Molly B. Posted June 9, 2014 at 04:04 PM Share Posted June 9, 2014 at 04:04 PM Looks like the ISP may be expecting a lot of CCL Review Board denials to be overturned? They have added an online portal for submitting a court ruling that overturns a CCL Review Board denial. The portal is on the application status page. If someone could post a screen shot, that would be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted June 9, 2014 at 04:44 PM Share Posted June 9, 2014 at 04:44 PM I do not see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 9, 2014 at 04:51 PM Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 at 04:51 PM I believe your status must be listed as denied. There is a note: "Understanding your appeal option" and a button for "submit Circuit Court ruling". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssrkid86 Posted June 9, 2014 at 05:21 PM Share Posted June 9, 2014 at 05:21 PM I see it on mine! If nobody else does, I'll post screen shots today after work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssrkid86 Posted June 9, 2014 at 11:46 PM Share Posted June 9, 2014 at 11:46 PM Here are two screen shots. The first is what appears on your app.The second is what pops up when you click the link. http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c272/ssrkid86/ScreenShot2014-06-09at64329PM.png http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c272/ssrkid86/ScreenShot2014-06-09at64547PM.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 10, 2014 at 02:11 AM Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 at 02:11 AM I expect this to expedite issuing CCLs for those with overturned denials. Is it just me or does it sound to anyone else like maybe they are not planning to appeal the court rulings, or at least not many of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssrkid86 Posted June 10, 2014 at 02:33 AM Share Posted June 10, 2014 at 02:33 AM Perhaps some of their motions filed are motions of dismissal ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 10, 2014 at 02:41 AM Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 at 02:41 AM Perhaps some of their motions filed are motions of dismissal ?? We have yet to see a motion to dismiss. Seem to be motions for more time and motion reqesting a court order for the CCL Review Board to release info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssrkid86 Posted June 10, 2014 at 04:30 PM Share Posted June 10, 2014 at 04:30 PM Wishful thinking would be once the AG attorney's get on our side, they'll start issuing a motion to dismiss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted June 10, 2014 at 05:13 PM Share Posted June 10, 2014 at 05:13 PM Though I don't have a dog in this particular fight. I really don't think the AGs are going to give up on any of these without putting up a fight....that is what they get paid to do....and every single case is going to be fought tooth and nail. Expecting less of that from Gov. Quinn would be a huge mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderberry Posted June 10, 2014 at 05:24 PM Share Posted June 10, 2014 at 05:24 PM Well, maybe... But don't forget this state has learned some bitter lessons about what happens when they push matters too high in the court system. They run the risk of getting a ruling they really don't like.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnwfan3 Posted June 10, 2014 at 08:02 PM Share Posted June 10, 2014 at 08:02 PM Though I don't have a dog in this particular fight. I really don't think the AGs are going to give up on any of these without putting up a fight....that is what they get paid to do....and every single case is going to be fought tooth and nail. Expecting less of that from Gov. Quinn would be a huge mistake. From what I understand, each AAG has many of these cases. They may only focus on the ones that they see fit. I agree that I don't think they will file a motion to dismiss, but I have to beleive that with the quantity of these that they have to fight, some will not be fought as hard as others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted June 10, 2014 at 10:20 PM Share Posted June 10, 2014 at 10:20 PM That or they'll fight all of them and not half-.... any case simply by queuing the cases, taking on a few at a time and get the the judges to grant motions for extensions. That is not beyond the realm of possibility. I've seen AAGs get a motion for extension of time because one of the attorneys' caseloads is too large and another is on vacation (both assigned to the same case). If their caseloads are too large that they cannot adequately represent their client (the state) then it's a violation of the Code of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.3, Diligence). In reality, who knows but I'm pretty sure that no one will receive a benchslap due to this type of thing since it's already "the rule." Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted June 10, 2014 at 10:52 PM Share Posted June 10, 2014 at 10:52 PM Is the current skirmishing over whether the judge should issue the order to release the information the ISP received that caused an applicant to be referred to the board in the first place? It appears that way to me. if so, the AG could potentially just decide not to fight such orders at all and it might not mean all that much in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted June 10, 2014 at 11:06 PM Share Posted June 10, 2014 at 11:06 PM Is the current skirmishing over whether the judge should issue the order to release the information the ISP received that caused an applicant to be referred to the board in the first place? It appears that way to me. if so, the AG could potentially just decide not to fight such orders at all and it might not mean all that much in the long run.It is absolutely NOT the case....there hasn't been one documented case where the judge has refused to issue the order......any effort to limit the release of the information would be a literal act of war...they aren't running a star chamber.....the real fighting will start after the disclosure is made and they start hearing cases on the merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sysco70 Posted June 10, 2014 at 11:06 PM Share Posted June 10, 2014 at 11:06 PM so in reality all this to me sounds positive . i just got the letter from the AG stating they need more time and quote "Defendant, the illinois state police shall file the administrative record as the answer to the complaint, or otherwise plead by July 7,2014" what does this mean ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnwfan3 Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:10 AM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:10 AM Everything that the AG has done so far, according to my attorney, has been normal procedure. I wouldn't say it sounds positive or negative at this point. Once the hearings start, we will know more. I agree with Elmer that I doubt