Is anyone exempt from the training requirements in the Act?

[mrchgo]

(iii) has completed the required training and has been issued a firearm control card (FCC or Tan Card) by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation shall be exempt from the training requirements in the Act.

 

Can we get it clarified if a person has to have an active FCC or just if at sometime worked and had been issued a card.

[semper1911]

I believe if you have a TAN card as with LEO you are exempt from having the FCC, though my understanding is the TAN card is only applicable if you are on the "job".

[bobapunk]

If you are looking for clear, concise answers to questions of legal carry in Illinois, you are on the right website.

 

Unfortunately, the ISP is not providing much by the way of clear, concise answers...

[Tango7]

(h) A person who has qualified to carry a firearm as an

active law enforcement officer, a person certified as a

firearms instructor by this Act or by the Illinois Law

Enforcement Training Standards Board, or a person who has

completed the required training and has been issued a firearm

control card by the Department of Financial and Professional

Regulation shall be exempt from the requirements of this

Section.

 

"has been issued" should be construed as having received a card at any time in the past, whether or not one currently occupies a position that requires one or not. All of the other qualifications seem to indicate that once you have achieved them you meet the stipulations of the Act.

 

"Has a currently valid" would mean exactly that.

 

However, this being Illannoys, nobody will know until it's actually administered.

[pdpsc]

(h) A person who has qualified to carry a firearm as an

active law enforcement officer, a person certified as a

firearms instructor by this Act or by the Illinois Law

Enforcement Training Standards Board, or a person who has

completed the required training and has been issued a firearm

control card by the Department of Financial and Professional

Regulation shall be exempt from the requirements of this

Section.

 

"has been issued" should be construed as having received a card at any time in the past, whether or not one currently occupies a position that requires one or not. All of the other qualifications seem to indicate that once you have achieved them you meet the stipulations of the Act.

 

"Has a currently valid" would mean exactly that.

 

However, this being Illannoys, nobody will know until it's actually administered.

 

Every other place in professional licensing laws, "has" means you currently have said license. They made it pretty clear in the recent FAQs that you must have a current Firearm Control Card to receive that exemption.

[mrchgo]

That's my problem do I spend another 150.00 and do 8 more hrs. I had to pay Chicago 100.00 for the CFP to stay legal for just 2 weeks and got nothing for it and 100.00 for the city class.

[Warners]

(h) A person who has qualified to carry a firearm as an

active law enforcement officer, a person certified as a

firearms instructor by this Act or by the Illinois Law

Enforcement Training Standards Board, or a person who has

completed the required training and has been issued a firearm

control card by the Department of Financial and Professional

Regulation shall be exempt from the requirements of this

Section.

 

The way I'm reading this, if you get approved as an instructor, you don't need to do any additional training to apply for the permit. Am I mis-reading this? I don't think so...

 

Warner

[ming]

(h) A person who has qualified to carry a firearm as an

active law enforcement officer, a person certified as a

firearms instructor by this Act or by the Illinois Law

Enforcement Training Standards Board, or a person who has

completed the required training and has been issued a firearm

control card by the Department of Financial and Professional

Regulation shall be exempt from the requirements of this

Section.

 

The way I'm reading this, if you get approved as an instructor, you don't need to do any additional training to apply for the permit. Am I mis-reading this? I don't think so...

 

Warner

 

you are reading it correctly.

[Tango7]

Every other place in professional licensing laws, "has" means you currently have said license.

 

Agreed, but this isn't professional licensing (as the "40 hour isn't enough" crowd repeatedely said).

 

"Has qualified", "has completed" and "has been issued" infer completion of the requirements in the past, as opposed to "is currently qualified", "is currently certified" or "is in possession of a current".

 

They made it pretty clear in the recent FAQs that you must have a current Firearm Control Card to receive that exemption.

 

I'd love to see that corrected amended, since the way I understand it tan card training exceeds all of the components required within the Act and there has been little substantive change in most of the laws concerning the UoF in Illinois, but hey, that's just me.

[TJSum1]

What we need is to find someone who owns a security company, can issue us a tan card, and bingo we are in. Well, it sounded better before I typed it, but its plausible right? IMO, the card is a silly requirement and it really proves nothing further than what is posted on the IDFPR. Which is that the training was/is completed.

[pdpsc]

I agree that the training alone SHOULD be a full exemption, but that's not what the law says unfortunately.

[pdpsc]

What we need is to find someone who owns a security company, can issue us a tan card, and bingo we are in. Well, it sounded better before I typed it, but its plausible right? IMO, the card is a silly requirement and it really proves nothing further than what is posted on the IDFPR. Which is that the training was/is completed.

 

 

Some thoughts are just better left in your brain...

 

The list of problems with this idea would require hours to type.

