Jump to content


Photo

CHANGE to Substantially Similar List for IL Non-Resident CCL! Now AR, TX, MS, VA


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
85 replies to this topic

#1 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 02:20 PM

Oh. My. Goodness.  I wonder what impact this will have.

 

The list of "substantially similar" states deemed worthy as "substantially similar," thus allowing residents of those states to apply for an Illinois Concealed Carry License, has changed!

 

The prior list consisted of 4 states: HI, SC, NM, and VA.

 

The new list consists of 4 states, too, but retains only VA: AR, TX, MS, and VA.

 

From the ISP's FAQs:

 

 

How can I find out if my state's laws are considered "substantially similar?"

The Illinois State Police sent a survey to each state to determine which of them has laws that are substantially similar. Currently, the only states considered to be substantially similar are ArkansasMississippiTexas and Virginia.

 

 

What will happen to those individuals issued licenses under the old list? Will their licenses be "cancelled"? Are their residents suddenly no longer trustworthy?  Inquiring minds want to know.

 

What a mess.

 


"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)

#2 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,530 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 02 February 2017 - 02:33 PM

Holy Cow! Unless they can show that the laws of Hawaii, South Carolina and New Mexico have changed recently, it looks like their interpretation of the statute is arbitrary and capricious.

 

Just a thought.


NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#3 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,431 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 02:38 PM

According to your recent CCL totals thread, there are 3 licensees from NM and 4 from SC, along with 3 applicants in process, who are now SOL due to ISP's whimsy.

So how many more thousands/millions of dollars will taxpayers be on the hook for in litigation costs when ISP revokes those 7 licenses.

It probably has more to do with trying to disrupt and muddy the waters in the ongoing non-resident licensing lawsuit by changing the facts of the arguments in the middle of the case. Plaintiff's motions have clearly laid out the irrationality of the previous list of states, so maybe they think they'll moot those motions/arguments by changing the list.

Since their goal seems obvious to artificially limit the number of non-resident licensees they have to deal with, it does seem odd that they would add Texas.

Edited by Gamma, 02 February 2017 - 02:41 PM.

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

#4 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 02:41 PM

It's arbitrary and capricious anyway--just look at Virginia, which they retained.  Virginia has no way to know if someone voluntarily committed themselves for mental health treatment unless the individual reports it to the state on their own.

 

My review of the 2015 survey responses from NM, SC, and HI led me to believe they wouldn't qualify, and that MS and TX would.  It took 15 months for the ISP to reach the same conclusion.

 

But as far as I can tell, the laws of all of these states didn't really change over the last 3 years with respect to the ISP's substantially similar criteria.

 

So yes--completely arbitrary!!!


"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)

#5 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 02:44 PM

It probably has more to do with trying to disrupt and muddy the waters in the ongoing non-resident licensing lawsuit by changing the facts of the arguments in the middle of the case. Plaintiff's motions have clearly laid out the irrationality of the previous list of states, so maybe they think they'll moot those motions/arguments by changing the list.

Since their goal seems obvious to artificially limit the number of non-resident licensees they have to deal with, it does seem odd that they would add Texas.

 

IMHO, this strengthens the plaintiffs' cases.  CCL holders are good one day, no good the next--yet nothing really changed.  These CCL holders are the same people with the same histories today as they were yesterday.


Edited by kwc, 02 February 2017 - 02:44 PM.

"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)

#6 mbnut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 14

Posted 02 February 2017 - 03:10 PM

This should end well...
NRA Life Member
ISRA Life Member
ISRA Range Member
GOA Member

#7 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,431 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 03:15 PM

It probably has more to do with trying to disrupt and muddy the waters in the ongoing non-resident licensing lawsuit by changing the facts of the arguments in the middle of the case. Plaintiff's motions have clearly laid out the irrationality of the previous list of states, so maybe they think they'll moot those motions/arguments by changing the list.

Since their goal seems obvious to artificially limit the number of non-resident licensees they have to deal with, it does seem odd that they would add Texas.

 
IMHO, this strengthens the plaintiffs' cases.  CCL holders are good one day, no good the next--yet nothing really changed.  These CCL holders are the same people with the same histories today as they were yesterday.

The argument presented in the case was that the state wasn't even following the results of their own invented process & survey results. So they changed that, and I'll bet, will now present it in the light that their process works and is fair.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#8 mic6010

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,635 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 14

Posted 02 February 2017 - 03:25 PM

LoL. That's quite possibly the dumbest thing I have seen in a while. And with a Republican governor too. Shows you whose really running the state and the ISP.

 

I mean really think about it.... Hawaii has some of the most strict guns laws and intrusive background checks in the nation. How could they be taken off any list where the burden of proof is greater than what IL demands ? Another win for wording of the bad deal that was the FCCA.


"Living in Chicago, it used to be, 'don't go out at night,' or 'be more careful at night'. Now it's turned into a place where it doesn't matter if it's day or night."  - John Hendricks.


#9 jmeyers

    Member

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

Posted 02 February 2017 - 03:30 PM

This will do nothing but help the multiple Non Resident cases going on.  What they have done is just created a "Hot Mess" with regards to several.  Believe me when I say, this new data will strength ALL of the various cases and its already being worked on in at least 1 if not 2 of them.

