Milesvdustin Posted November 12, 2018 at 01:35 AM Share Posted November 12, 2018 at 01:35 AM Been away from the forums for a while, started a new career so I have been quite busy. Basically my question is this: I am now covered under leosa, so do I still need or want my IL ccw for any reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggun 1 Posted November 12, 2018 at 01:40 AM Share Posted November 12, 2018 at 01:40 AM i can tell you that a friend is a retired cop and he does not need a ccl,he has to requalify every year to keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted November 12, 2018 at 02:18 AM Share Posted November 12, 2018 at 02:18 AM Been away from the forums for a while, started a new career so I have been quite busy. Basically my question is this: I am now covered under leosa, so do I still need or want my IL ccw for any reason?Yes - the state needs all the $$ it can get!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richp Posted November 12, 2018 at 03:22 AM Share Posted November 12, 2018 at 03:22 AM Hi Miles, By saying you are covered under LEOSA, do you mean you already have gone through the state-administered annual qualification process with IROCC? If not, you really aren't solid under LEOSA in Illinois. FWIW. Rich Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyk101 Posted November 12, 2018 at 03:48 PM Share Posted November 12, 2018 at 03:48 PM If you are active LE then you are automatically covered under LEOSA. As long as you do your annual qualification every year, which every active duty member I know does anyway as a condition of employment. This gives you 50 state carry privileges along with all U.S. Territories. You must make sure to carry your active duty ID issued by your agency and badge. For retired LE, you also must qualify every year and IROCC does that for you and issues an ID that verifies that you have complied. As long as you carry that IROCC ID along with an ID issued from your agency showing retired status, you also are covered under all aspects of LEOSA. There is no need to have a ILL CCL as it is far more restrictive than your advantages under LEOSA. Another thing to consider, as a Illinois CCL holder, even if you are qualified under LEOSA, you must abide by all posted and prohibited carry zones by law. In Illinois even though there hasnt been clear cut rulings, especially as an Illinois active LE and probably retired LE, you should be exempted from these restrictions. If you find yourself in a posted location and it is discovered that you are carrying, you can be asked to leave but that is is it and IROCC advises that you should honor the wishes of the employee/owner and leave. Much different than if you are carrying under an Ill CCL. Downside to retired LEOSA under IROCC is that there is at least a $75 fee every year instead of the ILL CCL fee that you pay every 5 years. Also under IROCC, if you want to qualify with both an pistol and revolver, the fee then goes up to $100 a year. Forgot to mention, for retired LEOSA, besides your retired ID, IROCC ID, you must also carry a valid FOID card as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted November 12, 2018 at 04:16 PM Share Posted November 12, 2018 at 04:16 PM I seem to recall in one of the prior LEOSA discussions here on the forum a claim that Dart in Cook County refused to sign off on LEOSA applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyk101 Posted November 12, 2018 at 08:20 PM Share Posted November 12, 2018 at 08:20 PM There is no LEOSA application. It is a federal law HR-218 so nothing for Dart to sign off on. Active law enforcement are automatically covered. For retired, all that is needed is a letter from agency confirming that the LEO retired in good standing and had at least 10 years of service and be issued a photo ID showing they are retired. Then the retired member sends application directly to IROCC who processes it. There has been discussion about corrections officers because they technically dont fit the description under LEOSA. There has been attempts to add them in description but so far it hasn't been done. This might be what you have heard. For corrections officers, I am also at positive that they would have to get the ILL CCL in order to carry off duty or after retiring. If I am wrong, hopefully someone can provide more info on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyk101 Posted November 12, 2018 at 08:27 PM Share Posted November 12, 2018 at 08:27 PM Here are 2 different articles detailing 2 different outcomes for Corrections Officers:https://www.correctionsone.com/officer-safety/articles/470397187-Judge-Retired-Ill-COs-not-entitled-to-concealed-carry-permits-under-LEOSA/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/dc-must-let-ex-prison-guards-pack-heat-federal-court-rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milesvdustin Posted November 14, 2018 at 08:09 AM Author Share Posted November 14, 2018 at 08:09 AM I am definitely not retired, have a long way to go still! Federal side, not IDOC. Looks like I will let my IL permission slip expire and that be that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richp Posted November 14, 2018 at 01:53 PM Share Posted November 14, 2018 at 01:53 PM Hi Mikey, I think the problem was that some agencies had not been cooperative in providing the proper retirement documentation that IROCC