Jump to content


Photo

Tan Card / Perc Card Explanation?


This topic has been archived.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

#61 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,795 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 05 November 2013 - 08:12 AM

I'll be keeping a close eye on this thread this week...
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#62 Duke II

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 13

Posted 07 November 2013 - 04:53 PM

Just to throw another twist to this topic, I took the firearms course and was issued a "Blue Card" by the state in 1976. I have a form letter from the Department of Registration and Education dated 12/3/1979 explaining the law had been changed and that your employer had to request the Department issue an Armed Guard Training Card (AGT) and your employer was to issue that card for you to be allowed to carry a weapon while on duty. I was also issued a certificate with a number indicating that I had successfully completed the course. The twist is that by that time I was working as a police officer and never had an AGT issued by any security firms. Also back then the course was only 30 hours not 40 hours. So we have the same question of will the ISP recognise that training as sufficent or will they insist I take the full 16 hour course? Or will they claim that a "Blue Card" is not the same as an AGT card and both of them being not being the same as a "Tan Card".And will that training also be disqualified because niether a AGT care nor a Tan card were ever issued? And just for clarity the blue card I am refering to is not a PERC card.

#63 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 07 November 2013 - 06:20 PM

The FCCA uses the term firearm control card. The blue card (pre 1980 era), the AGT card and the tan card that I was issued back in 1979 were not called that. they were called something else. my guess is they won't accept it as the plain language of the law does not tell them to. i don't recall an AGT card. When I started working armed we had the blue cards that were replaced by the tan card.

I was thinking i would not have to take the 2nd 8 hour class, having been issued a tan card in 1979 (or thereabouts) but the more I think about it, the more I think the tan card back then had a different name than what it is now.

However, i went to the IDPFR web site and checked. It shows this for me.

Profession License No License Status Original Issue Date Current Exprtn Ever Disciplined
Firearm Control Card xxxxxxxx FAC TERMINATED CARD RETURNED 12/31/1979 02/18/1982 N
Original Firearms Training xxxxxxxxx ACTIVE 08/31/1979 01/01/2099 N

So at least one branch of state government thinks I was issued a FCC, even though it was not called that at the time.

so if the language of the bill means that the phrase "has been issued" means "was ever issued" as opposed to "is currently issued" I am maybe OK. or maybe not.

Edited by bob, 07 November 2013 - 06:22 PM.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#64 TJSum1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Joined: 05-August 13

Posted 08 November 2013 - 06:23 PM

It should be a no brainer but this is Illinois and when I asked for clarification I was told they should have a more definitive answer by the end of the week.

Any word on clarification?

#65 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,467 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 09 November 2013 - 07:35 PM

Nothing yet.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#66 TJSum1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Joined: 05-August 13

Posted 09 November 2013 - 07:39 PM

Nothing yet.

Thank you. Ill keep checking.

#67 ca22151

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 13

Posted 11 November 2013 - 09:35 PM

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 law doesn't say you have to have a current tan card. The language is past tense. "Has" and "has been" are past tense. There is nothing in there that says you have to currently possess a tan card to be exempt.

It is specific though, just completing the training to get the card isn't enough unfortunately. Notice the "and". You have to have had both in the past. There is no time limit, or hour limit either. Just if you've ever completed the training and been issued a tan card in the past, you qualify for an exemption from training.

IANAL but it seems pretty cut and dried to me. Of course, this is Illinois so.... :ermm:



I AM a lawyer, lol, but perhaps my opinion is colored because it's my ox being gored. However, a few basic rules of statutory construction say to give the plain meaning to the words used, as well as take note that if a different or more restrictive interpretation was desired by the legislature(especially in restricting a constitutional right), and such a restriction was easily available by the inclusion of additional wording, but the legislature failed to include additional restrictive words to that effect, such a restrictive interpretation, without the specific additional wording, should be avoided.

I believe the use of "has been issued", without more, should be interpreted as "at any time" without the need for it to be currently active. Again, had the legislature wanted the 16 hours to be satisfied only as to "active" card holders, they could easily have included such a restriction with a few words. This fact is also key, because if it would have been difficult or unwieldy to add such a restriction we wouldn't be permitted to rely on these rules of construction.

Also, to interpret the current statutory wording as being more restrictive would lead to an absurd result, that is, the right to use the training and tan card issuance for the entire 16 hours would evaporate merely because you were laid off from your job, even if it were the day before you applied for your CCW. This is the application of another rule of statutory construction, that a statute should not be read such as to lead to absurd results.

