Elmer Fudd Posted April 19, 2014 at 10:12 PM Share Posted April 19, 2014 at 10:12 PM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given I have a Freedom of Information Act request that addresses many of the issues discussed in this thread that has gone through the first couple of steps with the ISP and hasn't received a response. It will be in the hands of the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Coordinator this coming week, and depending upon what happens there, the next step is Circuit Court. The request is all about procedures, guidelines and timelines. It doesn't involve a specific person's application. When and if useful information is available it will get shared. Unfortunately, until it reaches that point, it needs to stay under wraps. Suffice it to say that once it comes through it should answer a whole lot of questions. Good luck and a Happy Easter to all. Link to comment
jason4126 Posted April 21, 2014 at 08:29 PM Share Posted April 21, 2014 at 08:29 PM Hot off the press... Just got back from the Daley Center and got my petition/appeal in. Pretty simple process with some back and forth, but learned a few tricks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason4126 Posted April 21, 2014 at 08:38 PM Share Posted April 21, 2014 at 08:38 PM When you guys go to the Daley Center ask for a waiver form to pay zero to file your petition along with the summons and postage. I just got back and paid nothing to file, summon, and send the certified letters to the ISP. The lady hooked me up because she said they do not tell anyone about the waivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moon Posted April 21, 2014 at 09:42 PM Share Posted April 21, 2014 at 09:42 PM Nice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted April 22, 2014 at 12:06 AM Author Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 12:06 AM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given A suggestion has been made to add the Chairman of the CCL Review Board to the complaint:Robinzina Bryant, any idea what the address would be for the CCL Review Board? Link to comment
Elmer Fudd Posted April 22, 2014 at 12:22 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 12:22 AM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given A suggestion has been made to add the Chairman of the CCL Review Board to the complaint:Robinzina Bryant, any idea what the address would be for the CCL Review Board?I see another FOIA request zapped in tomorrow morning Link to comment
xxxlaw Posted April 22, 2014 at 12:34 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 12:34 AM We filed a lawsuit today in federal court in three counts, due process violation, prior restraint violation, and administrative review (a claim actually under state law, filed here under supplemental jurisdiction of the federal court).In sum, Plaintiff is a law-abiding citizen possessing a FOID card.He applied for concealed carry on the first day that it was possible to do so, January 5, 2014. As part of the process, he uploaded his FOID Card, fingerprints, a training certificate, and granted a waiver for examination to any and all medical records and a world of other personal things. (And a $150 nonrefundable application fee, portions of which are specifically earmarked for purposes outside the application process.)He received a terse letter on March 19 by which the State Police advise that an unspecified law enforcement objection was filed, that the Board determined by preponderance of the evidence that he was dangerous to himself or others or presented a danger to the public safety in a hearing, and that he was denied a permit.To this day he does not know who objected or what they said. He had no prior knowledge of the secret proceeding and certainly no chance to present evidence or argue to the contrary. The concealed carry law exempts this Board from FOIA and the Open Meetings Act.Though he letter did not say so, his only right to challenge this is through the Illinois Administrative Review Law, but it turns out that is a sham. In a FOID card denial, there would be a right to a full hearing in front of a judge as to all of the issues. In any normal administrative review, as for example a zoning case, the "record" below would be filed in court as the answer. However, under the Concealed Carry law, the record below is a secret that can't be disclosed except by a specific judicial order, and there is no right to a hearing de novo. In other words, the judge's decision would be limited to reviewing the facts in evidence before the secret tribunal - and then only if he ordered the Board to give it up. The review would be for abuse of discretion in the decision, and at no point would he have the right to actually speak or otherwise introduce evidence on his own behalf. Though the letter of denial didn't state it, even the right to a sham imitation of judicial review is lost without the filing of a lawsuit within 35 day. The time limit causes people to focus on that deadline - rather than the fact that the law denies them any honest or effective way of challenging the tilted bias and secret evidence of this hidden tribunal.The Board itself, by the Concealed Carry Act, must include at least three individuals with at least five years experience as federal investigators and two who have at least five years experience as US Attorneys. It requires, in describing the composition of the Board, (2) 2 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience serving as an attorney with the United States Department of Justice; (3) 3 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience as a federal agent or employee with investigative experience or duties related to criminal justice under the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Homeland Security, or Federal Bureau of Investigation;Section 20 (a), Public Act 098-0063That's a majority of the seven commissioners provided for. There is no provision for persons with experience in advocating for or counseling the victims of gun assault or criminal defense attorneys, persons who might know the consequences of inability to defend a predatory criminal assault with lethal defensive weapons.We filed today because all of this grossly violates the constitutional guarantee that liberty cannot be deprived without due process of law - fundamentally fair procedures in light of the right at issue - and because the exercise of fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech, the right to marry, the right to vote, cannot be conditioned on asking governmental guardians for permission.The FOID Card procedure already in place goes as far - and perhaps further - than the constitution permits for the protection of the public. The main significant difference between it and the Concealed Carry Act is the creation of this secret tribunal to determine the objection of law enforcement to an individual's right to