856 replies to this topic

[Gamma]

So I'm guessing that my hope of just having my WI license recognized by IL at some point in the near future is silly at best.  IL will want some money out of me and will want the freedom to at least do their own snooping.  Correct?

Would definitely need to have a change though the legislature (or a very unlikely court decision) for there to be any recognition of other licenses/permits beyond the "car carry" provision that's already in place.

 

At present you're not even allowed to apply for an IL license since your home state's requirements aren't severe enough under a truly bass-ackwards theory of non-resident licensing.  I don't see how that can survive court challenges, but we'll be waiting a while for those to make their way through the legal system.

 

Hopefully we will have some legislation this year to correct some of the non-resident carry issues and at least allow for non-discriminatory issue.  Faced with the prospect of keeping track of a lot of non-resident licensees, the powers-that-be might decide that at least a limited form of reciprocity/recognition would be preferable.

[jd11201]

I wouldn't mind if they also "fixed" the $300 out-of-state application fee...

 

I guess another 2 or 3 days before we see some legal paperwork from Ms. Madigan...

 

When they're available, if someone could post/link, that would be great...

 

 

 

Hopefully we will have some legislation this year to correct some of the non-resident carry issues and at least allow for non-discriminatory issue. 

 

Edited by jd11201, 27 January 2015 - 10:38 PM.

[domin8]

So I'm guessing that my hope of just having my WI license recognized by IL at some point in the near future is silly at best.  IL will want some money out of me and will want the freedom to at least do their own snooping.  Correct?

In order for recognition/reciprocity to occur in Illinois there first needs to be a legislative fix that says who has the authority to enter into such agreements. At the moment there is nothing that directs this.

[stm]

My understanding is that the problem is not with the law itself, but with the restrictive manner in which ISP is interpreting the law via Administrative Rules. "Substantially similar" could be redefined in the Administrative Rules to allow residents from virtually any state to qualify for an Illinois CCL. Our new governor has direct authority over ISP. In theory, couldn't the Rauner administration order ISP to amend the Administrative Rules to avoid a costly conclusion to this lawsuit? Maybe my understanding of the Administrative Rules process isn't complete, but this would be a pretty quick fix to this problem.

[Gamma]

My understanding is that the problem is not with the law itself, but with the restrictive manner in which ISP is interpreting the law via Administrative Rules. "Substantially similar" could be redefined in the Administrative Rules to allow residents from virtually any state to qualify for an Illinois CCL. Our new governor has direct authority over ISP. In theory, couldn't the Rauner administration order ISP to amend the Administrative Rules to avoid a costly conclusion to this lawsuit? Maybe my understanding of the Administrative Rules process isn't complete, but this would be a pretty quick fix to this problem.

Yes, they could just create an interpretation of "substantially similar" that would allow everyone to apply. There would still be the problems of requiring applicants to have a license from their state of residence as well as the difference in cost.

The whole "substantially similar" clause is bizarre. Why does any other state's requirements matter at all to Illinois issuing an Illinois license? Similarity would be applicable to recognition of other licenses, but that's not how it is applied.

How ISP chose to write the administrative rules seems to me to use the bizarre "substantially similar" clause as a kludgy tool to relieve them of some of the burdens of the background check requirements they concocted when it comes to applicants from other states.

Edited by Gamma, 29 January 2015 - 12:17 PM.

[borgranta]

It may be possible for non-residents to challenge the new UUW with the FCCA included as unconstitutional as applied to non-residents from neighboring states.  There would be a risk but a small one that the entire UUW law may be struck down again.  By challenging the UUW as applied to non-residents of neighboring states it would force the court to closely examine the UUW again and with depending on who reviews it at each stage they may find that the new UUW is in fact the same one that was ruled unconstitutional with a caveat.

[III]

It may be possible for non-residents to challenge the new UUW with the FCCA included as unconstitutional as applied to non-residents from neighboring states.  There would be a risk but a small one that the entire UUW law may be struck down again.  By challenging the UUW as applied to non-residents of neighboring states it would force the court to closely examine the UUW again and with depending on who reviews it at each stage they may find that the new UUW is in fact the same one that was ruled unconstitutional with a caveat.

I know that now that I am a Missouri Resident who still needs to work in Illinois and spend time with my children in Illinois on a daily basis..... Both mine and my children's personal safety is compromised now that my IL CCL is no longer valid and the state will not allow me to reapply as a nonresident.......

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[kwc]

I know that now that I am a Missouri Resident who still needs to work in Illinois and spend time with my children in Illinois on a daily basis..... Both mine and my children's personal safety is compromised now that my IL CCL is no longer valid and the state will not allow me to reapply as a nonresident.......

I'm sorry you now have to feel the pain the rest of us non-residents have been enduring.

Let's pray for progress on this front..

Edited by kwc, 29 January 2015 - 01:52 PM.