 

Go take a look at the Surveys that were obtained.  1 of the 4 released today as a "Substantially Similar" state has 18-20 other states that have the exact check boxes checked.


Edited by jmeyers, 02 February 2017 - 03:32 PM.


#10 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 04:07 PM

 

The argument presented in the case was that the state wasn't even following the results of their own invented process & survey results. So they changed that, and I'll bet, will now present it in the light that their process works and is fair.

 

 

This is just one of the arguments used.  The arbritrary nature of the scheme has been emphasized in a couple of the cases as well.

 

Remember that the state argues that one of their primary concerns relates to voluntary mental health admissions.  In fact, the CA7 (specifically Judge Posner) emphatically sided with Illinois in their assertion that the ISP needs to be given the opportunity to independently verify an individual has not been voluntarily admitted for treatment.  It isn't enough to trust the applicant to tell the truth (at risk of perjury) on his or her application.

 

But there is no independent verifcation or reporting program for voluntary mental health admissions in either Virginia or the newly-added state of Arkansas.  Both states rely upon the applicant to tell them if they sought in-patient treatment for mental health.


Edited by kwc, 02 February 2017 - 04:09 PM.

"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)

#11 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,281 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 02 February 2017 - 04:14 PM

Setting aside what the ISP site says, I thought that by current statue, Illinois couldn't honor another states CCW permit, irregardless of the similarity in scrutiny, training, etc?



#12 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,091 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 04:16 PM

Correct.  The substantially similar language is in regards to allowing people from other states to apply for non-resident Illinois licenses.


** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#13 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 04:34 PM

Ironically, MS is considered a "Constitutional Carry" state.  A MS resident can carry (with some additional restrictions) without a license in MS.  That's almost the polar opposite of Illinois' licensing requirement... yet MS is nevertheless still deemed "substantially similar" to Illinois.

 

But it raises another interesting thought.  The FCCA requires nonresident applicants from substantially similar states to submit a copy of their resident state licenses or permits with their CCL application "if applicable."  

 

How does "if applicable" apply in this case? Could an MS resident without a MS license still apply for an IL CCL? Something tells me "no..."  Then why is this text even in the statute? Is it even conceivable that a state which doesn't issue a carry license (e.g. Vermont) could ever be considered substantially similar?

 

.


Edited by kwc, 02 February 2017 - 04:48 PM.

"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)

#14 reelpro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 06:13 PM

In MS residents can get an enhanced permit. Then you can carry in most of the prohibited places. Just take a class an d you get it.

NRA Certified Pistol Instructor

USCCA Training Counselor

USCCA Certified Instructor

NRA Chief Range Safety Officer

NRA Range Safety Officer

Illinois State Police Approved CCL Instructor

Digital Video Editor


#15 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,091 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 06:30 PM

Ironically, MS is considered a "Constitutional Carry" state.  A MS resident can carry (with some additional restrictions) without a license in MS.  That's almost the polar opposite of Illinois' licensing requirement... yet MS is nevertheless still deemed "substantially similar" to Illinois.
 
But it raises another interesting thought.  The FCCA requires nonresident applicants from substantially similar states to submit a copy of their resident state licenses or permits with their CCL application "if applicable."  
 
How does "if applicable" apply in this case? Could an MS resident without a MS license still apply for an IL CCL? Something tells me "no..."  Then why is this text even in the statute? Is it even conceivable that a state which doesn't issue a carry license (e.g. Vermont) could ever be considered substantially similar?
 
.

I always assumed the substantially similar language was related more to the eligibility (criminal history, background) and mental health reporting requirements, rather than training requirements.

And also assumed the (if applicable) statement was in regards to constitutional carry states, meaning you submit a copy of your state's license only if you were required to have one.

** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#16 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 07:16 PM

I always assumed the substantially similar language was related more to the eligibility (criminal history, background) and mental health reporting requirements, rather than training requirements.

And also assumed the (if applicable) statement was in regards to constitutional carry states, meaning you submit a copy of your state's license only if you were required to have one.


Certainly the first part of your statement is true, at least in the way the ISP has interpreted the statutory language. The statute itself simply states that the ISP shall allow applications from states with laws substantially similar to the requirements under the FCCA with respect to "firearm ownership, possession, and carrying." The administrative code defines what that means.

IMHO the "if applicable" clause leaves room for interpretation. If your state has Constitutional carry but still issues an optional license or additional classes of licenses, does the statute require you to have one before applying in Illinois?

Edited by kwc, 02 February 2017 - 07:16 PM.

"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)

#17 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,091 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 09:10 PM

I always assumed the substantially similar language was related more to the eligibility (criminal history, background) and mental health reporting requirements, rather than training requirements.
And also assumed the (if applicable) statement was in regards to constitutional carry states, meaning you submit a copy of your state's license only if you were required to have one.