I'm so tired of the screwing around by these administrative rule makers I'm more than willing to be a test case if I have to be (I'm in Lake County, if that makes a difference). If it would help I'd be willing to wait.

Edited by ca22151, 11 November 2013 - 09:42 PM.


#68 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 12 November 2013 - 06:44 AM

I am not sure I disagree with your interpretation of what it maybe means. The problem I see is that the legislature could just as easily have made the language unambiguous that it mean "has ever been issued".

I am not a lawyer but my argument on the other side would go along the lines of if the training is what matters, why does the issuance of the FCC mean anything at all. Wouldn't the legislature have only required the training and not the issuance of the FCC if they only cared about the training? The really absurd result would be if you had to get more training to get a LTC than to work as an armed guard.

I think we can argue about it all we want to but in the end the ISP or the courts will decide what it means or the legislature will change the wording.

Edited by bob, 12 November 2013 - 06:45 AM.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#69 TJSum1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Joined: 05-August 13

Posted 12 November 2013 - 06:16 PM

I think it's a stretch to believe the vast majority of the legislature has any real clue what the FCC/Tan cards value is, or its relative insignificance towards training credit. It was mentioned on another thread that Madigan has his Tan. If so, I could see him having the knowledge.

#70 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 13 November 2013 - 06:57 AM

I think it's a stretch to believe the vast majority of the legislature has any real clue what the FCC/Tan cards value is, or its relative insignificance towards training credit. It was mentioned on another thread that Madigan has his Tan. If so, I could see him having the knowledge.

I checked the web site. No one named Madigan has a current FCC issued, nor does it list a Michael Madigan as ever having been issued one.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#71 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,538 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 13 November 2013 - 07:53 AM

I think it's a stretch to believe the vast majority of the legislature has any real clue what the FCC/Tan cards value is, or its relative insignificance towards training credit. It was mentioned on another thread that Madigan has his Tan. If so, I could see him having the knowledge.

I checked the web site. No one named Madigan has a current FCC issued, nor does it list a Michael Madigan as ever having been issued one.


I checked, also. I did notice that Donne Trotter's FCC was REVOKED.

Now I wonder what could have happened there??

-- Frank

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


#72 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,828 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 13 November 2013 - 08:00 AM

I think it's a stretch to believe the vast majority of the legislature has any real clue what the FCC/Tan cards value is, or its relative insignificance towards training credit. It was mentioned on another thread that Madigan has his Tan. If so, I could see him having the knowledge.

I checked the web site. No one named Madigan has a current FCC issued, nor does it list a Michael Madigan as ever having been issued one.


But Ed Burke, co-author of the Chicago handgun ban has one as an employee of "Burke Security", as well as a PI and PSC license.

Detective Private, Licensed 115000673 ACTIVE 12/14/1984 05/31/2014 N
Firearm Control Card 229052450 ACTIVE 02/01/2000 01/17/2015 N
Original Firearms Training 230007575 ACTIVE 05/21/1965 01/01/2099 N
Private Security Contractor, Licensed 119000642 ACTIVE 04/17/1987 05/31/2014 N
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.

#73 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 13 November 2013 - 08:58 AM

I think Burke is also a retired cop.Does it really matter any that he has some kind of side business?

Interesting that his training is listed as being in 1965. I don't think there even was any guard training back then.I wonder if that is the date of his police training. At one time way back when, cops got a free pass on the guard training. I don't know if it was by law or rule or just someone signing off a form.

Edited by bob, 13 November 2013 - 09:00 AM.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#74 TJSum1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Joined: 05-August 13

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:01 AM

I think it's a stretch to believe the vast majority of the legislature has any real clue what the FCC/Tan cards value is, or its relative insignificance towards training credit. It was mentioned on another thread that Madigan has his Tan. If so, I could see him having the knowledge.

I checked the web site. No one named Madigan has a current FCC issued, nor does it list a Michael Madigan as ever having been issued one.

Validates my point even further.

#75 pdpsc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,179 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 13

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:01 AM

At one time way back when, cops got a free pass on the guard training. I don't know if it was by law or rule or just someone signing off a form.



