Jump to content

IllinoisCarry Meets with Legal Counsels for ISP, CCL Review Board, Public Safety


Recommended Posts

As a result of our meeting with Gov. Rauner, a follow up meeting was arranged to discuss the long delay in rulings from the CCL Review Board (in some cases up to 2 years or more). The Governor’s Policy Advisor for Public Safety and her assistant, arranged a meeting for us with the two of them and the Chief Legal Counsel for Public Safety, CCL Review Board Chief Legal Counsel, ISP Chief Legal Counsel, ISP Legislative Liaison, and a few other individuals. Before the meeting, I ran the Firearm Concealed Carry Act statute concerning the time frame allowed for reviewing objections filed by law enforcement agencies by a team of noted Second Amendment attorneys. Their interpretation is the same as ours, the CCL Review Board’s long delays present a strong case of violation of due process, 2nd amendment and 14th amendment rights.

 

The meeting was turned over to us and first we expressed our appreciation for the board's fairness in overruling 85-90% of the objections filed and recognized that they are now reviewing twice as many cases per month as they were a year ago. Then we brought up our concerns and frustration with the review board's long delays. We found the long delays mostly stem from the CCL RB requesting more information from the objecting agency and waiting for the agency to forward that info to the board. We explained the statute does not allow for the CCL Review Board to continually request another 30 days while waiting indefinitely on an agency that may never respond. We stated agencies should be given 30 days to respond and then a ruling must be made. Our input seemed to be received well - we made sure to mention that our team of noted Second Amendment attorneys did not agree with the ISP opinion that the board can take all the time they need.

 

There was a rather humorous moment when someone mentioned the ISP is tired of being sued – and losing. We offered our opinion that if a lawsuit is filed concerning these long delays, the likely outcome is that they would lose again. The legal counsels for the different departments plan to meet to discuss all this and get back to us.

 

It was nice to meet the CCL RB Chief Legal Counsel and get a better understanding of how the CCL RB works. He seems really nice. I presented them with a list of applicants who are at the 2 year mark or longer since their status went to 'under board review' and asked that they be reviewed.

Hopefully we will see some positive results from this meeting - we’ll see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are great. I am just wondering Molly B if the offered to make you a State Trooper so you would answer to them instead of them answering to you. :rofl:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

someone mentioned the ISP is tired of being sued – and losing.

Most of the time that would be called "a clue".

 

 

I almost wished that the previous Governor's administration hadn't apparently fast-tracked my appeal through once I got a representative from a Federal agency involved on my behalf. That would have meant that my case would have gone directly to Federal court, from what I understand, and I might have been able to attack the entire CCL process and legislation in that venue. Alas, they realized that they would lose there, too, and potentially catastrophically, so all of a sudden when I submitted a letter on that Fed agency letterhead vouching for me, I was approved in no time flat, so there was "no harm done."

 

Amazing how that kind of thing works.

 

http://i.imgur.com/T3nICYj.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/PbyKtyV.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll believe they're tired of getting sued when they stop infringing on the rights of gun owners.

 

Their new strategy is to try to give just enough to take away the legal standing by rectifying the ostensible harm done to individuals, so that the cases never get to court in the first place. There's a name for that, but I can't recall exactly what it is. I think I saw that skinnyb fellow reference it a few times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really appreciate the hard work you put in molly. If it wasn't for you and Illinoiscarry I surely would have been denied my carry license. I also know that the RB tries their best to knock these reviews out. when cook county is red flagging everyone and their mother for frivolous reasons, their job gets much harder.

Keep up the outstanding work!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that the ISP lawyers, legislative liaisons, policy gurus, and all the other political dead wood

will eventually do the right thing, but only after all other options have exhausted. Delay and misdirection

are the life blood of government agencies. I would be very skeptical that these people are able to reform

themselves in any meaningful way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree that the police agencies who filed objections must give the information in 30 days and then a ruling must be made if they don't.

 

If a criminal or civil case running something like this.

 

Judge: We need more information from the prosecutor/plaintiff. Please provide the following information in 30 days. *gives paper to them*

 

30 days later

 

Judge: Did you provide me the information I asked for?

 

Prosecutor/plaintiff: No.

 

Judge: OK, i"ll give you another 30 days. Case is continued until then.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

We'd have cases stretching into the years, violating speedy trial in criminal cases, and due process in civil cases.

 

THIS is the reason the CCLRB should create rules that they get one and done 30 day request for more information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering if anyone talked to the Gov. about the Dealer Licensing thingy. Specifically if he would veto or not.

From Mollys thread on meeting the governor:

..."During our meeting with Gov. Rauner and his staff members, we discussed firearm legislation that has been introduced in the Illinois General Assembly. We presented information to Governor Rauner on the proposed firearm dealer Licensing bill and lethal order of protection bill, both of which, as currently written do nothing to address the problems the sponsors of the bills say they are targeting and only serve to make things incredibly difficult for law abiding firearm dealers and legal gun owners."...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just wondering if anyone talked to the Gov. about the Dealer Licensing thingy. Specifically if he would veto or not.

From Mollys thread on meeting the governor:

..."During our meeting with Gov. Rauner and his staff members, we discussed firearm legislation that has been introduced in the Illinois General Assembly. We presented information to Governor Rauner on the proposed firearm dealer Licensing bill and lethal order of protection bill, both of which, as currently written do nothing to address the problems the sponsors of the bills say they are targeting and only serve to make things incredibly difficult for law abiding firearm dealers and legal gun owners."...

 

 

Thanks! Must have missed that part ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree that the police agencies who filed objections must give the information in 30 days and then a ruling must be made if they don't.

 

If a criminal or civil case running something like this.

