Jump to content

Tan Card / Perc Card Explanation?


AuroraInstructor

Recommended Posts

Just to throw another twist to this topic, I took the firearms course and was issued a "Blue Card" by the state in 1976. I have a form letter from the Department of Registration and Education dated 12/3/1979 explaining the law had been changed and that your employer had to request the Department issue an Armed Guard Training Card (AGT) and your employer was to issue that card for you to be allowed to carry a weapon while on duty. I was also issued a certificate with a number indicating that I had successfully completed the course. The twist is that by that time I was working as a police officer and never had an AGT issued by any security firms. Also back then the course was only 30 hours not 40 hours. So we have the same question of will the ISP recognise that training as sufficent or will they insist I take the full 16 hour course? Or will they claim that a "Blue Card" is not the same as an AGT card and both of them being not being the same as a "Tan Card".And will that training also be disqualified because niether a AGT care nor a Tan card were ever issued? And just for clarity the blue card I am refering to is not a PERC card.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FCCA uses the term firearm control card. The blue card (pre 1980 era), the AGT card and the tan card that I was issued back in 1979 were not called that. they were called something else. my guess is they won't accept it as the plain language of the law does not tell them to. i don't recall an AGT card. When I started working armed we had the blue cards that were replaced by the tan card.

 

I was thinking i would not have to take the 2nd 8 hour class, having been issued a tan card in 1979 (or thereabouts) but the more I think about it, the more I think the tan card back then had a different name than what it is now.

 

However, i went to the IDPFR web site and checked. It shows this for me.

 

Profession License No License Status Original Issue Date Current Exprtn Ever Disciplined

Firearm Control Card xxxxxxxx FAC TERMINATED CARD RETURNED 12/31/1979 02/18/1982 N

Original Firearms Training xxxxxxxxx ACTIVE 08/31/1979 01/01/2099 N

 

So at least one branch of state government thinks I was issued a FCC, even though it was not called that at the time.

 

so if the language of the bill means that the phrase "has been issued" means "was ever issued" as opposed to "is currently issued" I am maybe OK. or maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person who has qualified to carry a firearm as an

active law enforcement officer, a person certified as a

firearms instructor by this Act or by the Illinois Law

Enforcement Training Standards Board, or a person who has

completed the required training and has been issued a firearm

control card by the Department of Financial and Professional

Regulation shall be exempt from the requirements of this

Section.

 

The law doesn't say you have to have a current tan card. The language is past tense. "Has" and "has been" are past tense. There is nothing in there that says you have to currently possess a tan card to be exempt.

 

It is specific though, just completing the training to get the card isn't enough unfortunately. Notice the "and". You have to have had both in the past. There is no time limit, or hour limit either. Just if you've ever completed the training and been issued a tan card in the past, you qualify for an exemption from training.

 

IANAL but it seems pretty cut and dried to me. Of course, this is Illinois so.... :ermm:

 

 

I AM a lawyer, lol, but perhaps my opinion is colored because it's my ox being gored. However, a few basic rules of statutory construction say to give the plain meaning to the words used, as well as take note that if a different or more restrictive interpretation was desired by the legislature(especially in restricting a constitutional right), and such a restriction was easily available by the inclusion of additional wording, but the legislature failed to include additional restrictive words to that effect, such a restrictive interpretation, without the specific additional wording, should be avoided.

 

I believe the use of "has been issued", without more, should be interpreted as "at any time" without the need for it to be currently active. Again, had the legislature wanted the 16 hours to be satisfied only as to "active" card holders, they could easily have included such a restriction with a few words. This fact is also key, because if it would have been difficult or unwieldy to add such a restriction we wouldn't be permitted to rely on these rules of construction.

 

Also, to interpret the current statutory wording as being more restrictive would lead to an absurd result, that is, the right to use the training and tan card issuance for the entire 16 hours would evaporate merely because you were laid off from your job, even if it were the day before you applied for your CCW. This is the application of another rule of statutory construction, that a statute should not be read such as to lead to absurd results.

 

I'm so tired of the screwing around by these administrative rule makers I'm more than willing to be a test case if I have to be (I'm in Lake County, if that makes a difference). If it would help I'd be willing to wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure I disagree with your interpretation of what it maybe means. The problem I see is that the legislature could just as easily have made the language unambiguous that it mean "has ever been issued".

 

I am not a lawyer but my argument on the other side would go along the lines of if the training is what matters, why does the issuance of the FCC mean anything at all. Wouldn't the legislature have only required the training and not the issuance of the FCC if they only cared about the training? The really absurd result would be if you had to get more training to get a LTC than to work as an armed guard.

 

I think we can argue about it all we want to but in the end the ISP or the courts will decide what it means or the legislature will change the wording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a stretch to believe the vast majority of the legislature has any real clue what the FCC/Tan cards value is, or its relative insignificance towards training credit. It was mentioned on another thread that Madigan has his Tan. If so, I could see him having the knowledge.

