85 replies to this topic

[MauserMan]

 

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. 

 

"Disirregardless" negates the error.  Just for fun, try using "Undisirregardless" and see what happens!

[Hazborgufen]

 

 

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. 

 

"Disirregardless" negates the error.  Just for fun, try using "Undisirregardless" and see what happens!

 

 

I understood what was being said nonundisirregardless of the error.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Just wondering if revocation letters went out to the non resident licensees or how that's going to work?

[kwc]

We don't know for sure the ISP will revoke their licenses.  I'll post here if the stats show it happened.

[Glock23]

 

 

 

 

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

 

Also "irregardless" isn't a word. 

 

"Disirregardless" negates the error.  Just for fun, try using "Undisirregardless" and see what happens!

 

 

I understood what was being said nonundisirregardless of the error.

 

 

Grammar nazis just exploded all over the internet!

[chislinger]

This is talking about people living in other states getting an IL CCL.
 
Also "irregardless" isn't a word. 
 
"Disirregardless" negates the error.  Just for fun, try using "Undisirregardless" and see what happens!

 
I understood what was being said nonundisirregardless of the error.

Those words are all perfectly cromulent.

[chislinger]

Just wondering if revocation letters went out to the non resident licensees or how that's going to work?

Yes, yes they did! Gary Slider posted this letter one person received: http://handgunlaw.us...PM_Redacted.pdf

This crap is absolutely ridiculous.

[InterestedBystander]

Just wondering if revocation letters went out to the non resident licensees or how that's going to work?

Yes, yes they did! Gary Slider posted this letter one person received: http://handgunlaw.us...PM_Redacted.pdfThis crap is absolutely ridiculous.

Wrong on so many levels and no knowledge of what they are doing as well as the whole threatening action if you dont return the card.

Anyone know how other states handle this when they change?

Edited by InterestedBystander, 15 February 2017 - 08:22 PM.

[kwc]

Just wondering if revocation letters went out to the non resident licensees or how that's going to work?Yes, yes they did! Gary Slider posted this letter one person received: http://handgunlaw.us...edacted.pdfThis crap is absolutely ridiculous.

Wow! Someone paid $300 for that license and got maybe 2 years use out of it?

[Smallbore]

How long before the state revokes ccl from these knew state applicants? A nonresident can not trust the Illinois State Police.

[John Q Public]

FUBAR

[Gamma]

Anyone know how other states handle this when they change?

No other state is as FUBAR as Illinois to have anything resembling this abomination.

To think, I actually thought our R governor might impose just a small amount of sanity on the ISP.

Edited by Gamma, 16 February 2017 - 12:44 AM.

[lockman]

Note to non-residents, sue our expletive deleted. Our accounts are empty but I am sure the legislature can shake us down for a bit more. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RANDY]

Would that lawsuit have to be filed in an illinois based federal court or could it be filed in the non residents home state federal court.  Make the AG travel to court halfway across the country.  Or would they have to file in an Illinois state court.

[oohrah]

Hooray! Finally, I will get my application going. TX recognized the IL CCL last year, yet we haven't changed our laws regarding issuing licenses (now called License To Carry or LTC since you can opt to conceal or open carry as you wish), I wonder what changed. But, I'm not complaining.

I wonder what has caused the reversals? I've been following the Culp case closely, and as the discussion above shows, a lot of nonsense in the administration of non-resident licenses.

And IMHO, if a non-resident license was legally issued at the time, I would think it would remain valid, at least until expiration. But then, that makes too much sense .

[chislinger]

Hooray! Finally, I will get my application going. TX recognized the IL CCL last year, yet we haven't changed our laws regarding issuing licenses (now called License To Carry or LTC since you can opt to conceal or open carry as you wish), I wonder what changed. But, I'm not complaining.

I wonder what has caused the reversals? I've been following the Culp case closely, and as the discussion above shows, a lot of nonsense in the administration of non-resident licenses.

And IMHO, if a non-resident license was legally issued at the time, I would think it would remain valid, at least until expiration. But then, that makes too much sense .

If you get one you'd be subject to losing it the very next year even if there are no changes in Texas laws. The person answering the survey may answer a bit differently, the questions Illinois asks may change, or they may just interpret the answers differently.