[Indigo]

(h) A person who has qualified to carry a firearm as an

active law enforcement officer, a person certified as a

firearms instructor by this Act or by the Illinois Law

Enforcement Training Standards Board, or a person who has

completed the required training and has been issued a firearm

control card by the Department of Financial and Professional

Regulation shall be exempt from the requirements of this

Section.

 

"has been issued" should be construed as having received a card at any time in the past, whether or not one currently occupies a position that requires one or not. All of the other qualifications seem to indicate that once you have achieved them you meet the stipulations of the Act.

 

"Has a currently valid" would mean exactly that.

 

However, this being Illannoys, nobody will know until it's actually administered. litigated.

 

Fixed it for ya'

[Double-J]

 

I fixed it my way so that it makes sense to me. No words or punctuation have been added or omitted. (Except underline)

 

(h) A person who has qualified to carry a firearm as

an active law enforcement officer,

 

a person certified as a firearms instructor by this Act

 

or

 

by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board,

 

or

 

a person who has completed the required training and has been issued a firearmcontrol card by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation

 

shall be exempt from the requirements of this

Section.

 

 

[cshipley92]

Double J I agree with you and I believe that was the intent of the authors/sponsors, that any who has EVER held a tan card was exempt from training.

 

Todd has said that former LEO's, from any jurisdiction, are exempt. The section reads....has qualified to carry a firearm as

 

an active law enforcement officer....

 

Now the section on armed guards (tan card) reads...has completed the required training and has been issued a firearmcontrol card by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation...

 

Same language as the part pertaining to former LEO's. So, if a former LEO is exempt someone who has at ANY time held a tan card should be exempt also.

 

Of course the ISP seems to be making up the rules as they go along and in come cases totally ignoring both the language of the law AND the intent of the ILGA.

 

But that's no surprise is it?

[Tango7]

Double J I agree with you and I believe that was the intent of the authors/sponsors, that any who has EVER held a tan card was exempt from training.

 

Todd has said that former LEO's, from any jurisdiction, are exempt. The section reads....has qualified to carry a firearm as

 

an active law enforcement officer....

 

Now the section on armed guards (tan card) reads...has completed the required training and has been issued a firearmcontrol card by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation...

 

Same language as the part pertaining to former LEO's. So, if a former LEO is exempt someone who has at ANY time held a tan card should be exempt also.

 

Of course the ISP seems to be making up the rules as they go along and in come cases totally ignoring both the language of the law AND the intent of the ILGA.

 

Perhaps better phrased than my version <tips hat>

 

But that's no surprise is it?

 

In this state? ROFL.

[mrchgo]

40 hrs training, if anything we should only have to do The 3 hours refresher.

[cshipley92]

40 hrs training, if anything we should only have to do The 3 hours refresher.

 

I don't think ISP has issued any statements or guidelines on this yet but from what Todd said earlier the intent was that those who've served as LEO's would be exempt from ALL training, even the "refresher" when it comes time to renew.

 

According to what I see of the language in the bill it should be the same for those who have completed the 40 training and held a tan card at some point.

 

Whether ISP will see it that way I couldn't say.

[Double-J]

Last I checked, 40 hrs is more than 16. So in my interpertation of the hastily crafted law, I agree that if you had either class or cert you should be good to go. But I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express lately so I could be wrong. I don't have any letters behind my name that mean anything except for AH, DS and GFY.

[TJSum1]

40 hrs training, if anything we should only have to do The 3 hours refresher.

+1

[Warners]

So the concensus here is, despite the language used in the FAQ, people who are certified as instructors to teach the IL CCW classes WILL need additional training to get thier permit? If so, it sure isn't worded that way.....

 

Warner

[Rookie139]

So the concensus here is, despite the language used in the FAQ, people who are certified as instructors to teach the IL CCW classes WILL need additional training to get thier permit? If so, it sure isn't worded that way.....

 

Warner

 

That's not how I read it...I think you would still need to get the CCL even as an instructor but you wouldn't need any additional training. I personally think its ludicrous that if you are an approved CCL instructor, you have to obtain a CCL permit. The CCL Instructor permit should suffice as a permit to carry too since we can teach it...Just my own two cents.

 

So with that in mind, since CCL applications won't be available until January 5th and some instructors have already been approved, this means that those approved instructors can't carry (obviously unless Active LEO or have a TAN card) until they obtain their permit next year? That just sounds ridiculous to me. Just thinking out loud. Don't mind me lol

[Rookie139]

Please correct me if I am reading this wrong

[bobapunk]

So the concensus here is, despite the language used in the FAQ, people who are certified as instructors to teach the IL CCW classes WILL need additional training to get thier permit? If so, it sure isn't worded that way.....

