in a different offense and everything that correct yes your honor and that was one of our frustrations with the district court ruling in montana is that it seemed to us that the starting place for the course analysis was wrong restored unless they followed the procedure and i don't whoa to the commission that was set up to hear those issues that's all that statue seems to address is the restoration of civil rights upon changed that to a misdemeanor and we think that should be the fundamental place or the foundation for where the analysis starts as to whether he is a prohibited person it does not appear that i'd hose ever directly answer the subsection which doesn't have a similar reference it doesn't your honor and i was confused by that myself because that statute talks about deeming or that section of the statute also talks about deeming  a felony as a misdemeanor and so the question remained in my mind well what did they mean by that and it seems that if we deem it a misdemeanor yet be the firearm prohibition counsel's file was destroyed by the time i got the file and so i cannot directly answer that question your honor maybe mr ricci and because it wasn't something that i thought to look at yes you know he's so well so what was the basis for the government asserting that he was a felon in possession because he did convicted of a burglary what made the government think that he was convicted of a burglary well because the initial judgment in idaho your honor said that in what they did at the trial court levels they introduced that judgment and used it as the foundation or eat status as being a prohibited person because judge waters of the district court ruled that  honor and i must admit i failed to find that case but then they don't address where we're at today in in that regard so that's about all i can say in regard to the court's question as to whether there's a idaho doesn't explicitly make that clear because it appears that it's that section but i would be it would be the document that i looked at which was i mean essentially that within the excerpts of record  paul i mean three hundred and ten disgusted and i hope to a certain extent it is somewhat permissive permissive state in the sense that many crimes you automatically are restored to your civil rights entirely including your firearms right and then free ten goes counsel if i went to idaho and were able to get to some kind of central registry what is it going to show that mr mr gutierrez was as been convicted up is going to show a conviction for burglary rather i don't know that just that eighty three tend those exceptions including burglary only apply to felonies if pretend is irrelevant at that point well again i don't think it is a relevant and you know we need to step back briefly and st look at federal law and under burglary took an appeal to the idaho supreme court and reversed it for insufficiency of evidence your your your argument about nine hundred and twenty one is still good he's been to it was it the the fact is the papers reported that he was convicted of a burglary even though it was start appeal i think there's a central difference there i mean in one case it was reversed the efficiency of evidence he's not guilty of anything here is his status of guilt has not changed the the conviction has been because if there are only guides and it seems under idaho law that they do can they do regard the flight of that in the in the footnote in rich seems really incomplete and it's absolutely clear that it is  should be certified just question to the idaho supreme court i know oh and i don't i disagree that it's i mean they were very they they affirmed on one basis and that basis was that eighteen t so we don't have the i don't scream court's opinion on the merits of the question that was forfeited in this direction i think we do a good they regardless of the basis you know they're there they're their faces was very clear they said hey you you know you failed to there were two brands of you know there were two or holdings here one was there was no genuine controversy and the other was eighteen guys three and applied and that you needed rule on a contested basis respectfully it seems to me that they could have and they chose not to and they dating to so doing they have basically affirmed on the basis that the district or that was the language they use so it seems to me that you know we can we can quibble about how they did it but they did affirm what the district court did and this is really the only court case where they've addressed  supreme court well your honor i wondered about that as i was working on it and and i thought that was a off possibility what i don't have any experience in is is what the magnitude of the question has to be for this court to do you consider that because i've never been involved in that is deems to be a right question for some direction because the certainly could come up numerous times in it would help the citizens of the state of idaho i think unquestionably so i would have any opposition to that i just don't know if in the court's view that it has that kind of magnitude that it would want to do