Jump to content

Board Review...


majd0910

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

 

So I applied for my conceal on June 4th, and prior to that I never had any sort of record that was violent or dangerous. However, 3 weeks after applying I got pulled over for going 30 over (yes very stupid of me) and got arrested by the police officer how was rather rude. I received a letter almost 3 months later now dated aug 25 saying that an objection was given by a police department and I dont know if it was the sheriffs or my local police department. Is there anything i should be worried about or can do to speed this up? And yes, Im in cook county lol. Thanks guys.

 

Edit: also my case was completely dismissed not even a month later by my lawyer (hit me

Up if you need one around south suburban Chicago area). I have no convictions on my file.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some threads here about those who have been under board review for a year or more.

No speed up process in place anywhere we currently know of.

Your ability to appeal iirc is after they send you the letter stating you have been denied, but not while the review.

They seem to have unlimited timelines on that process.

 

Good Luck and Welcome to the Forums.

 

****Look around and read some threads, it will help you pass the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

 

So I applied for my conceal on June 4th, and prior to that I never had any sort of record that was violent or dangerous. However, 3 weeks after applying I got pulled over for going 30 over (yes very stupid of me) and got arrested by the police officer how was rather rude. I received a letter almost 3 months later now dated aug 25 saying that an objection was given by a police department and I dont know if it was the sheriffs or my local police department. Is there anything i should be worried about or can do to speed this up? And yes, Im in cook county lol. Thanks guys.

 

Edit: also my case was completely dismissed not even a month later by my lawyer (hit me

Up if you need one around south suburban Chicago area). I have no convictions on my file.

 

There has to be more to this story. You don't get arrested just for going 30 over the speed limit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 over is a misdemeanor in illinois

 

Yeah, was just reading that they changed it in the last couple years. It used to be up to 30mph was just a fine/ticket, and 31+ was a misdemeanor. I didn't even realize they changed it. I'm guessing they changed it to coincide with the higher speed limits on the highways in Illinois now?

 

I still think there is more to this since he stated that the "officer was very rude". As far as I know, a misdemeanor, especially one for "excessive speeding" wouldn't necessarily disqualify you. I guess it would be triggered by a background check, though, which may explain the board review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

30 over is a misdemeanor in illinois

 

Yeah, was just reading that they changed it in the last couple years. It used to be up to 30mph was just a fine/ticket, and 31+ was a misdemeanor. I didn't even realize they changed it. I'm guessing they changed it to coincide with the higher speed limits on the highways in Illinois now?

 

I still think there is more to this since he stated that the "officer was very rude". As far as I know, a misdemeanor, especially one for "excessive speeding" wouldn't necessarily disqualify you. I guess it would be triggered by a background check, though, which may explain the board review.

 

During the traffic stop, I was arguing with the officer in which I stated that I did not believe I was going 30 over. As have been pulled over before for the same speed violation, yes, I was shocked. I explained that I believed it was unnecessary and that a ticket will suffice, but nope! I was pulled over for going 27 over a year ago and I was not arrested. I thought he was pulling a stunt, however it is true now. The law changed around a year ago from day. I asked him if it was necessary to arrest me, someone who has no convictions and has a rather clean record and he insisted. I had a few wordy exchanges, but other than that nothing bad happened. Other than that I have a CLEAN record. No drug charges, no violent charges, nothing. I don't even drink alcohol lol. At the end, the officer was trying to prove a point and trust me he did. They did not like how I carried myself, which to be honest I dont blame them. I just didnt answer any questions and told them to hurry it up I am busy. Worst thing I did was say this was BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, Cook county uses anything they can to object. So it wouldn't surprise me that they use speeding over 30mph as a reason to object. If that's truly the reason, the board will probably overturn it. But I could take a while. Cook county plays stupid games.

I was going exactly 30 mph over according to the officer. Case was dismissed not even 3 weeks later!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

30 over is a misdemeanor in illinois

 

Yeah, was just reading that they changed it in the last couple years. It used to be up to 30mph was just a fine/ticket, and 31+ was a misdemeanor. I didn't even realize they changed it. I'm guessing they changed it to coincide with the higher speed limits on the highways in Illinois now?

