ChicagoRonin70 Posted December 27, 2014 at 04:38 AM Share Posted December 27, 2014 at 04:38 AM Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted December 30, 2014 at 07:28 PM Share Posted December 30, 2014 at 07:28 PM Just heard from Counsel that the Defendants received an extension until the end of January to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted December 30, 2014 at 07:39 PM Author Share Posted December 30, 2014 at 07:39 PM Correct, the Defendants recently received an extension until the end of January to respond to our Complaint. We expected this, both the asking and the receiving, given the original deadline of December 30 and the holiday season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted December 30, 2014 at 09:25 PM Share Posted December 30, 2014 at 09:25 PM Well, that's a bit disheartening. "Cry, 'Havoc and let slip the dogs of war." - William Shakespeare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted December 30, 2014 at 09:25 PM Share Posted December 30, 2014 at 09:25 PM What happens after 60 days if they fail to respond?Lisa Madigan starts laughing maniacally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted January 27, 2015 at 06:54 PM Share Posted January 27, 2015 at 06:54 PM What happens after 60 days if they fail to respond?Lisa Madigan starts laughing maniacally.I'm curious how much Lisa is paying attention to this case personally. I wonder if she cares all that much about this whole affair over CCW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubicon Posted January 27, 2015 at 08:20 PM Share Posted January 27, 2015 at 08:20 PM What happens after 60 days if they fail to respond?Lisa Madigan starts laughing maniacally.I'm curious how much Lisa is paying attention to this case personally. I wonder if she cares all that much about this whole affair over CCW. AG Lisa Madigan is a Rabid Anti-Gun, Anti-Second Amendment Fanatic! She tried to get the ISP to release all of the Names and Addresses of all Illinois FOID Card holders! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Wheezy Posted January 27, 2015 at 11:07 PM Share Posted January 27, 2015 at 11:07 PM 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted January 27, 2015 at 11:41 PM Share Posted January 27, 2015 at 11:41 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jd11201 Posted January 28, 2015 at 04:36 AM Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 04:36 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted January 28, 2015 at 01:04 PM Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 01:04 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 29, 2015 at 05:43 PM Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 05:43 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted January 29, 2015 at 06:11 PM Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 06:11 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted January 29, 2015 at 06:39 PM Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 06:39 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted January 29, 2015 at 07:00 PM Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 07:00 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted January 29, 2015 at 07:51 PM Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 07:51 PM 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted January 29, 2015 at 08:21 PM Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 08:21 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted January 29, 2015 at 08:42 PM Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 08:42 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted January 29, 2015 at 09:10 PM Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 09:10 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted January 30, 2015 at 11:29 PM Share Posted January 30, 2015 at 11:29 PM 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted January 30, 2015 at 11:40 PM Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 at 11:40 PM They have asked for another extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted January 30, 2015 at 11:50 PM Share Posted January 30, 2015 at 11:50 PM I suspect they can't come up with a viable response. I'd love to see this petition for a continuance denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:05 AM Share Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:05 AM And in the meantime do non residents get a waiver of enforcement of UUW until this is settled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:11 AM Share Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:11 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:15 AM Share Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:15 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:45 AM Share Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:45 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:34 PM Share Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:34 PM 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:36 PM Share Posted January 31, 2015 at 12:36 PM Usually 1 or 2 extensions is a given. Any more and they better have a good reason for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 3, 2015 at 02:26 AM Share Posted February 3, 2015 at 02:26 AM When will we find out if the extension is approved or denied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rail Posted February 3, 2015 at 03:34 AM Share Posted February 3, 2015 at 03:34 AM I can probably guess what's happening behind the scenes, but no need to discuss my thoughts publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.