Jump to content

Shepard update 7/27 -- dismissed as moot


Recommended Posts

I highly doubt the Court will give them the already mandated period of time (the 180 day mandate couldn't be more clear in the FCCA, but the ISP is practicing selective interpretation) to comply as they will have already demonstrated that they cannot or will not comply with the previously mandated period of 60 days to get instructors certified and approve curriculum. That's rewarding bad behavior.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

The law requires that the ISP have a list of approved trainers and a list of approved curriculum no later than September 7 and if they do not comply it will give our side plenty of ammo for the orals in the 7th circuit which I suspect is why the 7th circuit chose that date that way one way or another we would know if the ISP is abiding by the law or breaking it.

 

Yeah, but this is Illinois. What you're going to have is a half dozen or so instructors who have been carefully chosen put up on a website at 11:59pm on September 7th along with the approved curriculum. Those instructors will only be available to people with the right connections. Meanwhile, everyone else waits while the ISP drags it's feet on all the rest of the instructors until the 7th gives them 180 days to meaningfully comply...

 

FWIW the course listings through the regional Mobile Training Units and places like PTI for the various police firearms instructor classes typically have at least a few vacancies on the first day of class.

 

Ever since the first version of this bill was made public, those classes have not only been full, but had waiting lists.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

Maybe, MAYBE, but I don't think we'll get anything great out of the court. They ruled in Dec 2012 that it was a right, a right they allowed to be denied 180 days, then 210 days, and now 270+ days and counting. Why would they do anything instead of let the clock run out? I know I'm pessimistic when it comes to the judicial system, but it moves SLOWLY. Why stir things up when they can let the time expire and blame the slow speed of the system?

The law requires that the ISP have a list of approved trainers and a list of approved curriculum no later than September 7 and if they do not comply it will give our side plenty of ammo for the orals in the 7th circuit which I suspect is why the 7th circuit chose that date that way one way or another we would know if the ISP is abiding by the law or breaking it.

 

 

I don't agree with this, here is the exact text in the act

 

Section 75. Applicant firearm training.

(a) Within 60 days of the effective date of this Act, the Department shall begin approval of firearm training courses and shall make a list of approved courses available on the Department's website.

 

 

To me the key words are, " shall begin ", and says nothing on having it all put out there. So on he 7th of September they put one approved course up on the website and they have essentially met the deadline of the act.

 

One interesting thing of note, everyone keeps mentioning approved instructors. Nowhere does it say specific instructors have to be specified or released. So once they approve a particular training course, to me it sounds that any instructor authorized to teach that course will be able to be used. So there won't be well the instructor in my town teaches the course but he's not listed on the ISP site so now I have to travel xxx miles and miss x days of work.

 

I don't think the training is going to be the big issue, that is a deadline they are surely going to meet just because if the lingering orals less than a month after. They're not going to put more fuel on the fire.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

Does the wording matter when there is no penalty for non-compliance?

 

Does it matter with FOID? You already know that answer. But the big difference here is the threads title, there is motivation for them to get this done on time. It would probably benefit us more in the upcoming orals 10/3 for them not to have anything done. I doubt that will be the case though, Madigan's crew want to go into the orals showing that they are on schedule and things are taking the time that they set out they would. Will they drag it out to the final day on each deadline? Absolutely, they have done so thus far and even text on the ISP website has or still does say similar.

 

The sooner they approve the courses only benefits them, that many more people will have their required training by January 5th which means one thing. That many more non-refundable $150 checks rolling in.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

The sooner they approve the courses only benefits them, that many more people will have their required training by January 5th which means one thing. That many more non-refundable $150 checks rolling in.

 

There is the ugly flip side of that for the ISP since they have to flip all those applications within 90 days, so the more checks that flow in on January 5th means the higher the work load to meet the 90 day mandate...

 

Consider if they were to get 50,000 applications the first week, that is over 555 applications to process each day if they want to meet the 90 day deadline... Consider also that the work load is likely to increase each day during that 90 day period as more applications flow in, so that 555 applications a day is likely to go up... Also consider this is an untested system and there is bound to be small glitches and technical problems that will cause down time and made that daily processing load even higher on the days the system is working...

 

The more they delay the rolling out of applications and force the mad rush for day one applications the more potential to fail on the 90 day mandate...

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

Have they even given a contact or address for instructors to submit their names?