 

I still think there is more to this since he stated that the "officer was very rude". As far as I know, a misdemeanor, especially one for "excessive speeding" wouldn't necessarily disqualify you. I guess it would be triggered by a background check, though, which may explain the board review.

 

During the traffic stop, I was arguing with the officer in which I stated that I did not believe I was going 30 over. As have been pulled over before for the same speed violation, yes, I was shocked. I explained that I believed it was unnecessary and that a ticket will suffice, but nope! I was pulled over for going 27 over a year ago and I was not arrested. I thought he was pulling a stunt, however it is true now. The law changed around a year ago from day. I asked him if it was necessary to arrest me, someone who has no convictions and has a rather clean record and he insisted. I had a few wordy exchanges, but other than that nothing bad happened. Other than that I have a CLEAN record. No drug charges, no violent charges, nothing. I don't even drink alcohol lol. At the end, the officer was trying to prove a point and trust me he did. They did not like how I carried myself, which to be honest I dont blame them. I just didnt answer any questions and told them to hurry it up I am busy. Worst thing I did was say this was BS.

 

 

 

There's your issue. You had a ticket for 27 over just a year ago. The cop sees that. It takes like 7 years for a ticket to drop off. He figured you didn't learn your lesson, so he threw the book at you.

 

I mean... who drives 30mph over the speed limit regularly? If you're on side streets that are 40mph or 45mph, you're doing 70-75mph, and you're lucky to not get tagged with reckless driving among other things. If you're on the highway, you're doing between 85 and 100... what is the purpose of going that fast? Is the 3 1/2 minutes sooner that you get to your destination worth all this trouble? Not to mention, you're probably lucky you didn't get a reckless driving ticket for that too. Going that fast, if he sees you weave around someone/pass someone on the right, he can very easily tag you with it. Slow down. Me and my kids in my car will appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's your issue. You had a ticket for 27 over just a year ago. The cop sees that. It takes like 7 years for a ticket to drop off. He figured you didn't learn your lesson, so he threw the book at you.

 

I mean... who drives 30mph over the speed limit regularly? If you're on side streets that are 40mph or 45mph, you're doing 70-75mph, and you're lucky to not get tagged with reckless driving among other things. If you're on the highway, you're doing between 85 and 100... what is the purpose of going that fast? Is the 3 1/2 minutes sooner that you get to your destination worth all this trouble? Not to mention, you're probably lucky you didn't get a reckless driving ticket for that too. Going that fast, if he sees you weave around someone/pass someone on the right, he can very easily tag you with it. Slow down. Me and my kids in my car will appreciate it.

No, the issue brought to the forum is the objection the CCL application. We are a gun rights forum, not a driving safety forum.

 

cnwfan3 is correct that Sheriff Dart's office is known to use any excuse to object to carry applications, often for reasons wholly unrelated to the applicant's ability to safely carry. It is one of the many abuses of power we see in this state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's your issue. You had a ticket for 27 over just a year ago. The cop sees that. It takes like 7 years for a ticket to drop off. He figured you didn't learn your lesson, so he threw the book at you.

 

I mean... who drives 30mph over the speed limit regularly? If you're on side streets that are 40mph or 45mph, you're doing 70-75mph, and you're lucky to not get tagged with reckless driving among other things. If you're on the highway, you're doing between 85 and 100... what is the purpose of going that fast? Is the 3 1/2 minutes sooner that you get to your destination worth all this trouble? Not to mention, you're probably lucky you didn't get a reckless driving ticket for that too. Going that fast, if he sees you weave around someone/pass someone on the right, he can very easily tag you with it. Slow down. Me and my kids in my car will appreciate it.

No, the issue brought to the forum is the objection the CCL application. We are a gun rights forum, not a driving safety forum.

 

cnwfan3 is correct that Sheriff Dart's office is known to use any excuse to object to carry applications, often for reasons wholly unrelated to the applicant's ability to safely carry. It is one of the many abuses of power we see in this state.

