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!

CHANGE to Substantially Similar List for IL Non-Resident CCL! Now AR, TX, MS, VA
#31
Posted 10 February 2017 - 02:02 AM
#32
Posted 10 February 2017 - 01:50 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.
"Disirregardless" negates the error. Just for fun, try using "Undisirregardless" and see what happens!
I understood what was being said nonundisirregardless of the error.
#33
Posted 10 February 2017 - 01:51 PM
Just wondering if revocation letters went out to the non resident licensees or how that's going to work?
-Thomas
Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com www.gunrights4illinois.com @AlphaKoncepts
#34
Posted 10 February 2017 - 02:01 PM
We don't know for sure the ISP will revoke their licenses. I'll post here if the stats show it happened.
"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
#35
Posted 10 February 2017 - 02:30 PM
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!
** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member
#36
Posted 10 February 2017 - 08:39 PM
Those words are all perfectly cromulent.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.
#37
Posted 15 February 2017 - 07:57 PM
Yes, yes they did! Gary Slider posted this letter one person received: http://handgunlaw.us...PM_Redacted.pdfJust wondering if revocation letters went out to the non resident licensees or how that's going to work?
This crap is absolutely ridiculous.
#38
Posted 15 February 2017 - 08:20 PM
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.Yes, yes they did! Gary Slider posted this letter one person received: http://handgunlaw.us...PM_Redacted.pdfThis crap is absolutely ridiculous.Just wondering if revocation letters went out to the non resident licensees or how that's going to work?
Anyone know how other states handle this when they change?
Edited by InterestedBystander, 15 February 2017 - 08:22 PM.
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️
#39
Posted 15 February 2017 - 08:21 PM
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?
"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
#40
Posted 15 February 2017 - 09:23 PM
#41
Posted 15 February 2017 - 11:35 PM
FUBAR
#42
Posted 16 February 2017 - 12:43 AM
No other state is as FUBAR as Illinois to have anything resembling this abomination.Anyone know how other states handle this when they change?
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.
#43
Posted 16 February 2017 - 07:16 AM
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776
Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF
#44
Posted 16 February 2017 - 07:48 AM
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.
One persons paranoia is another persons situational awareness.
Fastest way to end violence is to ban Democrats.
#45
Posted 16 February 2017 - 07:51 AM
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

Waco, Texas
Texas LTC
Illinois CCL
SASS 105352
#46
Posted 16 February 2017 - 07:59 AM
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.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.
It's a crap shoot.
#47
Posted 16 February 2017 - 10:50 AM
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...
"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom...and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged..." - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
#48
Posted 16 February 2017 - 11:08 AM
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.

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
#49
Posted 16 February 2017 - 11:35 AM
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...
"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom...and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged..." - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
#50
Posted 16 February 2017 - 11:38 AM
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.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...
#51
Posted 16 February 2017 - 11:40 AM
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.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...
I would hope that would be harder to do, since it's in black and white that they have "revoked" it.
"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom...and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged..." - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
#52
Posted 16 February 2017 - 11:52 AM
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.
"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
#53
Posted 16 February 2017 - 12:14 PM
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.
** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member
#54
Posted 16 February 2017 - 12:47 PM
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.
"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
#55
Posted 16 February 2017 - 12:53 PM
------
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.
"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
#56
Posted 16 February 2017 - 12:54 PM
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.
** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member
#57
Posted 16 February 2017 - 12:58 PM
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.
"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)
#58
Posted 16 February 2017 - 01:15 PM
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.
** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member
#59
Posted 16 February 2017 - 01:17 PM
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.
Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason
Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrong doers should dominate just men. - Augustine
Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)
#60
Posted 16 February 2017 - 01:19 PM
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.
** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member