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This topic has been archived.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

#61 kwc

    Member

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

Posted 16 February 2017 - 01:29 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.



FOID card eligibility (which indirectly incorporates mental health requirements), DUIs, etc. are all listed in Section 25. Being from a substantially similar state is not. Furthermore, the statute does NOT require the ISP to conduct daily checks. That is an invention of the ISP.

If they had a way of setting up a camera in your house and watching you 24/7, but couldn't do this for nonresidents, would you object to nonresident licensing because it "isn't fair" that nonresidents don't have cameras installed in their homes? So the answer is to infringe upon everyone equally? IMHO that's a grade school "fairness" mentality.

RKBA is a right protected in the COTUS. We need to chip away at those infringements one at a time. I err toward the side of freedom--wherever it may lead us.

I can only imagine how you feel about a national reciprocity bill (in any form) allowing residents of other states to carry in New Jersey...

Edited by kwc, 16 February 2017 - 01:30 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)

#62 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 16 February 2017 - 01:44 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.



FOID card eligibility (which indirectly incorporates mental health requirements), DUIs, etc. are all listed in Section 25. Being from a substantially similar state is not. Furthermore, the statute does NOT require the ISP to conduct daily checks. That is an invention of the ISP.

If they had a way of setting up a camera in your house and watching you 24/7, but couldn't do this for nonresidents, would you object to nonresident licensing because it "isn't fair" that nonresidents don't have cameras installed in their homes? So the answer is to infringe upon everyone equally? IMHO that's a grade school "fairness" mentality.

RKBA is a right protected in the COTUS. We need to chip away at those infringements one at a time. I err toward the side of freedom--wherever it may lead us.

I can only imagine how you feel about a national reciprocity bill (in any form) allowing residents of other states to carry in New Jersey...

 

 

I didn't say the statute required daily checks.

 

Yes, anything that puts more of a restriction on our rights in our own state than it does for non-residents, I would absolutely object to.  Not in the respect that they have it "easier" than us, but that we have it "harder" than them.  Same issue when the FCCA passed in July 2013, and though licenses weren't actually issued for another 8 months, non-residents could immediately carry loaded in their car while traveling in Illinois.  There was a lot of heat on that topic here.

 

Agreed, though I disagree with enhancing the freedom of others before ourselves.

 

I have no problem with national reciprocity, particularly as it's written now, as if it were to pass, then when all the dust settled it would likely be after a SCOTUS decision, and we would have actual carry in all 50 states.  As it is written now, a NJ resident could get a non-resident license from a state of their choosing, which would then allow them to carry in their own state.  By that same token, we could forego our Illinois CCLs in favor of a cheaper non-resident alternative.  States would lose revenue, they'd adjust their fees, and we'd eventually be fairly evenly balanced across the board.


** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#63 Trevis

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,932 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 07

Posted 16 February 2017 - 02:08 PM

Glock23, your last point sounds like a reasonable application of equal protection under the law.

"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 SpoonerNo Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

1AApp.jpg


#64 kwc

    Member

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

Posted 16 February 2017 - 02:23 PM

Yes, anything that puts more of a restriction on our rights in our own state than it does for non-residents, I would absolutely object to.

You have an interesting way of defining "rights." You can carry a concealed firearm here. Most nonresidents can't. Who's rights are being infringed? Clearly there are far more restrictions on my rights than yours.

Using your logic, why stop at "substantially similar"? Why not make it "identical"? And perhaps Missouri and Indiana should prohibit Illinois residents from carrying in their states, since their residents can't carry in Illinois. Wouldn't that simply be "fair"?

In any case, the state's scheme to conduct daily checks and validate mental health history fails miserably when someone seeks treatment out of state, moves here and applies for a license before spending a full 5 years here, etc.

You would get along well with Judge Posner: http://media.ca7.usc...p:N:1849327:S:0


Always choose the path of freedom, wherever it leads.
.

Edited by kwc, 16 February 2017 - 02:46 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)

#65 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 16 February 2017 - 02:53 PM

 

Yes, anything that puts more of a restriction on our rights in our own state than it does for non-residents, I would absolutely object to.


You have an interesting way of defining "rights." You can carry a concealed firearm here. Most nonresidents can't. Who's rights are being infringed? Clearly there are far more restrictions on my rights than yours.