 

 

The objection of the CCL application is in direct relation to his behavior, no? At least to me. I'm not saying it's right that he should be denied based upon speeding tickets, but it's likely the reason why he was denied, and I was simply pointing it out. And sorry, but I'm of the opinion, play stupid games, win stupid prizes... When you repeatedly break the law... it's going to impact your ability to do the things you want to do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not. It's Cook county playing stupid games. I was caught up in their stupid games as well and I could see first hand the stuff they pulled all in an effort to restrict our rights. It has nothing to do with speeding or anything else. It has everything to do with them trying to deny and or delay your rights. It cost me over $1500 to fight and the NRA to get involved and file a suit (which was eventually dropped). But changes actually did come out of it in that did give applicants a right to respond to the objection. When mine happened I did not have that right. Cook County plays games and I saw it first hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not. It's Cook county playing stupid games. I was caught up in their stupid games as well and I could see first hand the stuff they pulled all in an effort to restrict our rights. It has nothing to do with speeding or anything else. It has everything to do with them trying to deny and or delay your rights. It cost me over $1500 to fight and the NRA to get involved and file a suit (which was eventually dropped). But changes actually did come out of it in that did give applicants a right to respond to the objection. When mine happened I did not have that right. Cook County plays games and I saw it first hand.

 

Did you see somewhere in my post where I said Crook County doesn't play games? I don't think I did. I'm well-aware of the fact that this state is corrupt on many different levels, in particular, that county.

 

That doesn't change the fact that if you continually break the law, eventually it catches up to you. That's just common sense. Guess what? I don't break the law. My process went smooth, without issues, though it took longer than I would obviously want, and I was po'd about that delay. A global pandemic doesn't help with that, either.

 

Repeatedly breaking the law isn't going to impact your ability to do the things you want to do, huh? Lol.

 

I swear to God... so many people refuse to use logic and common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, it's not. It's Cook county playing stupid games. I was caught up in their stupid games as well and I could see first hand the stuff they pulled all in an effort to restrict our rights. It has nothing to do with speeding or anything else. It has everything to do with them trying to deny and or delay your rights. It cost me over $1500 to fight and the NRA to get involved and file a suit (which was eventually dropped). But changes actually did come out of it in that did give applicants a right to respond to the objection. When mine happened I did not have that right. Cook County plays games and I saw it first hand.

 

Did you see somewhere in my post where I said Crook County doesn't play games? I don't think I did. I'm well-aware of the fact that this state is corrupt on many different levels, in particular, that county.

 

That doesn't change the fact that if you continually break the law, eventually it catches up to you. That's just common sense. Guess what? I don't break the law. My process went smooth, without issues, though it took longer than I would obviously want, and I was po'd about that delay. A global pandemic doesn't help with that, either.

 

Repeatedly breaking the law isn't going to impact your ability to do the things you want to do, huh? Lol.

 

I swear to God... so many people refuse to use logic and common sense.

 

 

I have never broken the law, not so much as a even speeding ticket. Cook County still objected as they used someone else (with the same name and a criminal record) to object to me. I had later found out that the famous Tom Dart, told his minions to find any reason to object to people and let the board sort it out. They didn't even care that they were objecting some someone else's criminal record and not mine. The idea here, is that people are being objected to for a reason that has nothing to with the right to carry a firearm. Speeding has nothing to do with a reason to be issued a CCL or not. Objections are supposed to be based on the merit of a valid reason for not being able to carry a firearm not on someones character. Speeding is no more of a valid reason for an objection than getting a parking ticket. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but don't judge until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No, it's not. It's Cook county playing stupid games. I was caught up in their stupid games as well and I could see first hand the stuff they pulled all in an effort to restrict our rights. It has nothing to do with speeding or anything else. It has everything to do with them trying to deny and or delay your rights. It cost me over $1500 to fight and the NRA to get involved and file a suit (which was eventually dropped). But changes actually did come out of it in that did give applicants a right to respond to the objection. When mine happened I did not have that right. Cook County plays games and I saw it first hand.

