longer juvenile you're full of ball you can vote you can sort of the military there's no precedent in any constitutional law i may go to find where you can restrict a fundamental constitutional right to those eighteen and over really losing approaching these think if you look at what this discrete crowd provision sets up you're disenfranchising people based on the status of their parents and i don't think that can pass constitutional muster if your parent has been you pick a kid free card they can't give you permission to get them to protect the south and west sides well i think it doesn't matter where you live the stumble across racial right applies to all people equally it doesn't i think that's a question that's come up in all of these cases is where is this right if you a handgun for self defense not of course there can be reasonable that regulations on this but because i don't think there's any precedent it is the only way that you can conceive of a constitutional right being restricted whatsoever and for whatever purpose nothing and our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possible possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms and since places such a schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms that's what the court said hegel in the brief you say you talk about parental the f o id card and parental control and then you say these parental exceptions clash directly with howlers mandate that the second amendment protects the right to own firearms for self defense and creates observe results he offspring of a felon drug addict a dangerous psychotic a person subject to an order  our person convicted of domestic violence may have more need for a firearm than others where are you taking us let me aguilar talks about having some wine to have drawn to make certain that this is done in the appropriate way and that people who are are should be kept from being harmed by firearms by certain regulatory mechanisms and isn't it a sure is the problem with three which was a blanket ban on handguns outside the home but i still think if if this is a cunt fundamental constitutional right which it is i do not think there is in the way that this you're allowed to have a gun in your pocket right illinois as a result of self defense year every case including every you know we face including the counts resting an f for lack of f l id card around constitutional right yes right i think if you look at this legislature was operating from a completely unconstitutional scrolls argument as to why it would be impossible for people under twenty one to get counts it's actually quite simple and he's overlooked something very significant which is the corm case which we cited in our supplemental brief which was came up the card and ultimately he was granted that relief by the only supreme course but the key is that the provision of the awful idea that authorizes anybody to challenge an improper denial included in that is the ability for a person who applies for  in the standard in which the state police looks at the director of the state police look that is whether or not substantial justice has been infringed whether or not the card should have been granted despite the statutory prohibition and if the terms of this case there is absolutely no evidence and no indication at all that this defendant ever even attempted to get an f id instead what he did was he as mr straw now says was asserting his cancer rights by carrying a gun on the streets of chicago but that's not authorized under any law if you don't have an f id card and the only some court has recognized the significance of the f l id card and the importance of it in the seventh circuit is recognize the significance of the f l id card and i would note that the plaintiffs in the more case were f l id card holders who were seeking permission through declaratory judgment action to carry a loaded firearm on the street but did not want to violate the law until they had their permission by the courts and person has us weapon cetera but they never said via getting registration through a car so it seems to me that it's almost all backwards that the state can say felons can't have guns mentally disabled cannot hear guns users you know domestic abusers cannot hear guns minors cannot hear guns but the requirement to go register to say all that is is something that may be in for so that if i was walking down the street may he had a gun and i'm sixty six years old and i've never been convicted of a felony and arguably not mentally  question i understand the question if i could address what you're centrally asking is whether or not there would be a due process violation by having the legislature set up a regime of determination that someone is is capping qualified to carry a gun  to limit access to firearms to certain people the choice of the legislature here to have a permit in process is not unreasonable or irrational which would be the standard for it if to address it will be ok to registered in that regard and i would say that the ability to vote is even more fundamental to our society in our democracy than the ability to carry a loaded firearm public also i would just say in regards to the f a y d point it unlawful use of a weapon addresses carrying a gun in public it's still a question public it's not in any way going to the core fundamental right recognized in heller and mcdonald about having a gun for your own self defense at home  so because even more recognize that the that the danger to society of having additional ready ready our trouble firearms in public is greater than it is at home in someone's home that the legislature in the states have a greater interest  making sure that only proper people are and properly trained people are carrying those weapons this defined it was not one of those persons this defendant never put himself in that class in regards to the severability question illinois law is clear and it's provided that whenever one part of a statute is deemed invalid the other parts may still be considered valid unless there is a reason that they are inextricably intertwined and cannot stand on their own we did not make a severability argument ourselves because we weren't expecting it we were surprised it was a little bit surprising to us given the fact that counsel in the opening brief in this case it provision of section one point three one applies typically unless there is legislative reason to believe that the state she would not have been passed absence the improper provision of counsel the argument is essentially that well the legislature is trying to come up with a comprehensive ban for carrying guns in public and he's correct in the sense that that's what section three eight did three day created a comprehensive ban on the carrying of a loaded accessable and loaded immediately accessible public that's what the ad was court struck down but the rest of the educated on lawful use of weapon statute address the status of the person or the other man and which was carried to the most important status one would be the one it's issue in this case which is the no off id provision under f under c the other one which is very important is the one under i regarding being under twenty one but the other one's dealing with the manner in which it's being carried i would direct this court to the provisions which say that it has feuds in aggregate unlawful use a weapon if you're hearing a firearm while committing certain mr minor offenses or if you are threatening somebody in a manner that cause harm upon them so those are also legitimate provisions which the legislature is trying to protect the individual citizens of the state of illinois from being faced with guns in crimes in from having people who are not otherwise qualified to carry a firearm off their own land and so it's really a reason that the statute is constitutional the conviction to me that there have been no published opinions addressing aguilar i think that's probably because there is some uncertainty about just the scope of the decision i should also know it's just that we have actually filed a petition for a hearing in exile are now challenging the second amendment ruling but the facial unconstitutionality pointing out that the section three a is also a political two persons who have prior felony convictions and that is a class two version of the offense as opposed to a class four and that would seem tourism savings cries you could get an affidavit from the doctor or whatever but that doesn't matter you don't have you cannot give someone else control over your constitutional rights and i think the voting is very apt sure to register to vote but i don't think we would let a statute to said if that pair can with a family we're going to disenfranchise you from voting or if you run you can go to the state police and appeal and try to get it that's simply a burden that would not stand in need of a constitutional right and i think now that we know that this is a fundamental