the Judge will refuse issue the order. I think once the AG (and the plaintiffs) receive the info about the objections and the board findings, that's when the decisions will be made whether or not to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sysco70 Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:37 AM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:37 AM so should i get an attorney now?? or wait a little more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnwfan3 Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:40 AM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:40 AM Get an attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:42 AM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:42 AM I would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted June 11, 2014 at 12:16 PM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 12:16 PM Perhaps I should rephrase my question. What is it that the AG is actually asking for more time to do? It does not appear to me that there is any substantive legal work they need to do for the judge to just look at an existing record once it is produced. It is not like there are going to be any arguments from either side. It appeared to me they are just asking for more time to produce the records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 11, 2014 at 12:22 PM Author Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 12:22 PM The AG has no idea why an applicant was denied. I assume they are asking for more time so they can review the info and determine what their position and argument to the appeal will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylok Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:24 PM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:24 PM They ask for more time just to drag things out as much as they can because they hate The applicants, they hate guns and they want to do everything they can to prevent as many people as possible. You guys Will never find out The truth even after your dog and pony show court date or after your license is in your wallet finally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:30 PM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:30 PM In fairness....if neither side has seen the information..they are both getting equal time to look at it for the first time. I think we should have that much faith in the process that there is no hidden evil lurking. If that isn't the case we have a much more serious problem to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:36 PM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 01:36 PM They ask for more time just to drag things out as much as they can because they hate The applicants, they hate guns and they want to do everything they can to prevent as many people as possible. You guys Will never find out The truth even after your dog and pony show court date or after your license is in your wallet finally.this is something a little more visceral for us but for the guys from the AG's office it is probably more of a routine judicial review. They probably do these by the thousands. This one is a little different because the law is new. maybe they just need some time to figure out what the law actually requires of them. To date I have seen no evidence whatsoever that anyone associated with the state is deliberately not following the law as written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted June 11, 2014 at 05:26 PM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 05:26 PM I tend to agree....and once again....any actual evidence of an AAG NOT following the law in both spirit and intent would be grounds for very different types of action. It then becomes assault under color of authority and that is when the Feds start putting state officials in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronSam Posted June 11, 2014 at 06:09 PM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 06:09 PM I have to weigh in on that. In my case, Denied for DUI classes which seem to befuddle the ISP and are treated the same as Court Ordered Treatment for Alcoholism and Detoxification does not follow the Letter, Intent or Spirit of the Law. But I am still denied 5 months after applying and submitting all relevant supporting documents delivered April 17th. It's as if the ISP created it's own standard for denial. I meet all the standards of Section 25 of the Law, found eligible by the Board of Review, the objection to which I am convinced could only have come from ISP and still denied by ISP since March 13th with no final review or any communication from ISP in spite of my past inquiries on status and request for Administrative Review of something for which I should not have been denied for in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted June 11, 2014 at 06:16 PM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 06:16 PM IronSam in your case I continue to believe that the issue is stupidity not malice...you will find out when you get to an actual hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnwfan3 Posted June 11, 2014 at 07:24 PM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 07:24 PM They ask for more time just to drag things out as much as they can because they hate The applicants, they hate guns and they want to do everything they can to prevent as many people as possible. You guys Will never find out The truth even after your dog and pony show court date or after your license is in your wallet finally.this is something a little more visceral for us but for the guys from the AG's office it is probably more of a routine judicial review. They probably do these by the thousands. This one is a little different because the law is new. maybe they just need some time to figure out what the law actually requires of them. To date I have seen no evidence whatsoever that anyone associated with the state is deliberately not following the law as written. I agree. My attorney told me that everything the AAG has done so far is standard procedure for administrative review. Also keep in mind that nobody knows what we are dealing with until we get the actual information from the board regarding the denial. Until then, they are just as much in the dark as we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted June 11, 2014 at 07:47 PM Share Posted June 11, 2014 at 07:47 PM IronSam, ISP has a different definition of the word "treatment" than the courts, statute, practitioners, and everyone else. My eval form has 4 boxes. First two do not include "treatment" in the language. Last two (reserved for someone with a BAC of .20 or something absurdly high, or according to one circuit clerk, repeat offenders as in 3+ or a second while under supervision etc) include "treatment" in terms of residential detox etc. I agree with Elmer, this is a case of stupidity. I can't see how they can justify upholding your denial. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.