 

Did you see somewhere in my post where I said Crook County doesn't play games? I don't think I did. I'm well-aware of the fact that this state is corrupt on many different levels, in particular, that county.

 

That doesn't change the fact that if you continually break the law, eventually it catches up to you. That's just common sense. Guess what? I don't break the law. My process went smooth, without issues, though it took longer than I would obviously want, and I was po'd about that delay. A global pandemic doesn't help with that, either.

 

Repeatedly breaking the law isn't going to impact your ability to do the things you want to do, huh? Lol.

 

I swear to God... so many people refuse to use logic and common sense.

 

 

I have never broken the law, not so much as a even speeding ticket. Cook County still objected as they used someone else (with the same name and a criminal record) to object to me. I had later found out that the famous Tom Dart, told his minions to find any reason to object to people and let the board sort it out. They didn't even care that they were objecting some someone else's criminal record and not mine. The idea here, is that people are being objected to for a reason that has nothing to with the right to carry a firearm. Speeding has nothing to do with a reason to be issued a CCL or not. Objections are supposed to be based on the merit of a valid reason for not being able to carry a firearm not on someones character. Speeding is no more of a valid reason for an objection than getting a parking ticket. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but don't judge until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

 

 

You know I even said speeding isn't right when it comes to denying his CCL right? All I said was that repeatedly breaking the law will impact the process... I'd rather it impact the process than have criminals end up with firearms when they shouldn't have them. In your case, yeah, it was a mistake, and you had to take more time to get it resolved, but ultimately it kept a firearm from getting into the hands of someone that had a criminal record, which tells me the system is working, at least partially.

 

You do realize that speeding/traffic violations can come with a lot of consequences, right? Multiple misdemeanor speeding violations within a year will cause your license to drive to be revoked/suspended. Speeding at that level and causing an accident that injures people is a criminal offense, that comes with a felony. Breaking the law, is breaking the law, is breaking the law. Breaking laws will impact your ability to do the things you want to do. As I originally said. Nothing more. His breaking the law impacted his CCL process. That's what the system is designed to do... make it harder for criminals to get guns. Or do we prefer that criminals are allowed to get guns as easily as anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I have never broken the law, not so much as a even speeding ticket. Cook County still objected as they used someone else (with the same name and a criminal record) to object to me. I had later found out that the famous Tom Dart, told his minions to find any reason to object to people and let the board sort it out. They didn't even care that they were objecting some someone else's criminal record and not mine. The idea here, is that people are being objected to for a reason that has nothing to with the right to carry a firearm. Speeding has nothing to do with a reason to be issued a CCL or not. Objections are supposed to be based on the merit of a valid reason for not being able to carry a firearm not on someones character. Speeding is no more of a valid reason for an objection than getting a parking ticket. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but don't judge until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

 

 

You know I even said speeding isn't right when it comes to denying his CCL right? All I said was that repeatedly breaking the law will impact the process... I'd rather it impact the process than have criminals end up with firearms when they shouldn't have them. In your case, yeah, it was a mistake, and you had to take more time to get it resolved, but ultimately it kept a firearm from getting into the hands of someone that had a criminal record, which tells me the system is working, at least partially.

 

You do realize that speeding/traffic violations can come with a lot of consequences, right? Multiple misdemeanor speeding violations within a year will cause your license to drive to be revoked/suspended. Speeding at that level and causing an accident that injures people is a criminal offense, that comes with a felony. Breaking the law, is breaking the law, is breaking the law. Breaking laws will impact your ability to do the things you want to do. As I originally said. Nothing more. His breaking the law impacted his CCL process. That's what the system is designed to do... make it harder for criminals to get guns. Or do we prefer that criminals are allowed to get guns as easily as anyone else?

 

 

Nobody said that excessive speeding should not have consequences. But the punishment needs to fit the crime. ie. excessive speeding could cause you to lose driving privileges or something that is related to driving. The punishment should be related to the privilege of driving, not your right to carry a firearm.