Using your logic, why stop at "substantially similar"? Why not make it "identical"? And perhaps Missouri and Indiana should prohibit Illinois residents from carrying in their states, since their residents can't carry in Illinois. Wouldn't that simply be "fair"?

In any case, the state's scheme to conduct daily checks and validate mental health history fails miserably when someone seeks treatment out of state, moves here and applies for a license before spending a full 5 years here, etc.

You would get along well with Judge Posner: http://media.ca7.usc...p:N:1849327:S:0

You can carry in Missouri, but a Missouri resident can't carry here. That isn't fair. Should Missouri change its laws to prohibit Illinois residents from carrying in the state? After all, that would only make it fair.



Always choose the path of freedom, wherever it leads.
.

 

 

As I said, our rights in our own state.  If rights were absolute, that'd be another thing... but they're not.  We have the FOID card, the CCL, NICS checks, waiting periods, etc.  There's no reason for a non-resident to have more rights in our state than we do.

 

You'll also recall that I'm probably one of the few here who do not sympathize with your inability to get a CCL here, as since you are stationed here and it would not be strictly changing for tax purposes, you have every ability to change your legal state of residence to Illinois and apply for your CCL as an Illinois resident.

 

And I'm not defending the substantially similar language, so stop trying to misconstrue my meaning.  But it's in the law as it's currently written, so it is relevant.

 

As for Missouri and Indiana being "fair"... again, I'm speaking on terms of not allowing a non-resident to have more leeway than a resident in their own state.  Residents of those states have equal, if not more rights than we do as far as carrying in those states.


** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#66 kwc

    Member

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

Posted 16 February 2017 - 03:43 PM

There's no reason for a non-resident to have more rights in our state than we do.


Everyone, residents and nonresidents alike, should have the same right, measured by outcome (the ability to legally keep and bear arms). Every state should have some mechanism in place to assure this right can be appropriately exercised. Anything less is infringement, and violates the COTUS. So much for that idea.

If rights were absolute, that'd be another thing...


Therein lies the point of departure between our viewpoints. I'll leave it at that.

Edited by kwc, 16 February 2017 - 03:48 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)

#67 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 16 February 2017 - 03:58 PM

 

If rights were absolute, that'd be another thing...


Therein lies the point of departure between our viewpoints. I'll leave it at that.

 

 

It's a simple fact that they are not.  Not in their application.  Not yet, anyway.

 

FOID, carry permits, background checks... removing one's rights due to mental illness, alcohol/drug abuse, both misdemeanor and felony convictions...


** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#68 oohrah

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 15

Posted 17 February 2017 - 07:47 AM

I'm gonna take my chances.


USMC, Retired
Waco, Texas
Texas LTC
Illinois CCL
SASS 105352

#69 kwc

    Member

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

Posted 17 February 2017 - 07:53 AM

I'm gonna take my chances.


I would, too, if given the opportunity.

I like visiting Texas... they let me carry on a PA license without having to take their concealed carry course, pay their fees, get their license, etc. ($Oh the horror! How unfair!$)

Edited by kwc, 17 February 2017 - 08:47 AM.

"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)

#70 AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 8,245 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 17 February 2017 - 01:15 PM

It's crap the way they are dicking around the out of state licensees.

I'm betting the laws didn't change, I am betting they didn't return their surveys. 


-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com  www.gunrights4illinois.com  @AlphaKoncepts


#71 AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 8,245 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 17 February 2017 - 01:18 PM

 

 

If rights were absolute, that'd be another thing...


Therein lies the point of departure between our viewpoints. I'll leave it at that.

 

 

It's a simple fact that they are not.  Not in their application.  Not yet, anyway.

 

FOID, carry permits, background checks... removing one's rights due to mental illness, alcohol/drug abuse, both misdemeanor and felony convictions...

 

Rights ARE ABSOLUTE. However through the naivety of previous generations, they have allowed rights wrongly to be treated as privileges.  Simply because rights are improperly treated, as non-absolute, doesn't mean they aren't indeed absolute. It just means we have to get our rights back. 

I don't understand why you fight so hard in so many threads to give away your rights.


Edited by cgs, 17 February 2017 - 01:18 PM.

