Jump to content


Photo

Meyers vs Schmitz


  • Please log in to reply
257 replies to this topic

#151 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 08 September 2016 - 07:13 AM

Revoking the license was that I was not eligible for a FOID card therefore I was ineligible for a CCW.  ALJ did not buy it and said AS a Non Resident I don't have to have a FOID.  They then moved to say that I had not followed the rules in that I did not submit as per 430 ILCS 66/40:

 

An application and documentation as required under section 30

A notarized document stating I was eligible under federal law and FL law to own or possess a firearm

A Copy of my CCW from FL

A document stating I understand Illinois law

A document stating I acknowledge Id be held by Illinois jurisdiction

A head and shoulder color photograph

 

My argument was the Application does not ALLOW that information to be submitted by someone not from a similar state.  The ALJ understood that and started hammering.  The ISP Legal counsel tried saying the hearing was purely about the revocation and not about a application nor substantially similar, even going as far as to get us to agree that substantially similar did not matter.  Our response was that it indeed matters and is the entire basis for the fraudulent activities of the ISP depriving non residents of a CCW.

 

We now wait, ALJ said he should have his report/analysis within 30 days to the director.  When asked about the status of the director, ISP Legal said well we aren't entirely sure, as you are the first to have a hearing, congratulations to which I said I was proud and honored to be part of Illinois Carry and represent the thousands of out of state residents that are attempting to get a license!



#152 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 08 September 2016 - 03:07 PM

You don't have to submit an application, you were already a licensee.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#153 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 09 September 2016 - 11:32 AM

according to the ISP Legal Counsel, i need a new application as a non resident but I'm not allowed because of not having a FOID.

 

clearly she did not understand the statute



#154 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 09 September 2016 - 02:33 PM

clearly she did not understand the statute

Yet these are the people making the rules and enforcing them on the citizenry.

In one breath they say you didn't complete the application and then in the next they say it isn't about an application, it's about cancellation not a revocation, oh wait, we didn't mean cancellation it was revoked.

Edited by Gamma, 09 September 2016 - 02:43 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#155 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 09 September 2016 - 04:01 PM

Gamma - Do you happen to work in ISP Legal? :drool:



#156 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 09 September 2016 - 04:18 PM

I thought personal insults weren't allowed here :fear:


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#157 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 09 September 2016 - 05:56 PM

Sorry Gamma, you would be above ISP Legal counsel, you actually understand the Statute whether your looking at it or not.  This attorney couldn't make heads or tails of it and she had a copy of it she was highlighting :)

 

Waiting patiently on a decision...



#158 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 09 September 2016 - 06:17 PM

Sorry Gamma, you would be above ISP Legal counsel, you actually understand the Statute whether your looking at it or not.  This attorney couldn't make heads or tails of it and she had a copy of it she was highlighting :)

So ISP's legal counsel didn't even know the statute that they were at a hearing to represent?

Why does this almost sound like they were throwing the case so as to avoid going back into the courts? They give you your license back but continue their same practices of denying everyone else and putting forward the same arguments in court.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#159 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 10 September 2016 - 06:25 AM

Honestly Gamma, I walked away from it thinking the same thing and am honestly scared that will happen.   Its really a catch 22.  If they give my license back, they basically admit FL is substantially similar which adds FL to the list.  At that point, we'll just need to find a plaintiff from 1 of the many other states that has the identical survey boxes checked (which shouldn't be to hard) to file suit who can get the others admitted.

 

The ISP counsel sat there with the 430 ILCS 66/ in front of them pouring over it to ask questions, mis quoted 430 ILCS 66/40 as Qualifications instead of Non Resident requirements, and had to continue looking for subsection ID's and questions in order to ask them.

 

Once I receive it, I will be posted the ALJ Record and Evidence after redaction of PII and everyone will get to see just how crazy the ISP is.

 

Between Culp v Madigan and Meyers v Schmitz, it appears it may be a very very bad month for the Illinois State Police.



#160 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 28 September 2016 - 08:45 AM

Today is 3 weeks since the ALJ hearing.  We are still anticipating a decision this week as thats what the ALJ said at the hearing (end of the month).  Once he issues a decision, its my understanding it will goto Director Schmitz' desk for a final determination.  As soon as I get my hands on the transcript and/or the decision, it shall be posted here.



#161 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,402 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 28 September 2016 - 09:25 AM

Very much appreciate you keeping everyone informed on your progress.  We're all anxiously awaiting the decision. 