 

I agree violent criminals should get guns. But the idea is to keep guns out of peoples hands that are dangerous and might use guns to harm others. Speeding is not one of those crimes. The issue is that there is a fine line on how the objections are being used as to how they are supposed to be used. Cook County is not applying the objection process correctly as the spirit of the law is intended. It was designed to stop violent criminals that should not have guns from getting guns that somehow sneak through process. I equate Cook County's objection process to that of individuals and/or lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits. Until you are actually impacted by being unjustly objected to, you won't truly understand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I have never broken the law, not so much as a even speeding ticket. Cook County still objected as they used someone else (with the same name and a criminal record) to object to me. I had later found out that the famous Tom Dart, told his minions to find any reason to object to people and let the board sort it out. They didn't even care that they were objecting some someone else's criminal record and not mine. The idea here, is that people are being objected to for a reason that has nothing to with the right to carry a firearm. Speeding has nothing to do with a reason to be issued a CCL or not. Objections are supposed to be based on the merit of a valid reason for not being able to carry a firearm not on someones character. Speeding is no more of a valid reason for an objection than getting a parking ticket. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but don't judge until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

 

 

You know I even said speeding isn't right when it comes to denying his CCL right? All I said was that repeatedly breaking the law will impact the process... I'd rather it impact the process than have criminals end up with firearms when they shouldn't have them. In your case, yeah, it was a mistake, and you had to take more time to get it resolved, but ultimately it kept a firearm from getting into the hands of someone that had a criminal record, which tells me the system is working, at least partially.

 

You do realize that speeding/traffic violations can come with a lot of consequences, right? Multiple misdemeanor speeding violations within a year will cause your license to drive to be revoked/suspended. Speeding at that level and causing an accident that injures people is a criminal offense, that comes with a felony. Breaking the law, is breaking the law, is breaking the law. Breaking laws will impact your ability to do the things you want to do. As I originally said. Nothing more. His breaking the law impacted his CCL process. That's what the system is designed to do... make it harder for criminals to get guns. Or do we prefer that criminals are allowed to get guns as easily as anyone else?

 

 

Nobody said that excessive speeding should not have consequences. But the punishment needs to fit the crime. ie. excessive speeding could cause you to lose driving privileges or something that is related to driving. The punishment should be related to the privilege of driving, not your right to carry a firearm.

 

I agree violent criminals should get guns. But the idea is to keep guns out of peoples hands that are dangerous and might use guns to harm others. Speeding is not one of those crimes. The issue is that there is a fine line on how the objections are being used as to how they are supposed to be used. Cook County is not applying the objection process correctly as the spirit of the law is intended. It was designed to stop violent criminals that should not have guns from getting guns that somehow sneak through process. I equate Cook County's objection process to that of individuals and/or lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits. Until you are actually impacted by being unjustly objected to, you won't truly understand

 

 

The punishment for his multiple speeding violations isn't taking away his right to carry a firearm. It's just slowing down the process, as some of his violations are criminal. Misdemeanors, no matter what they're for, will slow down the process, as they show up on a criminal background check, as they're considered criminal offenses. He won't be rejected by the board due to a couple speeding violations. He'll just take longer to get his CCL, is my understanding of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know I even said speeding isn't right when it comes to denying his CCL right? All I said was that repeatedly breaking the law will impact the process... I'd rather it impact the process than have criminals end up with firearms when they shouldn't have them. In your case, yeah, it was a mistake, and you had to take more time to get it resolved, but ultimately it kept a firearm from getting into the hands of someone that had a criminal record, which tells me the system is working, at least partially.

 

You do realize that speeding/traffic violations can come with a lot of consequences, right? Multiple misdemeanor speeding violations within a year will cause your license to drive to be revoked/suspended. Speeding at that level and causing an accident that injures people is a criminal offense, that comes with a felony. Breaking the law, is breaking the law, is breaking the law. Breaking laws will impact your ability to do the things you want to do. As I originally said. Nothing more. His breaking the law impacted his CCL process. That's what the system is designed to do... make it harder for criminals to get guns. Or do we prefer that criminals are allowed to get guns as easily as anyone else?