[domin8]

My understanding is that the problem is not with the law itself, but with the restrictive manner in which ISP is interpreting the law via Administrative Rules. "Substantially similar" could be redefined in the Administrative Rules to allow residents from virtually any state to qualify for an Illinois CCL. Our new governor has direct authority over ISP. In theory, couldn't the Rauner administration order ISP to amend the Administrative Rules to avoid a costly conclusion to this lawsuit? Maybe my understanding of the Administrative Rules process isn't complete, but this would be a pretty quick fix to this problem.Yes, they could just create an interpretation of "substantially similar" that would allow everyone to apply. There would still be the problems of requiring applicants to have a license from their state of residence as well as the difference in cost.The whole "substantially similar" clause is bizarre. Why does any other state's requirements matter at all to Illinois issuing an Illinois license? Similarity would be applicable to recognition of other licenses, but that's not how it is applied.How ISP chose to write the administrative rules seems to me to use the bizarre "substantially similar" clause as a kludgy tool to relieve them of some of the burdens of the background check requirements they concocted when it comes to applicants from other states.

Imo, the nonresident and reciprocity issues got jumbled together when writing the bill. I suspect "substantially similar" was originally suppose to apply to reciprocity whereas all nonresidents were suppose to be able to apply. If I'm wrong, then shame on the authors, and their collaborators, of the legislation. I don't recall this portion of the bill being amended while it was going through committees and votes in both the House and Senate.

Edited by domin8, 29 January 2015 - 02:22 PM.

[III]

 

My understanding is that the problem is not with the law itself, but with the restrictive manner in which ISP is interpreting the law via Administrative Rules. "Substantially similar" could be redefined in the Administrative Rules to allow residents from virtually any state to qualify for an Illinois CCL. Our new governor has direct authority over ISP. In theory, couldn't the Rauner administration order ISP to amend the Administrative Rules to avoid a costly conclusion to this lawsuit? Maybe my understanding of the Administrative Rules process isn't complete, but this would be a pretty quick fix to this problem.Yes, they could just create an interpretation of "substantially similar" that would allow everyone to apply. There would still be the problems of requiring applicants to have a license from their state of residence as well as the difference in cost.The whole "substantially similar" clause is bizarre. Why does any other state's requirements matter at all to Illinois issuing an Illinois license? Similarity would be applicable to recognition of other licenses, but that's not how it is applied.How ISP chose to write the administrative rules seems to me to use the bizarre "substantially similar" clause as a kludgy tool to relieve them of some of the burdens of the background check requirements they concocted when it comes to applicants from other states.

Imo, the nonresident and reciprocity issues got jumbled together when writing the bill. I suspect "substantially similar" was originally suppose to apply to reciprocity whereas all nonresidents were suppose to be able to apply. If I'm wrong, then shame on the authors, and their collaborators, of the legislation. I don't recall this portion of the bill being amended while it was going through committees and votes in both the House and Senate.

 

 

 

I believe that you are on to a great theory here Domin8

[domin8]

 

My understanding is that the problem is not with the law itself, but with the restrictive manner in which ISP is interpreting the law via Administrative Rules. "Substantially similar" could be redefined in the Administrative Rules to allow residents from virtually any state to qualify for an Illinois CCL. Our new governor has direct authority over ISP. In theory, couldn't the Rauner administration order ISP to amend the Administrative Rules to avoid a costly conclusion to this lawsuit? Maybe my understanding of the Administrative Rules process isn't complete, but this would be a pretty quick fix to this problem.Yes, they could just create an interpretation of "substantially similar" that would allow everyone to apply. There would still be the problems of requiring applicants to have a license from their state of residence as well as the difference in cost.The whole "substantially similar" clause is bizarre. Why does any other state's requirements matter at all to Illinois issuing an Illinois license? Similarity would be applicable to recognition of other licenses, but that's not how it is applied.How ISP chose to write the administrative rules seems to me to use the bizarre "substantially similar" clause as a kludgy tool to relieve them of some of the burdens of the background check requirements they concocted when it comes to applicants from other states.

Imo, the nonresident and reciprocity issues got jumbled together when writing the bill. I suspect "substantially similar" was originally suppose to apply to reciprocity whereas all nonresidents were suppose to be able to apply. If I'm wrong, then shame on the authors, and their collaborators, of the legislation. I don't recall this portion of the bill being amended while it was going through committees and votes in both the House and Senate.
 


 
 
I believe that you are on to a great theory here Domin8

The more I think about it the more it makes sense. The only reason I can see a ccw law regulating how to establish reciprocity/recognition through legislation identifying states with "substantially similar laws" is to prevent the AG from having such authority. We know Lisa Madigan would never enter into such an agreement, but what if a future AG did? Well, after that one you might end up with an AG that decides to terminate such agreements, such as is the case that's being played out in Pennsylvania right now. Iirc, there was an attempt in the last year or 2 to clarify which states were "substantially similar" by training standards, and labeled them by name, including Kentucky and Florida.

Edited by domin8, 29 January 2015 - 09:15 PM.

[domin8]

Uh,..... ....today is the final day of the month a response can be filed because tomorrow, the 31st, is a Saturday. It is now after 5pm. Is there an update on this?

Edited by domin8, 30 January 2015 - 05:30 PM.

[Molly B.]

They have asked for another extension.

[domin8]

I suspect they can't come up with a viable response. I'd love to see this petition for a continuance denied.