I checked the web site. No one named Madigan has a current FCC issued, nor does it list a Michael Madigan as ever having been issued one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a stretch to believe the vast majority of the legislature has any real clue what the FCC/Tan cards value is, or its relative insignificance towards training credit. It was mentioned on another thread that Madigan has his Tan. If so, I could see him having the knowledge.

I checked the web site. No one named Madigan has a current FCC issued, nor does it list a Michael Madigan as ever having been issued one.

 

I checked, also. I did notice that Donne Trotter's FCC was REVOKED.

 

Now I wonder what could have happened there??

 

-- Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a stretch to believe the vast majority of the legislature has any real clue what the FCC/Tan cards value is, or its relative insignificance towards training credit. It was mentioned on another thread that Madigan has his Tan. If so, I could see him having the knowledge.

I checked the web site. No one named Madigan has a current FCC issued, nor does it list a Michael Madigan as ever having been issued one.

 

But Ed Burke, co-author of the Chicago handgun ban has one as an employee of "Burke Security", as well as a PI and PSC license.

 

Detective Private, Licensed 115000673 ACTIVE 12/14/1984 05/31/2014 N

Firearm Control Card 229052450 ACTIVE 02/01/2000 01/17/2015 N

Original Firearms Training 230007575 ACTIVE 05/21/1965 01/01/2099 N

Private Security Contractor, Licensed 119000642 ACTIVE 04/17/1987 05/31/2014 N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Burke is also a retired cop.Does it really matter any that he has some kind of side business?

 

Interesting that his training is listed as being in 1965. I don't think there even was any guard training back then.I wonder if that is the date of his police training. At one time way back when, cops got a free pass on the guard training. I don't know if it was by law or rule or just someone signing off a form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a stretch to believe the vast majority of the legislature has any real clue what the FCC/Tan cards value is, or its relative insignificance towards training credit. It was mentioned on another thread that Madigan has his Tan. If so, I could see him having the knowledge.

I checked the web site. No one named Madigan has a current FCC issued, nor does it list a Michael Madigan as ever having been issued one.

Validates my point even further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Burke is also a retired cop.

 

"Retired"? Not quite. From Wiki:

 

Ed Burke attended Visitation Grammar School in Visitation Parish on Chicago's south side and is a 1961 graduate of Quigley Preparatory Seminary. He graduated with a bachelor's degree from DePaul University in 1965, then worked for
three years as a Chicago police officer, assigned to the state's attorney's office.
Meanwhile, he studied law at DePaul University College of Law. In 1968, Burke received a Juris Doctor degree, was admitted to the Illinois Bar, and married his wife, Anne Marie.

 

While in law school in the late 1960s, an era of escalation in the Vietnam War, Burke received a draft deferment as a full-time student. After his marriage and the death of his father, he applied for and was granted a hardship deferment (3-A), as the sole support of his wife, mother, and two younger brothers. In June 1969, the Illinois Selective Service board of appeals reclassified him 1-A ("available for unrestricted military service"). At the same time, he was accepted into a Chicago-based United States Army Reserve unit, the 363rd civil affairs group, as a private. Political rivals expressed concern that Burke had received special consideration that allowed him to join the Reserve unit ahead of others, but an Army investigation found no evidence of manipulation in his favor.

 

Chicago Alderman

 

The 14th Ward Democrats slated the young Burke as the Democratic candidate in a special election called for on March 11, 1969 to fill vacancies in City Council, including the 14th ward. Burke faced six opponents, but won with a majority of 11,204 votes, while the next highest candidate received 1460 votes.

 

 

So he's the same kind of "retired cop" as fellow anti gunner Tony Munoz, who rode a car for a few months, then got a job thanks to a rabbi that kept him "tinned" but meant he didn't have to chase bad guys.

 

Oh, and he got to keep his gun.

 

Does it really matter any that he has some kind of side business?.

 

When his business consists of his only client being himself (as reported in IIRC the Sun Times several years ago) and one of his most vigorous efforts being the continued denial of the RKBA to the law abiding citizens of Chicago?

 

I'd say yeah, it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The training should be enough

Have you read the carry concealed law, in particular the do not carry areas?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well, the letter of the law is pretty damned clear that someone that's been through the FAC training has their training covered, but I don't see a way that this is handled in the CCL4Illinois.com website.

 

Anybody FAC holders have any traction on this?

 

kestrou

it is pretty clear "...,completed the required training and (emphasis added) has been issued a firearm control card (FCC or Tan Card) by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation shall be exempt from the training requirements in the Act. The applicant must submit verification that the training requirements for the FCC Card have been completed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they don't give you the run around. I didn't see any changes to this section in the trailer bill and haven't seen any changes on the ISP website.

They added "(emphasis added)" to their FAQ on exemptions. Further entrenched into the FCC card requirement. While they say training is the most important thing, FCC couldn't be less important in the training. Might be time to stick a fork in this.
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...