required. Chicago stalled for a while, as did Dart, IIRC. I also seem to recall that the key for correctional staff is whether they had powers of arrest. FWIW. Rich Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milesvdustin Posted November 14, 2018 at 07:05 PM Author Share Posted November 14, 2018 at 07:05 PM There are flyers up at work for people retiring to schedule the irocc training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richp Posted November 14, 2018 at 07:26 PM Share Posted November 14, 2018 at 07:26 PM Hi Miles, Not sure what "training" that would refer to. There is a paper application process with the IROCC office in Springfield, and after they do their thing on your application/retirement credentials, they send you approval paperwork about a sign up for the annual weapons qualification. No training there either, just a qualification shoot. Just mildly puzzled... Rich Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milesvdustin Posted November 14, 2018 at 07:55 PM Author Share Posted November 14, 2018 at 07:55 PM I just used the word training, I don't know exactly what it says other than has the contact info for who to call to certify after retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richp Posted November 14, 2018 at 08:09 PM Share Posted November 14, 2018 at 08:09 PM Gotcha. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spu69 Posted November 14, 2018 at 08:33 PM Share Posted November 14, 2018 at 08:33 PM Hi Mikey, I think the problem was that some agencies had not been cooperative in providing the proper retirement documentation that IROCC required. Chicago stalled for a while, as did Dart, IIRC. I also seem to recall that the key for correctional staff is whether they had powers of arrest. FWIW. Rich Phillips Carrying IDOC personnel (parole) have been denied LEOSA and IROCC upon retirement due to IDOC refusing to complete the paperwork. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyk101 Posted November 15, 2018 at 12:56 AM Share Posted November 15, 2018 at 12:56 AM For Parole, there is a procedure in place now for them to be covered http://irocc.org/ipacc/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spu69 Posted November 15, 2018 at 01:10 AM Share Posted November 15, 2018 at 01:10 AM For Parole, there is a procedure in place now for them to be coveredhttp://irocc.org/ipacc/ My apologies. Retired parole. I work with several retired parole agents that had to get FCCL due to IDOC not allowing their credentials. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyk101 Posted November 15, 2018 at 01:27 AM Share Posted November 15, 2018 at 01:27 AM Oops, I just saw the retired parole part. That might not apply then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted February 3, 2019 at 06:32 PM Share Posted February 3, 2019 at 06:32 PM Hi Mikey, I think the problem was that some agencies had not been cooperative in providing the proper retirement documentation that IROCC required. Chicago stalled for a while, as did Dart, IIRC. I also seem to recall that the key for correctional staff is whether they had powers of arrest. FWIW. Rich PhillipsIndeed. Lawn Dart refused to provide "corrections" deputies with retired credentials - a regular practice for "road" deputies - despite Corrections deputies having powers of arrest, the same training requirements and the same authority as "road" deputies. A group of retired deputies sued in 2009, seeking to either force Dart to issue them cards, or have the Law Enforcement Training & Standards Board issue them IROCC cards without them. That case was Moore v Trent et al. The state court demurred, stating there was no law that required an agency to issue retired credentials, and that the state could not override or ignore the ID requirement in LEOSA/HR 218. One of the lead plaintiffs? Retired Deputy Michael Moore. He would reappear a few years later as the first post-McDonald plaintiff against the IL UUW ban on CCW, filing on 5/11/11, a day before Ms. Shepard. As I posted in the little blurb about it a few years after putting all the pieces together and being especially peeved at Dart one day - No offense to Mary Shepard, but thank Tom Dart as well - If not for Dart's arrogance, the case might not have had as qualified a plaintiff... one of those "highly trained police officers" that the liberals kept using as exemplars, suddenly unworthy of the same ability he had exercised for 30 years. So when you see Lawn Dart on TV ranting and raving about "the irresponsible Act" and blaming "us"? The only irresponsible act he is really ranting about might be his own short-sightedness that resulted in the eventual passage of the FCCA, and the target of his ire might be his own reflection in the lens of the TV camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RacerDave6 Posted February 3, 2019 at 06:43 PM Share Posted February 3, 2019 at 06:43 PM I remember discussions some time ago about those covered under retired leosa have to follow the same state laws as everyone else for prohibited places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigcelia Posted February 15, 2019 at 06:04 AM Share Posted February 15, 2019 at 06:04 AM For what its worth, I have a close friend, retired Cook County Sheriff Patrol, unable to get Dart to sign off on IROCC. He opted for ICCL instead. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.