Molly B.

The actual Firearm Conceal Carry Act statute: (2) Any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a pre-school or child care facility, including any room or portion of a building under the control of a pre-school or child care facility. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the operator of a child care facility in a family home from owning or possessing a firearm in the home or license under this Act, if no child under child care at the home is present in the home or the firearm in the home is stored in a locked container when a child under child care at the home is present in the home. My opinion is that the operative words would be "under the control of a pre-school or child care facility". If pre-school or child care is not in session during hours of worship, then the house of worship is not under the control of a pre-school or child care facility. Just my opinion, not to be considered legal advice.

This Q/A was previously posted on ISP FOID/CCL FAQ: After contacting them with a request for correction: Please be advised that the answer to the above FAQ is incorrect. Please see the statute below stating the term ‘daycare center’ does not apply to religious services where transient children are cared for temporarily while parents or custodians of the children are occupied on the premises and readily available . . . (unless of course, the place of worship chooses to post the official “no carry” signage). (225 ILCS 10/2.09) (from Ch. 23, par. 2212.09) Sec. 2.09. "Day care center" means any child care facility which regularly provides day care for less than 24 hours per day for (1) more than 8 children in a family home, or (2) more than 3 children in a facility other than a family home, including senior citizen buildings. The term does not include: (e) facilities operated in connection with a shopping center or service, religious services, or other similar facility, where transient children are cared for temporarily while parents or custodians of the children are occupied on the premises and readily available; , it now reads :

The statute says foid and ccl remain valid while renewal is pending. I'm curious when it will show active in the portal.

Log back in and check your foid expiration date.

Fantastic! Thanks for the update.

https://saf.org/plaintiffs-file-brief-in-challenge-of-illinois-public-transit-carry-ban/ BELLEVUE, WA – Plaintiffs in a federal challenge of the Illinois Public Transit carry ban have filed a brief in support of their earlier motion for summary judgment in the case, which is financially supported by the Second Amendment Foundation. The case is known as Schoenthal v. Raoul and is currently in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. Plaintiffs are Benjamin Schoenthal, Mark Wroblewski, Joseph Vesel, and Douglas Winston. They are represented by attorney David G. Sigale of Lombard, Ill. The defendants are Attorney General Kwame Raoul and State’s Attorneys Rick Amato (DeKalb County), Robert Berlin (DuPage County), Kimberly M. Foxx (Cook County) and Eric Rinehart (Lake County), all in their official capacities. “As noted in the brief,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “this case asserts the Illinois Public Transportation carry ban cannot stand unless it is consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation at the time of the ratification of the right to keep and bear arms. It is abundantly clear the defendants can’t provide such information, and in their response, they have failed to offer any Founding-era evidence supporting the ban.” In other states with licensed concealed carry, legally-armed private citizens can utilize public transportation. Illinois, however, continues to cling to a restriction which has no historic legal foundation. It simply denies the right to bear arms arbitrarily to anyone using public transportation because of state government’s long-standing revulsion toward firearms and the Second Amendment, Gottlieb said. “This ban clearly violates the Second Amendment,” he observed, “which the defendants should realize, since the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment in a case they’re all familiar with, McDonald v. City of Chicago. SAF won that case at the Supreme Court in 2010, nullifying Chicago’s handgun ban.”

The DUI was for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, correct? There is a one-year federal prohibition for possessing firearms. I'm not sure how that works with a deferred judgment probation though. It's possible the prohibition lasts for the duration of the probation. Also, what level of risk assessment did you receive? It's possible if you received a high-risk level assessment and the court order included mandatory counseling/treatment, then you would fall under that prohibitor as well. You will need to ask an attorney to look at your probabation.

179 Apr 11, 2024 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stephen P. McGlynn: Scheduling Conference held on 4/11/2024. Sean Brady participated on behalf of the FFL Illinois Plaintiffs. Tom Maag participated on behalf of the Langley Plaintiffs. Andrew Lothson, James Vogts and Mariel Brookins participated on behalf of the Barnett Plaintiffs. David Sigale and Will Bergstrom participated on behalf of the Harrel Plaintiffs. Christopher Wells and Kathryn Hunt Muse participated on behalf of Defendants Kwame Raoul, Jay Robert Pritzker, and Brendan Kelly. Thomas Ysursa participated on behalf of the St. Clair County Defendants. Katherine Asfour participated on behalf of the Randolph County Defendants. Mike Schag participated on behalf of Crawford County Defendants. In accordance with the Court's Order issued during the Status/Scheduling Conference, parties shall submit their expert reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) no later than 5/10/2024. Parties shall carbon copy the Court when submitting these reports via the Courts electronic inbox (SPMpd@ilsd.uscourts.gov). Follow-up status conference to be held on 5/16/2024 at 1:30 PM via Zoom video. Parties will receive a Zoom invitation via e-mail. (Court Reporter N/A.) (jsm2)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 04/11/2024) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66755267/barnett-v-raoul/?page=2

Thank you, Fred!

I messaged you via email.

1. It looks like the slides for segment on FOID and the segment on Intro to Carry Law have been updated with some changes. However, the PICA changes in law have not been incorporated in the instructor manual or slides because it would have been a huge undertaking that we do not expect to withstand the court challenges. They remain as a standalone addition. 2. Some instructors use the slides, some do not. I do not use the slides for this segment for the same reason. I instruct from the instructor manual and take questions to break up the monotony - good snacks help too! Students are invited to bring snacks. 3. The intent of the comment is to introduce legislative intent expressed by the Chief Sponsor during bill debate on the floor of the House.

https://youtu.be/_UkdzGFRhz0?si=3P0ZrjCy_3kXf2gz

The ccl review board will either overrule the objection and isp will issue the license. Or They will send you a letter stating which agency objected and why, along with a request for your side of the story. At that point they will either overrule the objection or have the license issued. If the board requests a response from you, there is a topic in the forums with some helpful advice.