-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com  www.gunrights4illinois.com  @AlphaKoncepts


#72 kwc

    Member

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

Posted 17 February 2017 - 01:26 PM

It's crap the way they are d**king around the out of state licensees.

I'm betting the laws didn't change, I am betting they didn't return their surveys. 

 

These states did return their surveys (I have copies of all of them).  The laws didn't change with respect to the issues at hand.  

 

Some of the answers did change, possibly due to a different person completing the survey, and therefore ISP's conclusion changed, too.

 

But I'm pretty sure none of the individuals now having their licenses revoked did anything differently.  In all probability they all still meet the qualifications to get a FOID card, haven't been admitted (voluntarily or involuntarily) to a mental institution within the last five years, haven't committed any crimes rendering them ineligible, still maintain a license in their states of residence, etc.  They still meet the identical eligibility requirements of resident CCL holders.


Edited by kwc, 17 February 2017 - 01:34 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)

#73 AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 8,245 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 17 February 2017 - 01:28 PM

Gotcha. Thanks. 
 

Our FCCLA  needs major improvements. This substantially similar crap is just one of the many points. 


Edited by cgs, 17 February 2017 - 01:28 PM.

-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com  www.gunrights4illinois.com  @AlphaKoncepts


#74 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 17 February 2017 - 01:48 PM

 

Rights ARE ABSOLUTE. However through the naivety of previous generations, they have allowed rights wrongly to be treated as privileges.  Simply because rights are improperly treated, as non-absolute, doesn't mean they aren't indeed absolute. It just means we have to get our rights back. 

I don't understand why you fight so hard in so many threads to give away your rights.

 

 

Feel free to point out a single thread where I've fought to give away our rights.

 

I simply point out the reality of the situation we find ourselves in.

 

Hint: those are 2 entirely different things.


** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#75 kwc

    Member

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

Posted 18 February 2017 - 07:57 AM

The Plaintiffs' attorney in Culp v. Madigan was able to incorporate a revocation letter, sent to Nancy in NM, into yesterday's response brief to the State's motion for summary judgment. See post 588:

http://illinoiscarry...52501&p=1071539

Edited by kwc, 18 February 2017 - 09:28 AM.

"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)

#76 oohrah

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 15

Posted 18 February 2017 - 08:47 PM

 

I'm gonna take my chances.


I would, too, if given the opportunity.

I like visiting Texas... they let me carry on a PA license without having to take their concealed carry course, pay their fees, get their license, etc. ($Oh the horror! How unfair!$)

 

You are welcome any time. :yes1:


USMC, Retired
Waco, Texas
Texas LTC
Illinois CCL
SASS 105352

#77 oohrah

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 15

Posted 18 February 2017 - 08:51 PM

This whole "substantially similar" thing has been stupidly applied.  If they're going to flip-flop around with adding and dropping states, and revoking non-resident licenses in the process, why not just recognize an acceptable state's CCL?  If that state goes off the list, CCL no longer recognized .  No fuss, no paperwork.  Makes too much sense.  Oh yeah, and no $300.


USMC, Retired
Waco, Texas
Texas LTC
Illinois CCL
SASS 105352

#78 kwc

    Member

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

Posted 18 February 2017 - 10:21 PM

This whole "substantially similar" thing has been stupidly applied.  If they're going to flip-flop around with adding and dropping states, and revoking non-resident licenses in the process, why not just recognize an acceptable state's CCL?  If that state goes off the list, CCL no longer recognized .  No fuss, no paperwork.  Makes too much sense.  Oh yeah, and no $300.


I understand that was the original intent behind the substantially similar language--to "recognize" permits/licenses from those states. Somehow the language got mixed up and morphed into a scheme to issue IL licenses to nonresidents.
"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)

#79 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,996 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 19 February 2017 - 03:30 PM

What were the 2 other states besides Hawaii and New Mexico whose residents could originally get the Illinois FCCL?

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)


#80 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,211 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 19 February 2017 - 05:27 PM

What were the 2 other states besides Hawaii and New Mexico whose residents could originally get the Illinois FCCL?


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

#81 Gamma

    Member

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

Posted 19 February 2017 - 05:40 PM

This whole "substantially similar" thing has been stupidly applied.  If they're going to flip-flop around with adding and dropping states, and revoking non-resident licenses in the process, why not just recognize an acceptable state's CCL?  If that state goes off the list, CCL no longer recognized .  No fuss, no paperwork.  Makes too much sense.  Oh yeah, and no $300.