"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#162 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 28 September 2016 - 10:53 AM

Honestly Gamma, I walked away from it thinking the same thing and am honestly scared that will happen.   Its really a catch 22.  If they give my license back, they basically admit FL is substantially similar which adds FL to the list.

Not really. In a strict reading of the FCCA, "substantially similar" only applies to new applicants. Since you already had a license, you should be evaluated under the sections on qualifications and revocations. The ALJ could restore your license with no change to the overall situation for non-residents, from FL or any other state.

Or they deny based on some entirely new administrative construct which would drag out any future court proceedings, probably to the point of your license expiration.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#163 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 07 October 2016 - 01:38 AM

Dealing with the hurricane but thought I'd post a quick update. 

 

We were provided a order by the state police dated 9-29 in that they are denying reinstatement of the license and the ALJ refused to consider non residency and completely held up that it should be revoked based on I do not and am not eligible for a FOID card. 

 

Transcript has been requested via Court and we will be pursuing Judicial review



#164 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,828 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 07 October 2016 - 08:56 AM

Dealing with the hurricane but thought I'd post a quick update. 
 
We were provided a order by the state police dated 9-29 in that they are denying reinstatement of the license and the ALJ refused to consider non residency and completely held up that it should be revoked based on I do not and am not eligible for a FOID card. 
 
Transcript has been requested via Court and we will be pursuing Judicial review


That sucks.

Given how the majority of the evidence appeared to be in your favor and us being in Illinois I have to wonder who's strings got pulled to rule in such a fashion.
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#165 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 07 October 2016 - 10:12 AM

The Conclusion, Analysis and recommendation says it all:

 

Conclusion

The evidence established that Petitioner is a person who is a resident of a state other than Illinois.  As a resident of a state other than Illinois, Petitioner is ineligible for a FOID under 430 ILCS 65/4(2)(xiv).  As a person ineligible for a FOID, Petition does not meet the qualifications for a Illinois CCL under 430 ILCS 66/25(2) and the department had sufficient basis to revoke under 430 IL 66/70(a)

 

Analysis

The evidence presented in this case shows Petitioner's CCL was properly revoked by the Department.  Petitioner does not maintain a permanent residence in Illinois and has obtained  Florida drivers license.  Petitioner stated he does not currently have an Illinois drivers license, and as of June of 2015 has not resides in the state of Illinois for more than 30 days.  Because Petitioner is not a Illinois resident, he is ineligible for a FOID card and does not qualify for a CCL.

 

Petitioner attempted to apply for a non-resident CCL, but was told that Florida did not qualify as a state.  Petitioner submitted to the Department documentation he believed demonstrated the laws WERE comparable.  The issue of Florida's firearm laws being comparable to Illinois is beyond the scope of this Administrative hearing.

 

========

 

So while I A.) Did not request the hearing (the state did) and B.) The Court issued a court order to discuss the revocation based on my Florida eligibility, the ALJ and the States position is that the hearing was solely based on my FOID revocation and nothing we presented as far as "substantially similar" was considered for the decision.

 

Atleast now, I'm past Step 2 of Director appeal and can place it squarely in the hands of the Court system now.



#166 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,402 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 07 October 2016 - 10:17 AM

Now you get to dive into the good stuff!
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#167 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 07 October 2016 - 05:04 PM

Whoa! Seriously? Residents of Virginia, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Hawaii are not required to have a FOID Card, but simply not be prohibited from obtaining one if they were an Illinois resident. Furthermore, this, imo, violates a 2011 Illinois Supreme Court Ruling. Iirc, it's Chicago v Johnson. Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Uinta Firearms Training, Inc.
a subsidiary of Uinta Preparations, Corp.

Supporting Member
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
USCCA Member
SAF Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
NRA Basic Shotgun Instructor
NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor
Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor

NRA Range Safety Officer


Training@UintaFirearms.com

#168 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 07 October 2016 - 10:28 PM

Also ignoring the plain wording of the statute that describes what non-residents provide in lieu of a FOID. This was just pulled out of the ALJ's posterior.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#169 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 08 October 2016 - 06:19 PM

Do you have a actual case law reference for Chicago v Johnson?  Im seeing stuff in 1980 and 2000 but not 2011



#170 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 08 October 2016 - 09:53 PM

I think this is the case:

http://www.illinoisc...pril/109130.pdf
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#171 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 09 October 2016 - 08:27 AM

A good find there. Just shows how crazy this system is because the legislature clearly equated an out-of-state CCW (or presumably some kind of gun license) to that of an FOID, and, that the FOID eligibility is a prerequisite for the IL CCW.



