prohibited from owning or possessing firearms but the issuance of the illinois point card which again the state police issued as ordered has no bearing on whether well as is prohibited from owning or possessing firearms as a matter of federal law my initial point your honour's is that no prior order of the court expressly provided that the state police must report no federal prohibitions on well if but for the contempt order if the court had only ordered the state police to issue with us a fourth card and it did that the requirement that the director or the state police issue a card and remove the federal of firearm possession prohibitions came about for the first time expressly required by the court and that independently justifies a reversal but setting aside the procedure one for fighting turning to the substantive matter the requirement that you are the the state police issue a point card and the fact of the issuance of that card on willis's federal rights involves two questions one was it was or is was federally prohibited from possessing  violence are prohibited from owning or has that same firearm a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is a crime that involves the use or threat of use of force against some time with whom the actor is in a domestic relationship here willis was convicted of a battery that involved the use of force there's no dispute over that nor is there any dispute that the victim w someone with whom willis was in a domestic relationship it was his then wife with whom he was living therefore the requirements of the federal law are satisfied this is a conviction that counts as a misdemeanor crime  domestic violence under nine twenty two g nine the worst contends that the conviction does not count because he was not charged with domestic battery or that the fact he was in a domestic relationship with somebody was not an element of the crime for which he was convicted but the case law by this point is well subtle but that's not valid what's relevant is that an element of the crime was the use or threat of use of force once that is established then you can look of course the director the state police can look at the underlying facts and determine if there was a domestic relationship the domestic relationship does not  to be an element of the crime the u s supreme court made that clear the united states versus hese case that we said it explicitly spelled out that the domestic relationship does not need to be an element of the crime of which the person was convicted and the third district decision in a meal that we cite in our briefs applies that reasoning to very analogous situation once it is established that will this is has a professor of probation for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence the question is whether getting in illinois has any effect on that and the answer to that is clear that it does not guard the issue was not whether that person could then own or possess guns as a matter of federal law or justices that you concur in the true dissenting make clear that illinois law does not remove the federal prohibition con our this court applied that reasoning and held the same this court stated in qana our a majority of the supreme court in quorum held that when an illinois court restores a person's right to possess firearms for purposes of illinois law pursuant to section ten if the point at such restoration one does not automatically re store a person's right to possess firearms in and use ammunition under the federal gun control outside the scope of the court's ability for somebody who is prohibited because of a conviction of a misdemeanor crime as the pile on our is absolutely on point to this case control has rejected this idea anyway following the illinois supreme court's decision hush that the denial of the right to possess or the ability to places that are own firearms because of this past conviction is simply that in our future benefit that does not of force and it did so better in illinois certainly is something that can solve you know an offense of touching it can involve the use of through use of force offense of touching has been found to qualify if the user threat or use of force for the purpose of the battery or for the purpose of the missed meter crime domestic violence prohibition and that's actually discussed by the supreme court in this summer happen as a domestic violence case now the question before this court is was the director state police contempt of a lawful order order issued by this or the answer is but when he wanted to use it we didn't happen when we brought the case back before the search warrant with these facts complied with your order judge we should report card but what they failed to mention was they knew all along that he wasn't going to have a ballot card why didn't they i think circuit court le of an expressed term of the order now i'm sorry if there are to p federal restrictions on it that's up to the feds not the state the federal a federal courts should be the ones responsible for enforcing or not in forcing back restriction i exists at all but so far as you know noise concern they have to issue a valid unrestricted caucus and then if there are federal restrictions they can take that into the federal court the u s attorneys can score other than for educational work with i think it is for educational purposes and i think illinois is not a lockstep state and i think this court can step forward and consider second amendment rights o all biting citizens who may have been charged some thirty years ago but it would in significant misdemeanor he be considering whether the second amendment of the united states is superseded by a misdemeanor crime after they justice thomas at the court of sidor that and consider that kind of language in support of our right this is a fundamental constitutional right to keep chicago some fourteen of those resulted homicides every week every day cook county people are shot murdered i would submit that virtually none of those people and forty guards her and i think this court can step forward recognize that you consider him sound logic of justice thomas and find the director is in contempt two to seven seven it was asserted it says it's discussing another case that the court issued two years ago called castleman and the course says and i'm quoting in castleman we initially held that the word force then section would you still be here or your name that that causes it to to an element of force that seems to be a stretch to me but that's not the issue it's going to be and that's certainly an issue that we do face sometimes where the statute is broad enough to include apparently no kind of supervision probation of any kind yet supervision me you know just different circumstances and now here we are all these years later he finds out by pleading guilty to that mr meaner battery  in pain the twenty five dollar fine results in his home diminishment of second amendment rights and deprivation actually what i i heard your seat your honor i do believe that we take into consideration second actions that the point is that the law of federal law operates in a certain way here and we can't do it how it the court required  could i guess provide a new statute which would allow expungement of misdemeanor convictions that's right predating whatever you're involving whatever conduct which might be an