A while back the ISP said they are way ahead on getting the ball rolling. we'll see in about 2 1/2 weeks. I will be shocked if they are actually on schedule with this list of classes / instructors. I think the strings are being pulled and from higher up and the goal is to keep us waiting and playing games. having no penalty for delaying makes this all the more likely
Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

Does the wording matter when there is no penalty for non-compliance?

 

Does it matter with FOID? You already know that answer. But the big difference here is the threads title, there is motivation for them to get this done on time. It would probably benefit us more in the upcoming orals 10/3 for them not to have anything done. I doubt that will be the case though, Madigan's crew want to go into the orals showing that they are on schedule and things are taking the time that they set out they would. Will they drag it out to the final day on each deadline? Absolutely, they have done so thus far and even text on the ISP website has or still does say similar.

 

The sooner they approve the courses only benefits them, that many more people will have their required training by January 5th which means one thing. That many more non-refundable $150 checks rolling in.

 

That's assuming Madigan's crew had a modicum of common sense. They've already proved, time after time, that they see the world differently than we do. They have the attitude that since they are the "government" they know best and everyone else will just fall in line. They've not learned their lesson from the original ruling by the 7th and I don't expect them to change anytime soon.

 

The 7th has to see that the State is trying to play games with their rulings and even Stiehl and Myerscough are involved. Personally I think Posner and company are tired of the games and am hoping we get everything we asked for and more after orals in Sept. Heck, from what I've heard others say about the "quality" of the state's arguments the last time this could help us in the long run. LOL

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

I really think that come September 8th(the next day) we will have a lengthy list of satisfactory courses, both past and present, that will meet the needs of the grandfathered up to first 8 hours of training as well as the first 8 hours. We'll probably also see a second list with Illinois specific 8 hour training courses, allowing you to find your own instructor. Illinoiscarry has been trying to get a one size fits all curriculum together, hopefully we'll see this in there as well as a few others.

 

I doubt we see specific instructors and such named, only the courses. It will be up to the individual instructors to meet the criteria to teach those courses.

 

 

Alternative scenario,

 

 

If there is any delay it will be with the IL specific aspect of it, who can teach on the 8th if the curriculum isn't made known until the 7th. Will they make instructors apply to receive the curriculum they set out? That is the portion where you might see authorized trainers listed on the website.

 

Hopefully Todd or Molly could give us insight if needed.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

The sooner they approve the courses only benefits them, that many more people will have their required training by January 5th which means one thing. That many more non-refundable $150 checks rolling in.

 

There is the ugly flip side of that for the ISP since they have to flip all those applications within 90 days, so the more checks that flow in on January 5th means the higher the work load to meet the 90 day mandate...

 

Consider if they were to get 50,000 applications the first week, that is over 555 applications to process each day if they want to meet the 90 day deadline... Consider also that the work load is likely to increase each day during that 90 day period as more applications flow in, so that 555 applications a day is likely to go up... Also consider this is an untested system and there is bound to be small glitches and technical problems that will cause down time and made that daily processing load even higher on the days the system is working...

 

The more they delay the rolling out of applications and force the mad rush for day one applications the more potential to fail on the 90 day mandate...

Rocker, there u go again being totally logical.

 

When have the words logic and ISP ever gone together?

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

So who has the stat? I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

 

How long did it take the ISP to start issuing the first FOID cards? Not sure what the original timeframe(if there was one) was back in the late 60's and early 70's. they say history repeats itself.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
I just got fingerprints taken in the Peoria County Sheriff's office and they have no capability for digital fingerprints. They have no staffing to take the fingerprints. This in itself will cause a huge delay in getting the application process underway.
Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
One would have to wonder if there is a business opportunity here. A business that specializes in taking fingerprints for concealed carry applicants and providing them, per proper procedures, either to the applicant or to the proper authorities (ISP?), for processing.
Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

One would have to wonder if there is a business opportunity here. A business that specializes in taking fingerprints for concealed carry applicants and providing them, per proper procedures, either to the applicant or to the proper authorities (ISP?), for processing.