 

Nobody said that excessive speeding should not have consequences. But the punishment needs to fit the crime. ie. excessive speeding could cause you to lose driving privileges or something that is related to driving. The punishment should be related to the privilege of driving, not your right to carry a firearm.

 

I agree violent criminals should get guns. But the idea is to keep guns out of peoples hands that are dangerous and might use guns to harm others. Speeding is not one of those crimes. The issue is that there is a fine line on how the objections are being used as to how they are supposed to be used. Cook County is not applying the objection process correctly as the spirit of the law is intended. It was designed to stop violent criminals that should not have guns from getting guns that somehow sneak through process. I equate Cook County's objection process to that of individuals and/or lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits. Until you are actually impacted by being unjustly objected to, you won't truly understand

 

 

The punishment for his multiple speeding violations isn't taking away his right to carry a firearm. It's just slowing down the process, as some of his violations are criminal. Misdemeanors, no matter what they're for, will slow down the process, as they show up on a criminal background check, as they're considered criminal offenses. He won't be rejected by the board due to a couple speeding violations. He'll just take longer to get his CCL, is my understanding of it.

 

 

Yes, that's the whole point, it should not slow down or take a way any firearm rights. It's not related to it. Again, if you were unjustly objected to, you would understand the point much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know I even said speeding isn't right when it comes to denying his CCL right? All I said was that repeatedly breaking the law will impact the process... I'd rather it impact the process than have criminals end up with firearms when they shouldn't have them. In your case, yeah, it was a mistake, and you had to take more time to get it resolved, but ultimately it kept a firearm from getting into the hands of someone that had a criminal record, which tells me the system is working, at least partially.

 

You do realize that speeding/traffic violations can come with a lot of consequences, right? Multiple misdemeanor speeding violations within a year will cause your license to drive to be revoked/suspended. Speeding at that level and causing an accident that injures people is a criminal offense, that comes with a felony. Breaking the law, is breaking the law, is breaking the law. Breaking laws will impact your ability to do the things you want to do. As I originally said. Nothing more. His breaking the law impacted his CCL process. That's what the system is designed to do... make it harder for criminals to get guns. Or do we prefer that criminals are allowed to get guns as easily as anyone else?

 

Nobody said that excessive speeding should not have consequences. But the punishment needs to fit the crime. ie. excessive speeding could cause you to lose driving privileges or something that is related to driving. The punishment should be related to the privilege of driving, not your right to carry a firearm.

 

I agree violent criminals should get guns. But the idea is to keep guns out of peoples hands that are dangerous and might use guns to harm others. Speeding is not one of those crimes. The issue is that there is a fine line on how the objections are being used as to how they are supposed to be used. Cook County is not applying the objection process correctly as the spirit of the law is intended. It was designed to stop violent criminals that should not have guns from getting guns that somehow sneak through process. I equate Cook County's objection process to that of individuals and/or lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits. Until you are actually impacted by being unjustly objected to, you won't truly understand

 

 

The punishment for his multiple speeding violations isn't taking away his right to carry a firearm. It's just slowing down the process, as some of his violations are criminal. Misdemeanors, no matter what they're for, will slow down the process, as they show up on a criminal background check, as they're considered criminal offenses. He won't be rejected by the board due to a couple speeding violations. He'll just take longer to get his CCL, is my understanding of it.

 

 

Yes, that's the whole point, it should not slow down or take a way any firearm rights. It's not related to it. Again, if you were unjustly objected to, you would understand the point much better.

 

 

What proposed fix do you have, though? The background check needs to remain in place. You can't give out carry licenses without background checks. From my understanding of how it works, a background check will automatically trigger a board rejection due to criminal offenses showing up on it, even though they're not really related to his right to carry a firearm. I guess they could "exempt" certain offenses in the process somehow, but it will likely still delay things still. I'm not sure if there is a good way around that, or not. I imagine that criminal offenses are criminal offenses when it comes to criminal databases(based upon my experience in IT)

 