carry a defensive weapon outside the home. The vague standard contained in the law - and the secrecy of the proceedings and the lack of notice or right to defend to affected individuals - and the immunity of those who object and those who decide - and the lack of any serious judicial oversight to the proceedings - tends to assure that the screening process for the applicants, all of them FOID Card holders or applicants, amounts to little or nothing more than a visceral, gut-feeling test for the exercise of a fundamental right by a law-abiding citizen. We think that, in a country that stamps the word, "Liberty", on each and every coin, the secret and functionally unchallengeable proceedings of this procedure, simply cannot stand constitutional scrutiny, and will fall.J. D. Obenberger, Attorney at Law115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2600Chicago, IL 60603 312.558.6420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted April 22, 2014 at 12:47 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 12:47 AM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Thank you sir..will follow up Link to comment
Toolmaker8185 Posted April 22, 2014 at 01:14 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 01:14 AM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Robinzina Bryant ??? THATS her name ?? Umm..ok.hmmm. Link to comment
transplant Posted April 22, 2014 at 01:48 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 01:48 AM @xxxlaw Give 'em heck! Will this end up as a topic in the Judicial portion of the forum when we know what the case name is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted April 22, 2014 at 03:25 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 03:25 AM Xxxlaw thanks for the information and good luck with the lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted April 22, 2014 at 06:56 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 06:56 AM There is an article related to the lawsuit Mr. Obenberger describes in the Sun Times you can see it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rat Posted April 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM "Plaintiff is a law-abiding citizen..." Court records show he was arrested in 2000 for resisting a police officer and criminal damage to property, both misdemeanors. He was convicted and received court supervision. In 2006, he was arrested once again for resisting a police officer and criminal damage to property. He was convicted and received conditional discharge for resisting a police officer and was ordered to pay a $200 fine and more than $1,400 in restitution for the property damage, records show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted April 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM The citation to the case that Mr. Obenberger filed on behalf of Mr. John Berron is Berron v. ISP 1:14-cv-02839. I am going to start a new thread and post a complete copy of the complaint as filed in the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted April 22, 2014 at 02:57 PM Author Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 02:57 PM What would be the proper way to add the Concealed Carry License Review Board and the Chairman of the Review Board to the blank form? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnwfan3 Posted April 22, 2014 at 03:17 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 03:17 PM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given A suggestion has been made to add the Chairman of the CCL Review Board to the complaint:Robinzina Bryant, any idea what the address would be for the CCL Review Board? Do you think it will be an issue for those that already filed and did not name the Chairman of the board? Does anyone know if you can ammend or modify the appeal if it has already been submitted? Link to comment
xxxlaw Posted April 22, 2014 at 04:10 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 04:10 PM Thanks for the good wishes! This is about a fundamentally unfair procedure that takes place in secret in front of a Board stacked against gun owners. It is about an objection that you don't know has been filed, about evidence that you may never see, submitted by an objector in the shadows whose name you may never learn. It is about a short letter denying you that gives no detail at all. It is about the mere illusion of judicial review, when, in fact, the judge has no right to allow you to present your side of the question or introduce your own evidence; the Administrative Review Law limits him to looking at what happened in the Board, and only then, on his or her special order to the Board to provide the court a copy. The judge just reviews the decision for obvious mistake, but there is no "hearing de novo" as you might get if you were denied a FOID Card. Where we are at is not about the merits of my client or even particularly about the decision that was made in his case. It is about the procedures that are unfair to him and to everyone who applies for a concealed carry card. Everyone deserves a fair hearing. He and the others who have applied have no right to that under the procedures in the Concealed Carry Act. Those who were denied should get legal advice promptly, or they will simply risk their right to do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears34 Posted April 22, 2014 at 04:47 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 04:47 PM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Molly, What do you think about using Robizina Bryants private practice address, with her name, and the title of Chairman of the CCL Review Board. Since there doesn't seem to be a CCL Review Board address? Link to comment
cnwfan3 Posted April 22, 2014 at 07:36 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 07:36 PM Thanks for the good wishes! This is about a fundamentally unfair procedure that takes place in secret in front of a Board stacked against gun owners. It is about an objection that you don't know has been filed, about evidence that you may never see, submitted by an objector in the shadows whose name you may never learn. It is about a short letter denying you that gives no detail at all. It is about the mere illusion of judicial review, when, in fact, the judge has no right to allow you to present your side of the question or introduce your own evidence; the Administrative Review Law limits him to looking at what happened in the Board, and only then, on his or her special order to the Board to provide the court a copy. The judge just reviews the decision for obvious mistake, but there is no "hearing de novo" as you might get if you were denied a FOID Card. Where we are at is not about the merits of my client or even particularly about the decision that was made in his case. It is about the procedures that are unfair to him and to everyone who applies for a concealed carry card. Everyone deserves a fair hearing. He