 

Warner

 

No,

 

People who are Approved Instructors are EXEMPT from the Section 75 requirements.

 

What is being discussed here is people who have been through the 40 hour Tan Card Training but do not CURRENTLY posses a Tan Card (IE: Retired Armed Security Guard).

[Warners]

So the concensus here is, despite the language used in the FAQ, people who are certified as instructors to teach the IL CCW classes WILL need additional training to get thier permit? If so, it sure isn't worded that way.....

 

Warner

 

That's not how I read it...I think you would still need to get the CCL even as an instructor but you wouldn't need any additional training. I personally think its ludicrous that if you are an approved CCL instructor, you have to obtain a CCL permit. The CCL Instructor permit should suffice as a permit to carry too since we can teach it...Just my own two cents.

 

So with that in mind, since CCL applications won't be available until January 5th and some instructors have already been approved, this means that those approved instructors can't carry (obviously unless Active LEO or have a TAN card) until they obtain their permit next year? That just sounds ridiculous to me. Just thinking out loud. Don't mind me lol

 

Yeah, the way I'm reading it, once we are approved as instructors, we have satisfied the TRAINING requirement. Yeah, we'll still have to pay the $150 for the permit.

 

Warner

[Warners]

So the concensus here is, despite the language used in the FAQ, people who are certified as instructors to teach the IL CCW classes WILL need additional training to get thier permit? If so, it sure isn't worded that way.....

 

Warner

 

No,

 

People who are Approved Instructors are EXEMPT from the Section 75 requirements.

 

What is being discussed here is people who have been through the 40 hour Tan Card Training but do not CURRENTLY posses a Tan Card (IE: Retired Armed Security Guard).

 

Ahh....got it. Thanks for the clarification. I got a little lost I guess.

 

Warner

[bobapunk]

So the concensus here is, despite the language used in the FAQ, people who are certified as instructors to teach the IL CCW classes WILL need additional training to get thier permit? If so, it sure isn't worded that way.....

 

Warner

 

That's not how I read it...I think you would still need to get the CCL even as an instructor but you wouldn't need any additional training. I personally think its ludicrous that if you are an approved CCL instructor, you have to obtain a CCL permit. The CCL Instructor permit should suffice as a permit to carry too since we can teach it...Just my own two cents.

 

So with that in mind, since CCL applications won't be available until January 5th and some instructors have already been approved, this means that those approved instructors can't carry (obviously unless Active LEO or have a TAN card) until they obtain their permit next year? That just sounds ridiculous to me. Just thinking out loud. Don't mind me lol

 

Yeah, the way I'm reading it, once we are approved as instructors, we have satisfied the TRAINING requirement. Yeah, we'll still have to pay the $150 for the permit.

 

Warner

 

This is what I believe to be correct. However, I think we are entitled to a $118.50 permit, since we already paid for a BG Check.

[Rookie139]

So the concensus here is, despite the language used in the FAQ, people who are certified as instructors to teach the IL CCW classes WILL need additional training to get thier permit? If so, it sure isn't worded that way.....

 

Warner

 

No,

 

People who are Approved Instructors are EXEMPT from the Section 75 requirements.

 

What is being discussed here is people who have been through the 40 hour Tan Card Training but do not CURRENTLY posses a Tan Card (IE: Retired Armed Security Guard).

 

Ahh....got it. Thanks for the clarification. I got a little lost I guess.

 

Warner

 

Warner and I will be in the corner for a little while in timeout lol

 

Thanks for the input folks

[Klaxongreg]

Double J I agree with you and I believe that was the intent of the authors/sponsors, that any who has EVER held a tan card was exempt from training.

 

Todd has said that former LEO's, from any jurisdiction, are exempt. The section reads....has qualified to carry a firearm as

 

an active law enforcement officer....

 

Now the section on armed guards (tan card) reads...has completed the required training and has been issued a firearmcontrol card by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation...

 

Same language as the part pertaining to former LEO's. So, if a former LEO is exempt someone who has at ANY time held a tan card should be exempt also.

 

Of course the ISP seems to be making up the rules as they go along and in come cases totally ignoring both the language of the law AND the intent of the ILGA.

 

But that's no surprise is it?

 

Also applies to Private Detectives. Have had a Tan Card since 2001 or 02.

PIs have no "post" or "patrol" to stand.

[vern]

Does anyone know when the "tan" cards came about? Back in the 70's when I worked for Pinkerton I got qualified to carry by them. I don't remember getting anything special at that time. Come to think of it the training wasn't that special either. Had to go to the Sergeant's hotel room for the verbal training and paperwork then went out to the local strip pit and threw some sticks in the water and shot at them. A lot different than the recent armed security guard class that I took. Since I have had a different career after Pinkerton's and it was so long ago I didn't think it would count for anything?????