Certainly the first part of your statement is true, at least in the way the ISP has interpreted the statutory language. The statute itself simply states that the ISP shall allow applications from states with laws substantially similar to the requirements under the FCCA with respect to "firearm ownership, possession, and carrying." The administrative code defines what that means.
IMHO the "if applicable" clause leaves room for interpretation. If your state has Constitutional carry but still issues an optional license or additional classes of licenses, does the statute require you to have one before applying in Illinois?

Good question.

Anyone know a MS resident who carries without a license willing to test the waters?

** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#18 singlecoilpickup

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,311 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 14

Posted 02 February 2017 - 09:39 PM

Setting aside what the ISP site says, I thought that by current statue, Illinois couldn't honor another states CCW permit, irregardless of the similarity in scrutiny, training, etc?

 

This is talking about people living in other states getting an IL CCL.

 

Also "irregardless" isn't a word. 



#19 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,205 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 02 February 2017 - 10:57 PM

So apparently they can just change this whenever and however they want without publishing any process or proposed changes in any advance rules or regulations notice?
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️
Rauner, Harold, Dodge, 46th HD:Kinzler, 8th CD:Diganvker, 55th HD:Smolenski, 91st HD:Unes

#20 mbnut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 14

Posted 03 February 2017 - 02:14 AM

So apparently they can just change this whenever and however they want without publishing any process or proposed changes in any advance rules or regulations notice?


Welcome to Illinois.
NRA Life Member
ISRA Life Member
ISRA Range Member
GOA Member

#21 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,096 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 03 February 2017 - 01:00 PM

Alright which one of you jokers hacked the ISP site?
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#22 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,920 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 03 February 2017 - 01:09 PM

Alright which one of you jokers hacked the ISP site?

 

The Russians did it



#23 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,205 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 03 February 2017 - 01:10 PM

Alright which one of you jokers hacked the ISP site?


Yeah, it does seem like there should be something elsewhere than just a lone FAQ on the web site...
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️
Rauner, Harold, Dodge, 46th HD:Kinzler, 8th CD:Diganvker, 55th HD:Smolenski, 91st HD:Unes

#24 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,377 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 03 February 2017 - 02:38 PM

 

Alright which one of you jokers hacked the ISP site?

 

The Russians did it

 

Through Hillary's unprotected server.



NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#25 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,795 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 03 February 2017 - 10:03 PM

Remember that the state argues that one of their primary concerns relates to voluntary mental health admissions.  In fact, the CA7 (specifically Judge Posner) emphatically sided with Illinois in their assertion that the ISP needs to be given the opportunity to independently verify an individual has not been voluntarily admitted for treatment.  It isn't enough to trust the applicant to tell the truth (at risk of perjury) on his or her application.
 
But there is no independent verifcation or reporting program for voluntary mental health admissions in either Virginia or the newly-added state of Arkansas.  Both states rely upon the applicant to tell them if they sought in-patient treatment for mental health.


But... that would involve doing actual <gasp> police investigative work... you know, like picking up the phone or sending an e-mail, instead of just referring to an excel spreadsheet you know is flawed and then blaming it on "the system".

If they actually called the other state they could get answers. Much easier to either take their money and laugh them to the round file or follow the wishes of Blago and Quinn and Foxtrot those stupid gun owners.
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.

#26 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Members
  • 13,070 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 03 February 2017 - 11:53 PM

Gentleman, we can disagree in a respectful manner.
Thank you.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#27 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,076 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 04 February 2017 - 10:27 PM

This should end well...

 

Not for the taxpaying citizens of Illinois!!


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#28 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,239 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 09 February 2017 - 03:27 PM

If I hadn't lived in this backward state my entire life, I simply wouldn't believe how stupid our state government can be. I'm just totally exasperated. And they're talking about a new increase in the state income tax while making no structural reforms.

I think it will take a real crash before things change.If I were Rauner, I wouldn't even bother running for re-election. What's the point? He's only succeeded in delaying the inevitable...



#29 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,205 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 09 February 2017 - 03:34 PM

Oh. My. Goodness.  I wonder what impact this will have.
 
The list of "substantially similar" states deemed worthy as "substantially similar," thus allowing residents of those states to apply for an Illinois Concealed Carry License, has changed!
 
The prior list consisted of 4 states: HI, SC, NM, and VA.
 
The new list consists of 4 states, too, but retains only VA: AR, TX, MS, and VA.
 
From the ISP's FAQs:
 

 
How can I find out if my state's laws are considered "substantially similar?"[/size]
The Illinois State Police sent a survey to each state to determine which of them has laws that are substantially similar. Currently, the only states considered to be substantially similar are ArkansasMississippiTexas and Virginia.

 
 
What will happen to those individuals issued licenses under the old list? Will their licenses be "cancelled"? Are their residents suddenly no longer trustworthy?  Inquiring minds want to know.
 
What a mess.

Still wondering what they are doing to those issued a license under the "old" state list? Im guessing we wont be hearing anything official though.
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️
Rauner, Harold, Dodge, 46th HD:Kinzler, 8th CD:Diganvker, 55th HD:Smolenski, 91st HD:Unes

#30 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 09 February 2017 - 05:44 PM

Any cancellations or revocations will appear on the ISP's response to my monthly FOIA requests.  It may take a couple of months, however.


"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)