I mean, me being unjustly objected to, or not, has no bearing on my ability to discuss/debate the validity of the delay, and the reasons surrounding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just out of curiosity, let me get this straight.inpatient psych or substance abuse is reported directly into a isp database. At some point there is a member of your local law enforcement or a civilian for all I know, I can picture with their feet up eating a donut deciding weather or not to flag you.you would think there would be very defined guidelines across the board.and no,I'm not defending criminal acts.it just seems to me after reading so many of these posts,some folks are just wronged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The punishment for his multiple speeding violations isn't taking away his right to carry a firearm. It's just slowing down the process, as some of his violations are criminal. Misdemeanors, no matter what they're for, will slow down the process, as they show up on a criminal background check, as they're considered criminal offenses. He won't be rejected by the board due to a couple speeding violations. He'll just take longer to get his CCL, is my understanding of it.

 

 

Yes, that's the whole point, it should not slow down or take a way any firearm rights. It's not related to it. Again, if you were unjustly objected to, you would understand the point much better.

 

 

What proposed fix do you have, though? The background check needs to remain in place. You can't give out carry licenses without background checks. From my understanding of how it works, a background check will automatically trigger a board rejection due to criminal offenses showing up on it, even though they're not really related to his right to carry a firearm. I guess they could "exempt" certain offenses in the process somehow, but it will likely still delay things still. I'm not sure if there is a good way around that, or not. I imagine that criminal offenses are criminal offenses when it comes to criminal databases(based upon my experience in IT)

 

I mean, me being unjustly objected to, or not, has no bearing on my ability to discuss/debate the validity of the delay, and the reasons surrounding it.

 

 

What exactly are you referring to about background checks? I, in no way, ever suggested removing background checks or changing the qualification for a CCL based on the law. We are solely talking about the objection process and how Cook County is not using it properly in the spirit of what is was meant for. If speeding was a disqualifier under the law, and a background check revealed that, then by all means, a person should be denied. But what are referring to here is the objection process not disqualifiers under the law.

 

The objection process is a subjective process by law enforcement that gives them the opportunity to justify why someone should not be granted a CCL if legally there is nothing that disqualifies them. This might be a situation where law enforcement had to go to a domestic disturbance call and the person in question was not arrested therefore no legal record of this occurring would be caught in a back ground check. In this situation, the responding law enforcement would have this information and might object to that person on the grounds that they are dangerous to others. This process is clearly being abused by Cook County as they object to any little thing they can. Get caught J-walking, grounds for a objection from Tom Dart. (ie the term often coined, you've been Darted). This is solely what we are discussing here. Again, you are entitled to you opinion, but I don't agree with Cook County making these objections that have absolutely no bearing on someones right to carry a firearm.

 

Let me ask you, if you were objected to because you had a parking ticket, would you consider that just? Those are the kind of games that are being played in Cook County.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What exactly are you referring to about background checks? I, in no way, ever suggested removing background checks or changing the qualification for a CCL based on the law. We are solely talking about the objection process and how Cook County is not using it properly in the spirit of what is was meant for. If speeding was a disqualifier under the law, and a background check revealed that, then by all means, a person should be denied. But what are referring to here is the objection process not disqualifiers under the law.

 

The objection process is a subjective process by law enforcement that gives them the opportunity to justify why someone should not be granted a CCL if legally there is nothing that disqualifies them. This might be a situation where law enforcement had to go to a domestic disturbance call and the person in question was not arrested therefore no legal record of this occurring would be caught in a back ground check. In this situation, the responding law enforcement would have this information and might object to that person on the grounds that they are dangerous to others. This process is clearly being abused by Cook County as they object to any little thing they can. Get caught J-walking, grounds for a objection from Tom Dart. (ie the term often coined, you've been Darted). This is solely what we are discussing here. Again, you are entitled to you opinion, but I don't agree with Cook County making these objections that have absolutely no bearing on someones right to carry a firearm.

 

Let me ask you, if you were objected to because you had a parking ticket, would you consider that just? Those are the kind of games that are being played in Cook County.

