Allegations of domestic violence are now enough to be denied a CCL

[vstar]

Allegations of domestic violence are now enough to be denied a concealed carry license.

 

https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/512872726-appeals-court-il-state-police-ok-to-use-police-report-to-deny-concealed-carry-permit-even-without-arrest-or-conviction

 

CHICAGO - An Illinois appeals panel has ruled the Illinois State Police are within their authority to deny a concealed carry firearm permit to people based solely on allegations contained in police reports, whether or not that person was ever arrested on those charges, much less convicted......

[lockman]

Due process may have been upheld, but at its core due process is not what is being denied here. The systemic denials of fundamental rights are.

 

 

^ this ***

[InterestedBystander]

Decision

https://jnswire.s3.amazonaws.com/jns-media/94/36/1560362/Nalls_v_ILStatePolice_ConcealedCarry.pdf

[gunuser17]

The bottom line is that you have to respond to the Board. This may have come out differently if the appeals court had any evidence from the applicant that responded to the police report. Whether or not you believe the application system is unconstitutional, never let evidence go unrebutted, even if you believe that it is inadmissible.

[InterestedBystander]

The bottom line is that you have to respond to the Board. This may have come out differently if the appeals court had any evidence from the applicant that responded to the police report. Whether or not you believe the application system is unconstitutional, never let evidence go unrebutted, even if you believe that it is inadmissible.

 

Not responding to board request on appeal and then going to court pro se is probably not a good strategy. Although, with no arrest or conviction...

 

...When the file reached the Review Board, it first determined the police objection appeared "sustainable," but gave Nalls 15 days to appeal before a final decision. There is no record of her responding, according to the appeals court.

 

In its ruling, the board said that "domestic violence offenders routinely escape conviction” due to the reluctance of victims to file charges and that there is a "strong correlation between domestic violence and misuse of firearms."...

[Bubbacs]

It’s sent to the review board July 17

Then it’s decided by the same board on August 17

 

Anyone else see these 30 day review board decisions?

 

I may have read that wrong, but submitted to the board and then the board denying with those dates seems very unusual!

[Molly B.]

It’s sent to the review board July 17

Then it’s decided by the same board on August 17

 

Anyone else see these 30 day review board decisions?

 

I may have read that wrong, but submitted to the board and then the board denying with those dates seems very unusual!

 

 

They are pretty much on schedule now so it is important to respond by the deadline or at least contact the board with a request for extension of the deadline.

[Molly B.]

The court has ruled on several cases now that the 'hearsay" evidence is allowed by statute and the board can deny a CCL based on the belief the person is a danger to themselves and others. Reports of domestic violence and reports of resisting/assaulting a police officer are the surest ways to get denied. Until the Review Board is shut down with a constitutional challenge, convincing the board you are not a danger is paramount. This can be done a lot of times by just responding to the board with your side of the story. If you have a dozen reports of domestic violence incidents, then a psych eval might be needed to to show you are not a danger . . . just saying.

[domin8]

It sounds like such a lawsuit is necessary since hearsay isn't admissible in a court case. Hearsay is clearly violating Due Process of Law. A rumor is not an accuser, and no trial has been held.

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

[Bird76Mojo]

So it's a "may issue" system. Just what the state wanted all along...

[domin8]

It sounds like such a lawsuit is necessary since hearsay isn't admissible in a court case.

 

 

 

Oh, our fine state passed a law saying it is. Was the only way Glasgow could convict Drew Peterson.

Then it needs to be appealed to the federal circuit courts

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

[skinnyb82]

Then it needs to be appealed to the federal circuit courts.

It can't be. Circuit has no jurisdiction. It has to go up the state court food chain aka "court of last resort" for the jurisdiction. Up to Illinois Supreme Court and then to SCOTUS. Unless petitioner/plaintiff decides to file a 1983 action. Then it can be dealt with in the federal courts.

 

[domin8]

As you said, it can be

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

[skinnyb82]

As you said, it can be

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Yes but this action would need to be dismissed in state court and refiled as a 1983 case otherwise abstention (Colorado River I believe) and Rooker-Feldman comes into play. Can't have parallel cases and once judgement is rendered in state court, no federal court below SCOTUS may review it.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[skinnyb82]

Agh accidental double post. Please delete.

 

[yurimodin]

remember its a right even if you have to ask permission...

[DarkLord]

As George Carlin said , You don't have rights, just a list of privileges - He was dead on as demonstrated by our elected officials