It's a crap shoot.

[Trevis]

http://handgunlaw.us...PM_Redacted.pdf

 

This is a letter sent to a former holder of an Illinois non-resident license from one of the states that was removed from the list. 

 

http://handgunlaw.us/states/illinois.pdf 

 

Look under "Non-resident Permits"

 

Illinois needs to be taken to court for this...

[kwc]

http://handgunlaw.us...PM_Redacted.pdf
 
This is a letter sent to a former holder of an Illinois non-resident license from one of the states that was removed from the list. 
 
http://handgunlaw.us...es/illinois.pdf 
 
Look under "Non-resident Permits"
 
Illinois needs to be taken to court for this...

Yes, that's what we've been discussing for the past 15 posts or so.

[Trevis]

 

http://handgunlaw.us...PM_Redacted.pdf
 
This is a letter sent to a former holder of an Illinois non-resident license from one of the states that was removed from the list. 
 
http://handgunlaw.us...es/illinois.pdf 
 
Look under "Non-resident Permits"
 
Illinois needs to be taken to court for this...

Yes, that's what we've been discussing for the past 15 posts or so.

 

Sorry, didn't click into page 2. It's been a long morning...

[Gamma]

http://handgunlaw.us...PM_Redacted.pdf
 
This is a letter sent to a former holder of an Illinois non-resident license from one of the states that was removed from the list. 
 
http://handgunlaw.us/states/illinois.pdf 
 
Look under "Non-resident Permits"
 
Illinois needs to be taken to court for this...

In previous litigation, with those who have moved out of state and received similar letters, the state has claimed that those licenses were NOT "revoked", but instead, "cancelled". Wonder if they'll make the same claim in this litigation.

[Trevis]

 

http://handgunlaw.us...PM_Redacted.pdf
 
This is a letter sent to a former holder of an Illinois non-resident license from one of the states that was removed from the list. 
 
http://handgunlaw.us/states/illinois.pdf 
 
Look under "Non-resident Permits"
 
Illinois needs to be taken to court for this...

In previous litigation, with those who have moved out of state and received similar letters, the state has claimed that those licenses were NOT "revoked", but instead, "cancelled". Wonder if they'll make the same claim in this litigation.

 

I would hope that would be harder to do, since it's in black and white that they have "revoked" it.

[kwc]

No doubt the state is hanging their hats on one single sentence in the FCCA:

Sec. 70. Violations. (a) A license issued or renewed under this Act shall be revoked if, at any time, the licensee is found to be ineligible for a license under this Act...

But the "substantially similar" language ONLY applies to APPLICATIONS... not ongoing eligibility.

Sec. 40. Non-resident license applications.
( 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.

Edited by kwc, 16 February 2017 - 11:53 AM.

[Glock23]

No doubt the state is hanging their hats on one single sentence in the FCCA:
 

Sec. 70. Violations. (a) A license issued or renewed under this Act shall be revoked if, at any time, the licensee is found to be ineligible for a license under this Act...

But the "substantially similar" language ONLY applies to APPLICATIONS... not ongoing eligibility.

Sec. 40. Non-resident license applications.
( 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.

 

 

I think your focus is a bit too narrow here...

 

A valid FOID card (or eligibility for one) is required for the application... would your CCL not be revoked if your FOID was?

 

Same with not being the subject of a pending arrest warrant, prosecution or proceeding that could lead to disqualification to own or possess a firearm... would your CCL not be revoked if you were charged with a crime that would disqualify you from owning guns?

 

And I assume the same would apply to many of the other qualifications, i.e. misdemeanor conviction of violence, multiple DUIs, court-ordered drug or alcohol treatment, etc.

[kwc]

Glock23, I agree 100% with you. That is what "eligibility" is supposed to mean.

However, the state is not using any of those eligibility factors when revoking licenses from residents of the former substantially similar states. They could cite those things when appropriate, and if they did, the law would give them the authorization to cancel those licenses.

But in this case the ISP are using ONLY the fact that the state of residence is no longer substantially similar, in the ISP's own humble opinion, of course. And that is where they err; the FCCA doesn't allow them to revoke these licenses.

Edited by kwc, 16 February 2017 - 12:49 PM.