 

Judge: We need more information from the prosecutor/plaintiff. Please provide the following information in 30 days. *gives paper to them*

 

30 days later

 

Judge: Did you provide me the information I asked for?

 

Prosecutor/plaintiff: No.

 

Judge: OK, i"ll give you another 30 days. Case is continued until then.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

We'd have cases stretching into the years, violating speedy trial in criminal cases, and due process in civil cases.

 

THIS is the reason the CCLRB should create rules that they get one and done 30 day request for more information.

Both sided do that now in court cases. They call it a continuance and since that is a big (more then 3 syllables) word it's legal and they can get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then we brought up our concerns and frustration with the review board's long delays. We found the long delays mostly stem from the CCL RB requesting more information from the objecting agency and waiting for the agency to forward that info to the board. We explained the statute does not allow for the CCL Review Board to continually request another 30 days while waiting indefinitely on an agency that may never respond. We stated agencies should be given 30 days to respond and then a ruling must be made.

 

First off, thanks! I really appreciate your efforts.

 

It was my understanding that (at least several months ago) the review board was at least a year behind on the initial look at objections. Is that still the case? If so, I would think this would be the majority of the delay for most people. What is being done to get through the backlog faster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then we brought up our concerns and frustration with the review board's long delays. We found the long delays mostly stem from the CCL RB requesting more information from the objecting agency and waiting for the agency to forward that info to the board. We explained the statute does not allow for the CCL Review Board to continually request another 30 days while waiting indefinitely on an agency that may never respond. We stated agencies should be given 30 days to respond and then a ruling must be made.

First off, thanks! I really appreciate your efforts.

 

It was my understanding that (at least several months ago) the review board was at least a year behind on the initial look at objections. Is that still the case? If so, I would think this would be the majority of the delay for most people. What is being done to get through the backlog faster?

 

 

The board is reviewing twice as many applications as they were a year ago so they are slowly catching up. The longest delays seem to be caused by the Board waiting on law enforcement agencies to with more requested information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Then we brought up our concerns and frustration with the review board's long delays. We found the long delays mostly stem from the CCL RB requesting more information from the objecting agency and waiting for the agency to forward that info to the board. We explained the statute does not allow for the CCL Review Board to continually request another 30 days while waiting indefinitely on an agency that may never respond. We stated agencies should be given 30 days to respond and then a ruling must be made.

First off, thanks! I really appreciate your efforts.

 

It was my understanding that (at least several months ago) the review board was at least a year behind on the initial look at objections. Is that still the case? If so, I would think this would be the majority of the delay for most people. What is being done to get through the backlog faster?

 

The board is reviewing twice as many applications as they were a year ago so they are slowly catching up. The longest delays seem to be caused by the Board waiting on law enforcement agencies to with more requested information.

 

 

Can you put a number on how much they are catching up? I think six months ago they were already a year plus behind and it was only getting worse with how aggressive Cook County was with their objections. Without knowing how fast they were losing ground, it is impossible to say how reviewing twice as many objections a month is doing for the backlog. Any idea what dates they are currently reviewing?

 

I just went over 1 year since my application was sent in and just received my tenth letter from the ISP saying the review board needed yet another 30 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Can you put a number on how much they are catching up? I think six months ago they were already a year plus behind and it was only getting worse with how aggressive Cook County was with their objections. Without knowing how fast they were losing ground, it is impossible to say how reviewing twice as many objections a month is doing for the backlog. Any idea what dates they are currently reviewing?

 

I just went over 1 year since my application was sent in and just received my tenth letter from the ISP saying the review board needed yet another 30 days.

 

 

 

 

Hey I think the forum below will help you gain a better understanding of the trend. We have a member on here that requests information on the CCRB's progress.

 

 

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=62673&hl=

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Can you put a number on how much they are catching up? I think six months ago they were already a year plus behind and it was only getting worse with how aggressive Cook County was with their objections. Without knowing how fast they were losing ground, it is impossible to say how reviewing twice as many objections a month is doing for the backlog. Any idea what dates they are currently reviewing?

 

I just went over 1 year since my application was sent in and just received my tenth letter from the ISP saying the review board needed yet another 30 days.

 

 

 

 

Hey I think the forum below will help you gain a better understanding of the trend. We have a member on here that requests information on the CCRB's progress.

 

 

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=62673&hl=

 

 

 

Not that I am not appreciative and find the information interesting, this is only giving us half the info. It is nice to get a peek behind the curtain at what the Wizard of OZ is doing but there is no way to draw any conclusions when you don't have all the statistics. The review board may be getting through more objections but what is happening to the rate of objections being made? Is there a net gain or loss on the backlog? How long is it taking for the review board to get a first look at objections? A year ago they were 13 months behind on reviewing objections as seen below.

 

 

Posted 08 May 2016 - 10:18 PM

Under Board Review means a law enforcement agency has filed an objection. Yes, it can be from when you were young and in high school - especially if you live in Cook Co.. It also means your application and the objection have been sent to the CCL Review Board which means there could be a considerable delay in processing your application. The 90-120 day clock stops until after the CCL RB finishes their review. The board is currently reviewing cases from about April 2015 . . . sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true problem on the waiting period is the review board requesting additional information from objecting LEOs. Most people only wait about a year unless the LEOs (most of the time I believe purposely) don't respond to the Review board.

 

We are currently working on a law which gives the objecting LEO only 30 day period to submit additional information and if they don't submit anything within that time frame, the Board must make a decision.

 

I feel your pain man, I have been under board review since October/November 2016 for something that surely happened when I was a juvenile. When I first applied I was so excited but not I feel like they have sucked all the excitement out of my initial drive to obtain a CCL. Regardless, I know that I will get approved. So it sucks but what the heck are we going to do but sit and wait patiently and hope the board makes the right decision.

 

Good luck man and stay positive!

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...