#172 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,828 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 09 October 2016 - 08:33 AM

Petitioner stated he does not currently have an Illinois drivers license, and as of June of 2015 has not resides in the state of Illinois for more than 30 days.  Because Petitioner is not a Illinois resident, he is ineligible for a FOID card and does not qualify for a CCL.


The ALJ needs new reading glasses - or to at least wear an "I <3 {D}A MACHINE" button on their lapel and make their bias publicly known.

Section 40. Non-resident license applications.
(a) For the purposes of this Section, "non-resident" means a person who has not resided within this State for more than 30
days and resides in another state or territory.

{B} The Department shall by rule allow for non-resident license applications from any state or territory of the United
States with laws related to firearm ownership, possession, and carrying, that are substantially similar to the requirements to
obtain a license under this Act.

{C} A resident of a state or territory approved by the Department under subsection {B} of this Section may apply for a
non-resident license. The applicant shall apply to the Department and must meet all of the qualifications established
in Section 25 of this Act, except for the Illinois residency requirement in item (xiv) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Section 4 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.

If they wanted to fall back on "not substantially similar" they could try that, but to claim non-compliance with a specifically exempted section is farcical.
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#173 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 09 October 2016 - 01:14 PM

We'll definitely be pointing this out in the judicial review process.  Cant wait to see the excuses and see what they try next.



#174 Burger

  • Members
  • 23 posts
  • Joined: 02-June 16

Posted 09 October 2016 - 03:15 PM

It seems to me that the logic of the ISP is a resident license is not the same as a non-resident license, even if they look alike and allow someone to conceal carry in the state of Illinois. Since there are two different licenses, then logically if someone moves out of state, they no longer qualify for a resident license. In contrast, most posters on this topic presume a license is a license regardless of which path a person took to obtain that license.

 

We would need to ask, if a non-resident obtained an Illinois CCL and then moved to Illinois, do they still have a valid license or will they need to reapply as a resident?

 

Does the law create two different license classification? Wishful thinking does not count. Colorado does not recognize a non-resident license even if you happen to have a non-resident Florida or Utah or wherever license. Therefore, there is some precedent for two different license classifications. There may be better examples to share. I believe Michigan draws a line in the sand. Other states do not make a distinction between resident and non-resident and is why people obtain Florida and Utah non-resident licenses.



#175 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 09 October 2016 - 08:08 PM

I think this is the case:http://www.illinoisc...pril/109130.pdf

That's the one. As a said, iirc. Apparently, I did not recall correctly. Thanks Gamma.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


Uinta Firearms Training, Inc.
a subsidiary of Uinta Preparations, Corp.

Supporting Member
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
USCCA Member
SAF Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
NRA Basic Shotgun Instructor
NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor
Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor

NRA Range Safety Officer


Training@UintaFirearms.com

#176 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 09 October 2016 - 08:10 PM

jmeyers, have you taken a look at the FOID Card Act? 430 ILCS 65/2 (B)(10). The FCCA requires non-residents to have a permit issued by their home state. Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Edited by domin8, 09 October 2016 - 08:13 PM.

Uinta Firearms Training, Inc.
a subsidiary of Uinta Preparations, Corp.

Supporting Member
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
USCCA Member
SAF Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
NRA Basic Shotgun Instructor
NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor
Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor

NRA Range Safety Officer


Training@UintaFirearms.com

#177 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 09 October 2016 - 09:12 PM

It seems to me that the logic of the ISP is a resident license is not the same as a non-resident license, even if they look alike and allow someone to conceal carry in the state of Illinois. Since there are two different licenses, then logically if someone moves out of state, they no longer qualify for a resident license. In contrast, most posters on this topic presume a license is a license regardless of which path a person took to obtain that license.

There is no distinction in the FCCA, there is no such things as a "non resident license". There are different application processes depending on whether the person applying is an Illinois resident or not. There is nothing in the qualifications or revokation sections regarding residence.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#178 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 10 October 2016 - 04:27 AM

Thats fine, I have a FL CCW, Illinois the only one to have a licensing scheme such that you need something to own or possess a firearm



#179 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 10 October 2016 - 11:12 AM

Illinois the only one to have a licensing scheme such that you need something to own or possess a firearm

Incorrect, MA has their FID card, NY and I think a few other states require a permit/license to possess a handgun.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#180 jmeyers

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 15

Posted 12 October 2016 - 11:10 AM

The saga continues.  The AG now says that I need to file a separate Complaint in Administrative Review for this new Final Administrative Decision pursuant to the Administrative Review Law

 

Keep in mind, the hearing was requested by them, not me, was REMANDED by the court.  WE'll see how the court handles this stall tactic.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users