Edited by domin8, 30 January 2015 - 05:53 PM.

[ChicagoZman]

And in the meantime do non residents get a waiver of enforcement of UUW until this is settled?

[ChicagoRonin70]

They have asked for another extension.

 

Is there, by chance, some sort of limitation on how many continuances can be filed? Otherwise, is it solely up to the judge to decide when enough is enough? There should be some sort of mechanism to either force them to submit a response or have a judgement that is summarily ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. 

[domin8]

And in the meantime do non residents get a waiver of enforcement of UUW until this is settled?

I'd settle for being able to carry with permit from state of residence since there's no reciprocity in this state.

[ChicagoZman]

 

And in the meantime do non residents get a waiver of enforcement of UUW until this is settled?

I'd settle for being able to carry with permit from state of residence since there's no reciprocity in this state.

 

Emergency recognition of other state licenses until the case is settled would be something with which I could live.

[press1280]

Yea, how do they respond? Do they say that this scheme is OK because there might be .000001% of another states' population that slips between the cracks because their prohibited persons aren't reported in the same way IL's are?

Or do they say CCW isn't a right and open themselves to an OC lawsuit?

[press1280]

Usually 1 or 2 extensions is a given. Any more and they better have a good reason for it.

Edited by press1280, 31 January 2015 - 06:38 AM.

[domin8]

When will we find out if the extension is approved or denied?

[Rail]

I can probably guess what's happening behind the scenes, but no need to discuss my thoughts publicly.

[domin8]

If you're speculating about a backdoor deal, take it elsewhere. I know Mr. Culp. I've shaken his hand, looked him in the eye, had conversations with him, etc. I don't believe he's the type that'll accept a backdoor deal.

Edited by domin8, 03 February 2015 - 03:19 PM.

[domin8]

What's the word on the continuance request?

[Federal Farmer]

Just assume it is granted.  They pretty much always are granted.

[Rail]

If you're speculating about a backdoor deal, take it elsewhere. I know Mr. Culp. I've shaken his hand, looked him in the eye, had conversations with him, etc. I don't believe he's the type that'll accept a backdoor deal.

 

Not speculating on any kind of deal whatsoever.

[Gamma]

Found this portion of today's interstate handgun sales court ruling to be applicable:
 

The Supreme Court has also held that strict scrutiny is required where the challenged classification impinges on residency. See Mem’l Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 415 U.S. 250, 254-64 (1974) (holding that a challenge to a state durational-residency requirement to receive free, non-emergency medical care merited strict scrutiny, and the requirement was unconstitutional); see also Att’y Gen. of N.Y. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986). The Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny in situations where state laws discriminated against non-residents, and those cases involved benefits offered by the state, not constitutional rights. See id.; Mem’l Hosp., 415 U.S. at 254.

This is in response to the Fifth Amendment Due Process claim against the interstate transfer ban, which was also sustained.

Edited by Gamma, 11 February 2015 - 05:01 PM.

[kwc]

Looks like the defendants provided a response to the complaint yesterday. The response isn't available yet in the public archives, but should be visible to PACER account holders.

https://www.pacermon...v_Madigan_et_al

Edited by kwc, 12 February 2015 - 05:40 AM.

[domin8]

I can't justify the minimum $49/month fee for PACER when I wouldn't use it that often. Hopefully somebody can post up a way to view the response once it is available.

[skinnyb82]

There's no minimum, my PACER bill was less than $40 last quarter.  If it's below $30, they zero it out...or they used to.  The federal court system set a cutoff where they'll wipe the bill if it's under a certain amount.  Anyway, here's the two motions for extension of time to file response *gag* and the response itself.  Excuses....excuses.  "This is a holiday....I've been assigned too many cases...."  Oh, and get used to this since they lack knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs....9 through 28, in the complaint (plaintiffs).

 

"X. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
truth of the allegations in paragraph X."

 

Evidently, this is a misquote because, you know, the state disagrees with the opinion itself.....

 

"33. The Second Amendment “is fully applicable against the States.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010)."

 

And here's what the state had to say about that....

 

"33. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have accurately quoted or cited McDonald v. City
of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Defendants admit that the Second Amendment is applicable to
the States under the Fourteenth Amendment."

 

Let's see what else the state disagrees with.  Oh, this one is good.

 

"36. There is a fundamental right to carry handguns for self-defense in public. Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir., 2012)"

 

Lisa says "NOOOOO" because that's dead wrong.....

 

"36. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 36."

 

Oh, "We're gonna enforce this until you tell us to not enforce it...."

 

"57. The State Police defendants admit that they will continue to enforce the
challenged law in the absence of an injunction. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
paragraph 57."

 

Here's all of the briefs....

 

First extension (30 days), second extension (14 days) on top of the 60 days already provided by the FRCP

 

 First.State.Motion.for.Extension.to.File.Response.DE11.0.pdf   95.47KB   551 downloads

 Second.State.Motion.for.Extension.to.File.Response.DE12.0.pdf   97.72KB   561 downloads

 

State Response

 

 State.Response.DE13.0.pdf   37.22KB   582 downloads