 

 

You seem to be completely misunderstanding me, so I'm just going to stop it here, and not bother debating it anymore. I also seemed to misunderstand the OP a bit. So no big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

What exactly are you referring to about background checks? I, in no way, ever suggested removing background checks or changing the qualification for a CCL based on the law. We are solely talking about the objection process and how Cook County is not using it properly in the spirit of what is was meant for. If speeding was a disqualifier under the law, and a background check revealed that, then by all means, a person should be denied. But what are referring to here is the objection process not disqualifiers under the law.

 

The objection process is a subjective process by law enforcement that gives them the opportunity to justify why someone should not be granted a CCL if legally there is nothing that disqualifies them. This might be a situation where law enforcement had to go to a domestic disturbance call and the person in question was not arrested therefore no legal record of this occurring would be caught in a back ground check. In this situation, the responding law enforcement would have this information and might object to that person on the grounds that they are dangerous to others. This process is clearly being abused by Cook County as they object to any little thing they can. Get caught J-walking, grounds for a objection from Tom Dart. (ie the term often coined, you've been Darted). This is solely what we are discussing here. Again, you are entitled to you opinion, but I don't agree with Cook County making these objections that have absolutely no bearing on someones right to carry a firearm.

 

Let me ask you, if you were objected to because you had a parking ticket, would you consider that just? Those are the kind of games that are being played in Cook County.

 

 

You seem to be completely misunderstanding me, so I'm just going to stop it here, and not bother debating it anymore. I also seemed to misunderstand the OP a bit. So no big deal.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but that's was not the point of the OP. It's solely in regards to the objection process. I was just trying to keep the conversation in line with the OP. No hard feelings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

What exactly are you referring to about background checks? I, in no way, ever suggested removing background checks or changing the qualification for a CCL based on the law. We are solely talking about the objection process and how Cook County is not using it properly in the spirit of what is was meant for. If speeding was a disqualifier under the law, and a background check revealed that, then by all means, a person should be denied. But what are referring to here is the objection process not disqualifiers under the law.

 

The objection process is a subjective process by law enforcement that gives them the opportunity to justify why someone should not be granted a CCL if legally there is nothing that disqualifies them. This might be a situation where law enforcement had to go to a domestic disturbance call and the person in question was not arrested therefore no legal record of this occurring would be caught in a back ground check. In this situation, the responding law enforcement would have this information and might object to that person on the grounds that they are dangerous to others. This process is clearly being abused by Cook County as they object to any little thing they can. Get caught J-walking, grounds for a objection from Tom Dart. (ie the term often coined, you've been Darted). This is solely what we are discussing here. Again, you are entitled to you opinion, but I don't agree with Cook County making these objections that have absolutely no bearing on someones right to carry a firearm.

 

Let me ask you, if you were objected to because you had a parking ticket, would you consider that just? Those are the kind of games that are being played in Cook County.

 

 

You seem to be completely misunderstanding me, so I'm just going to stop it here, and not bother debating it anymore. I also seemed to misunderstand the OP a bit. So no big deal.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but that's was not the point of the OP. It's solely in regards to the objection process. I was just trying to keep the conversation in line with the OP. No hard feelings?

 

 

None at all! Definitely not. For some reason I thought it was the background check that came back with issues, and that's why he went under board review. I may have been confusing multiple threads even. Could swear I was reading about a board review related to something similar, but I'm guessing it was a different thread. Anyways, no big deal. I think we generally agree, we just weren't lining up correctly in the thread on account of me misreading the OP. I still think a LEO saw the misdemeanors, and that's why he/she objected. heck, it could have even been the officer that he interacted with on the traffic stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just out of curiosity, let me get this straight.inpatient psych or substance abuse is reported directly into a isp database. At some point there is a member of your local law enforcement or a civilian for all I know, I can picture with their feet up eating a donut deciding weather or not to flag you.you would think there would be very defined guidelines across the board.and no,I'm not defending criminal acts.it just seems to me after reading so many of these posts,some folks are just wronged.

Why is it that every law enforcement officer OR civilian personnel are always pictured as being lazy and feet up and always eating doughnuts?

Anytime something in a gov admin or office doesn't sit well with the gen pop, its slur them with what ever we can. Sound familiar?

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...