Jump to content

Meyers vs Schmitz


jmeyers

Recommended Posts

Why does this not surprise me that they came up with a story for the court previously, and now they have a whole new set of contradictory claims before the ALJ.

 

Biggest thing I learned was the state is really reaching. They attempted to not get "substantially similar" admitted citing it has nothing to do.

So what was their rationale then for revoking the license, or any of their treatment of non-residents based on?!?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revoking the license was that I was not eligible for a FOID card therefore I was ineligible for a CCW. ALJ did not buy it and said AS a Non Resident I don't have to have a FOID. They then moved to say that I had not followed the rules in that I did not submit as per 430 ILCS 66/40:

 

An application and documentation as required under section 30

A notarized document stating I was eligible under federal law and FL law to own or possess a firearm

A Copy of my CCW from FL

A document stating I understand Illinois law

A document stating I acknowledge Id be held by Illinois jurisdiction

A head and shoulder color photograph

 

My argument was the Application does not ALLOW that information to be submitted by someone not from a similar state. The ALJ understood that and started hammering. The ISP Legal counsel tried saying the hearing was purely about the revocation and not about a application nor substantially similar, even going as far as to get us to agree that substantially similar did not matter. Our response was that it indeed matters and is the entire basis for the fraudulent activities of the ISP depriving non residents of a CCW.

 

We now wait, ALJ said he should have his report/analysis within 30 days to the director. When asked about the status of the director, ISP Legal said well we aren't entirely sure, as you are the first to have a hearing, congratulations to which I said I was proud and honored to be part of Illinois Carry and represent the thousands of out of state residents that are attempting to get a license!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

clearly she did not understand the statute

Yet these are the people making the rules and enforcing them on the citizenry.

 

In one breath they say you didn't complete the application and then in the next they say it isn't about an application, it's about cancellation not a revocation, oh wait, we didn't mean cancellation it was revoked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Gamma, you would be above ISP Legal counsel, you actually understand the Statute whether your looking at it or not. This attorney couldn't make heads or tails of it and she had a copy of it she was highlighting :)

So ISP's legal counsel didn't even know the statute that they were at a hearing to represent?

 

Why does this almost sound like they were throwing the case so as to avoid going back into the courts? They give you your license back but continue their same practices of denying everyone else and putting forward the same arguments in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly Gamma, I walked away from it thinking the same thing and am honestly scared that will happen. Its really a catch 22. If they give my license back, they basically admit FL is substantially similar which adds FL to the list. At that point, we'll just need to find a plaintiff from 1 of the many other states that has the identical survey boxes checked (which shouldn't be to hard) to file suit who can get the others admitted.

 

The ISP counsel sat there with the 430 ILCS 66/ in front of them pouring over it to ask questions, mis quoted 430 ILCS 66/40 as Qualifications instead of Non Resident requirements, and had to continue looking for subsection ID's and questions in order to ask them.

 

Once I receive it, I will be posted the ALJ Record and Evidence after redaction of PII and everyone will get to see just how crazy the ISP is.

 

Between Culp v Madigan and Meyers v Schmitz, it appears it may be a very very bad month for the Illinois State Police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Today is 3 weeks since the ALJ hearing. We are still anticipating a decision this week as thats what the ALJ said at the hearing (end of the month). Once he issues a decision, its my understanding it will goto Director Schmitz' desk for a final determination. As soon as I get my hands on the transcript and/or the decision, it shall be posted here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly Gamma, I walked away from it thinking the same thing and am honestly scared that will happen. Its really a catch 22. If they give my license back, they basically admit FL is substantially similar which adds FL to the list.

Not really. In a strict reading of the FCCA, "substantially similar" only applies to new applicants. Since you already had a license, you should be evaluated under the sections on qualifications and revocations. The ALJ could restore your license with no change to the overall situation for non-residents, from FL or any other state.

 

Or they deny based on some entirely new administrative construct which would drag out any future court proceedings, probably to the point of your license expiration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dealing with the hurricane but thought I'd post a quick update.

 

We were provided a order by the state police dated 9-29 in that they are denying reinstatement of the license and the ALJ refused to consider non residency and completely held up that it should be revoked based on I do not and am not eligible for a FOID card.

 

Transcript has been requested via Court and we will be pursuing Judicial review

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dealing with the hurricane but thought I'd post a quick update.

 

We were provided a order by the state police dated 9-29 in that they are denying reinstatement of the license and the ALJ refused to consider non residency and completely held up that it should be revoked based on I do not and am not eligible for a FOID card.