 

There are 40 or so vendors who already do this in the state, most in the northern (most populated) part of the state. Live scan prints are used for lots of things beside CCW, mainly job applications etc.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

You could make out like a bandit setting up shop next to Gat Guns or Article II

 

heck setup a in a towable trailer and pull it into the parking lot, show up at the gun shows/classes.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

Both Peoria and Tazewell County have Live Scan so I have no idea who told you that they don't but it's BS. If Knox County has Live Scan then Peoria County has it.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

Both Peoria and Tazewell County have Live Scan so I have no idea who told you that they don't but it's BS. If Knox County has Live Scan then Peoria County has it.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

I got the fingerprints today at the Sheriffs Dept in room B22 in the Peoria County Courthouse. One of the dispatchers took my prints. Humm.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

List of LE agencies with live scan as of two years ago (it's gotten a lot longer)....

http://www2.illinois.gov/prb/Documents/lsagencies11.08.10.pdf

 

Straight from the Peoria County SD's website...

" To be more effective and efficient in this role, the Sheriff's Department has incorporated new technology to assist its staff. A closed circuit microwave video bonding system, a digital computer driven mug shot system, a computerized booking system, and a live scan fingerprint process are some of the technological advances that are utilized to assist us in attaining our goals."

 

http://www.peoriacounty.org/sheriff/jail

 

You have to go to the actual jail for them to do it. And as far as prints at the court house done by a dispatcher, I've never heard of a dispatcher being authorized to print people. I've also never heard of prints done at a court house. But it's possible...just never heard of LE agencies printing at courthouses.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

Both Peoria and Tazewell County have Live Scan so I have no idea who told you that they don't but it's BS. If Knox County has Live Scan then Peoria County has it.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Skinny I just got off the phone with the Peoria County Sheriff since you stated my comment was BS. Peoria County Sheriff at the courthouse for the general public does NOT provide Live Scan. Live Scan is only done to the inmates at the jail if that is where you are talking about. I am not an inmate. LOL. I guess I will stop posting.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

List of LE agencies with live scan as of two years ago (it's gotten a lot longer)....

http://www2.illinois.gov/prb/Documents/lsagencies11.08.10.pdf

 

Straight from the Peoria County SD's website...

" To be more effective and efficient in this role, the Sheriff's Department has incorporated new technology to assist its staff. A closed circuit microwave video bonding system, a digital computer driven mug shot system, a computerized booking system, and a live scan fingerprint process are some of the technological advances that are utilized to assist us in attaining our goals."

 

http://www.peoriacounty.org/sheriff/jail

 

You have to go to the actual jail for them to do it. And as far as prints at the court house done by a dispatcher, I've never heard of a dispatcher being authorized to print people. I've also never heard of prints done at a court house. But it's possible...just never heard of LE agencies printing at courthouses.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2i

OK. You won. The Peoria County Sheriff is located in room B22 at the courthouse. Done posting.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

No I said if they told you that they don't have live scan it's BS. They can't use it for IL permit apps yet so it's pointless but I was simply pointing out that if they told you they do not have live scan (as in do not have it at all, period) then it's a crock. I didn't call YOUR comment BS. You simply posted what you were told and I refuted that information. My County SD will do live scan for purposes of state licensure that requires a print check.

 

And as far as the court house thing goes I said I'd never heard of that and stipulated that it's possible...but that I had never heard of it. So I'm not sure how you're reading into what I said.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
I was live scanned at Woodford Co. jail for my job as a teacher. Is that scan still on record, and can it be used for our purposes of Il. CC instructor?
Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

Prints will have to be submitted sometime around when your app is submitted, they cannot take whatever is on file with the IDFPR (do they do backgrounds?) or any other of the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies you must submit prints to for a background for employment purposes. Even if you had just submitted your prints last week, ISP wants its own. I had to submit a set for my job and I've been printed four times for carry permits, oh well the ISP will still want a new set for itself. There's nothing in the law that explicitly states they have to have been taken within X days but Florida seems to hint that you need to submit your application within 90 days of being printed or they will not accept them (extra fees and charges they say, which I would think means they want a new set of prints).

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
It's interesting that you bring up Florida. That state is so far away that it is presumable the courts, should it be challenged, will not look into their case law. When there is vagueness in the local law the courts tend to look at neighboring states for case history. Seldom do they go further. Have decisions been made by looking at states that don't border the state the question is in? It has happened before.
Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., September 30, 2013 at 01:28 AM - No reason given

What's going on here? I'm confused. Now there's gonna be a lawsuit over how long prints will be considered current? I was simply discussing how old your prints can be and still be considered up to date by the state. Nothing more. I really do not understand how the courts factor into this at all since I didn't mention anything about filing a lawsuit. I simply stated that FL may cut off at 90 days. It's SOP to not wait three months or even one month after being printed to submit an application for a permit.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...