[kwc]

Section 25 outlines the qualifications, and if any of these are violated, the ISP revokes a license. "No longer living in a substantially similar state"--or worse, "the ISP no longer considers my state to be substantially similar"--is not disqualifying.

------

Sec. 25. Qualifications for a license.
The Department shall issue a license to an applicant completing an application in accordance with Section 30 of this Act if the person:
(1) is at least 21 years of age;
(2) has a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and at the time of application meets the requirements for the issuance of a Firearm Owner's Identification Card and is not prohibited under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or federal law from possessing or receiving a firearm;
(3) has not been convicted or found guilty in this State or in any other state of:
(A) a misdemeanor involving the use or threat of physical force or violence to any person within the 5 years preceding the date of the license application; or
( B ) 2 or more violations related to driving while under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof, within the 5 years preceding the date of the license application;
(4) is not the subject of a pending arrest warrant, prosecution, or proceeding for an offense or action that could lead to disqualification to own or possess a firearm;
(5) has not been in residential or court-ordered treatment for alcoholism, alcohol detoxification, or drug treatment within the 5 years immediately preceding the date of the license application; and
(6) has completed firearms training and any education component required under Section 75 of this Act.

Edited by kwc, 16 February 2017 - 12:55 PM.

[Glock23]

Glock23, I agree 100% with you. That is what "eligibility" is supposed to mean.

However, the state is not using any of those eligibility factors when revoking licenses from residents of the former substantially similar states. They could cite those things when appropriate, and if they did, the law would give them the authorization to cancel those licenses.

But in this case the ISP are using ONLY the fact that the state of residence is no longer substantially similar, in the ISP's own humble opinion, of course. And that is where they err; the FCCA doesn't allow them to revoke these licenses.

 

So because they haven't revoked any non-resident licenses for the other eligibility factors, you're assuming that they wouldn't?  There are so few non-resident licenses, I'd be more inclined to believe that they simply hadn't violated any of those other things.

 

Section 25 and section 40b are all eligibility requirements for non-residents.  Any one of those which no longer qualified would result in a revocation.

[kwc]

I assume they WOULD revoke if someone failed the eligibility requirements in Section 25.

But Section 40b defines eligibility to APPLY. I see that as a completely different animal.

EDIT: Actually, 40b doesn't define eligibility to apply. It simply directs the ISP to identify substantiallly similar states. 40c allows APPLICATIONS from residents of those states, and specifies the qualifications that must be met as being defined in Section 25 (which I pasted previously).

Edited by kwc, 16 February 2017 - 01:08 PM.

[Glock23]

I assume they WOULD revoke if someone failed the eligibility requirements in Section 25.

But Section 40b defines eligibility to APPLY. I see that as a completely different animal.

EDIT: Actually, 40b doesn't define eligibility to apply. It simply directs the ISP to identify substantiallly similar states. 40c allows APPLICATIONS from residents of those states, and specifies the qualifications that must be met as being defined in Section 25 (which I pasted previously).

 

Yes, but the primary purpose of the substantially similar language is the mental health reporting aspect.  And regardless of whether it's listed explicitly or not, being in a substantially similar state is THE #1 eligibility requirement.

 

As for the ongoing eligibility requirement vs just an initial application requirement, I see it the same way as us and our FOID cards.  They have a day to day method of knowing if we for any reason become ineligible for our CCLs, just as they do with states that maintain up to date mental health status of their residents, where applicable.  If that ability to know if someone becomes ineligible due to mental health reasons goes away, they lose their ability to micro-manage everyone who has a CCL.

 

Don't get me wrong... I disagree with their methods of simply revoking non-resident CCLs.... but the concept of it, I have no problem with, as its essentially holding non-resident CCL holders to the same standards that we are held to with our FOID cards.

[junglebob]

I'm sure that the State of Illinois will refund the fees paid by these non-residents who had their FCCL revoked because their states laws are no longer substantially similar. 

[Glock23]

I'm sure that the State of Illinois will refund the fees paid by these non-residents who had their FCCL revoked because their states laws are no longer substantially similar. 

 

Is that supposed to be in purple?

 

Application fees are non-refundable, even if you are out-right denied at the onset.