 

Transcript has been requested via Court and we will be pursuing Judicial review

That sucks.

 

Given how the majority of the evidence appeared to be in your favor and us being in Illinois I have to wonder who's strings got pulled to rule in such a fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Conclusion, Analysis and recommendation says it all:

 

Conclusion

The evidence established that Petitioner is a person who is a resident of a state other than Illinois. As a resident of a state other than Illinois, Petitioner is ineligible for a FOID under 430 ILCS 65/4(2)(xiv). As a person ineligible for a FOID, Petition does not meet the qualifications for a Illinois CCL under 430 ILCS 66/25(2) and the department had sufficient basis to revoke under 430 IL 66/70(a)

 

Analysis

The evidence presented in this case shows Petitioner's CCL was properly revoked by the Department. Petitioner does not maintain a permanent residence in Illinois and has obtained Florida drivers license. Petitioner stated he does not currently have an Illinois drivers license, and as of June of 2015 has not resides in the state of Illinois for more than 30 days. Because Petitioner is not a Illinois resident, he is ineligible for a FOID card and does not qualify for a CCL.

 

Petitioner attempted to apply for a non-resident CCL, but was told that Florida did not qualify as a state. Petitioner submitted to the Department documentation he believed demonstrated the laws WERE comparable. The issue of Florida's firearm laws being comparable to Illinois is beyond the scope of this Administrative hearing.

 

========

 

So while I A.) Did not request the hearing (the state did) and B.) The Court issued a court order to discuss the revocation based on my Florida eligibility, the ALJ and the States position is that the hearing was solely based on my FOID revocation and nothing we presented as far as "substantially similar" was considered for the decision.

 

Atleast now, I'm past Step 2 of Director appeal and can place it squarely in the hands of the Court system now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa! Seriously? Residents of Virginia, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Hawaii are not required to have a FOID Card, but simply not be prohibited from obtaining one if they were an Illinois resident. Furthermore, this, imo, violates a 2011 Illinois Supreme Court Ruling. Iirc, it's Chicago v Johnson.

 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Petitioner stated he does not currently have an Illinois drivers license, and as of June of 2015 has not resides in the state of Illinois for more than 30 days. Because Petitioner is not a Illinois resident, he is ineligible for a FOID card and does not qualify for a CCL.

The ALJ needs new reading glasses - or to at least wear an "I <3 {D}A MACHINE" button on their lapel and make their bias publicly known.

 

Section 40. Non-resident license applications.

(a) For the purposes of this Section, "non-resident" means a person who has not resided within this State for more than 30

days and resides in another state or territory.

 

{B} The Department shall by rule allow for non-resident license applications from any state or territory of the United

States with laws related to firearm ownership, possession, and carrying, that are substantially similar to the requirements to

obtain a license under this Act.

 

{C} A resident of a state or territory approved by the Department under subsection {B} of this Section may apply for a

non-resident license. The applicant shall apply to the Department and must meet all of the qualifications established

in Section 25 of this Act, except for the Illinois residency requirement in item (xiv) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Section 4 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.

 

If they wanted to fall back on "not substantially similar" they could try that, but to claim non-compliance with a specifically exempted section is farcical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the logic of the ISP is a resident license is not the same as a non-resident license, even if they look alike and allow someone to conceal carry in the state of Illinois. Since there are two different licenses, then logically if someone moves out of state, they no longer qualify for a resident license. In contrast, most posters on this topic presume a license is a license regardless of which path a person took to obtain that license.

 

We would need to ask, if a non-resident obtained an Illinois CCL and then moved to Illinois, do they still have a valid license or will they need to reapply as a resident?

 

Does the law create two different license classification? Wishful thinking does not count. Colorado does not recognize a non-resident license even if you happen to have a non-resident Florida or Utah or wherever license. Therefore, there is some precedent for two different license classifications. There may be better examples to share. I believe Michigan draws a line in the sand. Other states do not make a distinction between resident and non-resident and is why people obtain Florida and Utah non-resident licenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the logic of the ISP is a resident license is not the same as a non-resident license, even if they look alike and allow someone to conceal carry in the state of Illinois. Since there are two different licenses, then logically if someone moves out of state, they no longer qualify for a resident license. In contrast, most posters on this topic presume a license is a license regardless of which path a person took to obtain that license.

There is no distinction in the FCCA, there is no such things as a "non resident license". There are different application processes depending on whether the person applying is an Illinois resident or not. There is nothing in the qualifications or revokation sections regarding residence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...