I understand that was the original intent behind the substantially similar language--to "recognize" permits/licenses from those states. Somehow the language got mixed up and morphed into a scheme to issue IL licenses to nonresidents.

It would at least make a little sense if "substantially similar" licenses were recognized, and then everyone else was allowed to apply.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#82 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 19 February 2017 - 06:34 PM

 

It's crap the way they are d**king around the out of state licensees.

I'm betting the laws didn't change, I am betting they didn't return their surveys. 

 

These states did return their surveys (I have copies of all of them).  The laws didn't change with respect to the issues at hand.  

 

Some of the answers did change, possibly due to a different person completing the survey, and therefore ISP's conclusion changed, too.

 

But I'm pretty sure none of the individuals now having their licenses revoked did anything differently.  In all probability they all still meet the qualifications to get a FOID card, haven't been admitted (voluntarily or involuntarily) to a mental institution within the last five years, haven't committed any crimes rendering them ineligible, still maintain a license in their states of residence, etc.  They still meet the identical eligibility requirements of resident CCL holders.

 

Who in these other states fills out the questionnaire, a low level desk jockey or someone on the AG level? Why doesn't IL simply determine this themselves, it's not like the laws aren't public?

 



#83 kwc

    Member

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

Posted 19 February 2017 - 10:00 PM

@press1280, the persons completing the survey hold positions and expertise levels that are all over the map--police sergeant, police lieutenant, legal council for the State Police, Attorney General staff, etc.

I find it interesting that State Police in most states almost universally will not interpret the law for the average citizen. They leave this to a citizen's hired legal counsel, or to the Attorney General's legal staff.

Yet here we have, for the most part, the State Police departments from many states compiling answers to the survey questions which essentially amount to an interpretation of state statutes.
"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)

#84 Gamma

    Member

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

Posted 19 February 2017 - 10:42 PM

@press1280, the persons completing the survey hold positions and expertise levels that are all over the map--police sergeant, police lieutenant, legal council for the State Police, Attorney General staff, etc.

I find it interesting that State Police in most states almost universally will not interpret the law for the average citizen. They leave this to a citizen's hired legal counsel, or to the Attorney General's legal staff.

Yet here we have, for the most part, the State Police departments from many states compiling answers to the survey questions which essentially amount to an interpretation of state statutes.

I would imagine that when these surveys were received by other states, that many had no understanding that the answers to the survey would be a substitute for Illinois' own legal evaluation, and would determine whether their residents would be allowed to exercise their civil rights or not..

At least a few of the states did pass the survey's up to their Attorney General's office for an actual legal opinion.

Edited by Gamma, 19 February 2017 - 10:43 PM.

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

#85 howie

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 11

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:42 AM

Is this modification something that ISP did on their own, or did it have to go through JCAR?  Also, regarding the "substantially similar" surveys, is there some kind of requirement to renew them every so often?  Curious...


Edited by howie, 20 February 2017 - 08:44 AM.

NRA Patron Member
ISRA Member
NRA Basic Pistol/Rifle/PPITH Instructor
ISP Approved CCW Instructor

www.boondocktactical.com

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!"

"I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny."- Patrick Henry


#86 kwc

    Member

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

Posted 20 February 2017 - 11:01 AM

The ISP's interpretation of the meaning of "substantially similar" did go through JCAR and has remained unchanged since publication.

The actual questions asked in the survey, and the ISP's determination on which states meet the requirements, do not involve JCAR at all. Those determinations are made unilaterally by the ISP.

The Statute itself doesn't require surveys. The ISP wrote this process into the admin code (Title 20, Section 1231.110), with the approval of JCAR. They did not specify a frequency. The admin code only requires them to "determine which states are substantially similar, as defined in Section 1231.10, to Illinois in their manner of regulating concealed carry of firearms by surveying all other states."

Another interesting observation is the fact that the Statute (FCCA) requires the ISP to allow applications from substantially similar territories, too, but the admin code includes no provision to survey the territories.

.

Edited by kwc, 20 February 2017 - 11:04 AM.

"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)