurisdiction in which they were convicted and the way that it works is under section nine twenty one c twenty does the determination of whether someone has a conviction that prohibits them from possessing a firearm under the federal gun control act is determined by the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred and so while while in illinois court could look at whether indiana revoked and restored course