and the others who have applied have no right to that under the procedures in the Concealed Carry Act. Those who were denied should get legal advice promptly, or they will simply risk their right to do anything about it. I totally agree!! I have been denied and the worst part is that have have no arrests, mental health issues, or anything else that should cause me to be denied. I suspect that it is a case of mistaken identity in my case (since there are many with my name that have a criminal history), but the fact that this was all done in secret and that I can't even see what was objected to and by who is so unfair. How can I even dispute it if I don't even know what I am being objected about. If it's going to be as difficult as you say to over turn in the circuit court, that is even more unfair. I really hope your case paves the way for the rest of us that were denied unjustly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xd9subcompact Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:21 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:21 PM In regard to someone missing the deadline mentioned in post #67 of 35 days: Could it be possible to re-apply for the permit (that's another $150) and be prepared to file a suit immediately? Or is there a limitation in the FCCA that denies the ability to re-apply once denied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:27 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:27 PM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Can I still file an Appeal I have a March 19 letter??? Link to comment
Shadow71 Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:43 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:43 PM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Mulit-quote isn't working correctly for me. No you can never apply for IL CCL again.you are pretty much blacklisted.If you miss the 35 day deadline you'll have to wait 2 years and then file your appeal.Most are thinking that after 2 years you can re-apply, that is NOT the case.My lawyer corrected this for me. If your letter is dated March 19th, you have till May 7th to file.But every lawyer that I spoke with is aim for 30 days vs the 35 days allowed. Link to comment
Dr. Rat Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:45 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:45 PM Can I still file an Appeal I have a March 19 letter??? I think it depends on whether you were denied by the ISP or the Board. From what we've heard, it's 60 days for the former and 35 days for the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:58 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 09:58 PM I was denied by the board of review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted April 22, 2014 at 10:04 PM Author Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 10:04 PM I was denied by the board of review. You should have 35 days from the date you received the letter. Do you have the envelope with the post mark? v. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted April 22, 2014 at 10:06 PM Author Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 10:06 PM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Molly, What do you think about using Robizina Bryants private practice address, with her name, and the title of Chairman of the CCL Review Board. Since there doesn't seem to be a CCL Review Board address? I have asked if there is an address for the CCL Review Board. No answer yet. I would think the private practice address would work? Anyone have any thoughts on this? Link to comment
Benji Posted April 22, 2014 at 10:27 PM Share Posted April 22, 2014 at 10:27 PM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Damn this is bull**** wheres are rights CCLsucks for Illinois I NEVER been convicted FOR A felony or misdemeanor and I've been denied, I work in Ohare airport on the airfield I have an I.D. that have to be aproved by TSA Homeland security I own and buy guns monthly, Ive been having my FOID for ten years or so where is the NRA ON ALL THIS wheres are HELP, no lawyers help from them are we on this appeal fight on our own. I know this form is great help I thanx all the ppls here for it this is how I feel maybe I'm wrong but I'm a Member of the NRA and I call them to get no help at all just saying. Link to comment
xxxlaw Posted April 23, 2014 at 01:13 AM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 01:13 AM For those whose denial letter is dated March 19, that's the date of the adverse action. I would act as though tomorrow, April 23, is the 35th day, the deadline for filing under the Illinois Administrative Review Law. And I don't mean to discourage anyone from doing that. I think it should be done to make sure that potentially serious rights are not waived, dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's and naming the board members, its chairman, the Chairman of that Board, the Director of the ISP, and the objector and the municipality he works for if you can figure that out. But I recommend also an action based on civil rights, based on the violation of due process and prior restraint as well, preferably in federal court. For any who are unfortunate enough to blow the state deadline, there is some chance that the civil rights action might work anyway. No guarantees. And obviously, I am not the attorney of anyone here and this does not amount to legal advice. Get a lawyer and consult with him. But you are rapidly running out of time to do that under the Illinois Administrative Review Law if your letter is dated March 19, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnwfan3 Posted April 23, 2014 at 01:33 AM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 01:33 AM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Are you sure that we can not reapply after two years? That would seem really messed up if someone was denied for no reason, can't afford to appeal, and can never reapply again. Can anyone provide where in the CCL law it states that? Link to comment
xd9subcompact Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:14 AM Share Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:14 AM · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given Mulit-quote isn't working correctly for me. No you can never apply for IL CCL again.you are pretty much blacklisted.If you miss the 35 day deadline you'll have to wait 2 years and then file your appeal.Most are thinking that after 2 years you can re-apply, that is NOT the case.My lawyer corrected this for me. If your letter is dated March 19th, you have till May 7th to file.But every lawyer that I spoke with is aim for 30 days vs the 35 days allowed.Where in this convoluted law does it say an applicant that is denied cannot re-apply and start the process over again? I read it again using the word "denied" as a search and couldn't find that. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.