Still do.
Firearms Instructor - Metro Training Group Facebook
FFL Dealer/Gunsmith - Metro Armory Facebook
ISP Certified Firearm Concealed Carry License Instructor #1
Armorer - Glock, Smith & Wesson (M&P Pistol & M&P15 Rifle) & Springfield Armory (XD/XDm & M1911)
NRA Endowment-Life Member
ISRA Life Member

#76 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 13 November 2013 - 11:07 AM

At one time way back when, cops got a free pass on the guard training. I don't know if it was by law or rule or just someone signing off a form.



Still do.


how does that work? there does not appear to be a free pass in the law.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#77 pdpsc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,179 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 13

Posted 13 November 2013 - 09:36 PM

how does that work? there does not appear to be a free pass in the law.



https://www.idfpr.co...rms/f0857de.pdf
Firearms Instructor - Metro Training Group Facebook
FFL Dealer/Gunsmith - Metro Armory Facebook
ISP Certified Firearm Concealed Carry License Instructor #1
Armorer - Glock, Smith & Wesson (M&P Pistol & M&P15 Rifle) & Springfield Armory (XD/XDm & M1911)
NRA Endowment-Life Member
ISRA Life Member

#78 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,828 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 13 November 2013 - 10:29 PM

I think Burke is also a retired cop.


"Retired"? Not quite. From Wiki:

Ed Burke attended Visitation Grammar School in Visitation Parish on Chicago's south side and is a 1961 graduate of Quigley Preparatory Seminary. He graduated with a bachelor's degree from DePaul University in 1965, then worked for three years as a Chicago police officer, assigned to the state's attorney's office. Meanwhile, he studied law at DePaul University College of Law. In 1968, Burke received a Juris Doctor degree, was admitted to the Illinois Bar, and married his wife, Anne Marie.

While in law school in the late 1960s, an era of escalation in the Vietnam War, Burke received a draft deferment as a full-time student. After his marriage and the death of his father, he applied for and was granted a hardship deferment (3-A), as the sole support of his wife, mother, and two younger brothers. In June 1969, the Illinois Selective Service board of appeals reclassified him 1-A ("available for unrestricted military service"). At the same time, he was accepted into a Chicago-based United States Army Reserve unit, the 363rd civil affairs group, as a private. Political rivals expressed concern that Burke had received special consideration that allowed him to join the Reserve unit ahead of others, but an Army investigation found no evidence of manipulation in his favor.

Chicago Alderman

The 14th Ward Democrats slated the young Burke as the Democratic candidate in a special election called for on March 11, 1969 to fill vacancies in City Council, including the 14th ward. Burke faced six opponents, but won with a majority of 11,204 votes, while the next highest candidate received 1460 votes.



So he's the same kind of "retired cop" as fellow anti gunner Tony Munoz, who rode a car for a few months, then got a job thanks to a rabbi that kept him "tinned" but meant he didn't have to chase bad guys.

Oh, and he got to keep his gun.

Does it really matter any that he has some kind of side business?.


When his business consists of his only client being himself (as reported in IIRC the Sun Times several years ago) and one of his most vigorous efforts being the continued denial of the RKBA to the law abiding citizens of Chicago?

I'd say yeah, it does.

Edited by Tango7, 13 November 2013 - 10:33 PM.

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.

#79 Chiburbian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 764 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 08

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:36 AM

Any update on this? Molly, Todd?

#80 kestrou

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 04

Posted 12 December 2013 - 10:16 AM

Bump - standing by for news on this topic!

kestrou

#81 Capt_Destro

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,744 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 12

Posted 12 December 2013 - 01:37 PM

Hurry up and wait, Im predicting they are going to give us the run around.
When picking a firearm, you want one that is like a heavy chick. A gun that is reliable, doesn't mind getting rough, and one that goes bang every time. What's the point of having something pretty looking it isn't up for the task?

#82 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,467 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 12 December 2013 - 01:49 PM

I hope they don't give you the run around. I didn't see any changes to this section in the trailer bill and haven't seen any changes on the ISP website.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#83 gw1981

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 13

Posted 18 December 2013 - 04:17 PM

any updates yet?

#84 LaNsLyDe

  • Members
  • 38 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 13

Posted 19 December 2013 - 09:58 PM

I will patiently wait to see what will happen with this as I do not want to spend any money where I dont have to :P

The training should be enough

#85 AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 8,304 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 19 December 2013 - 10:05 PM

The training should be enough

Have you read the carry concealed law, in particular the do not carry areas?

-Thomas

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


#86 LaNsLyDe

  • Members
  • 38 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 13

Posted 19 December 2013 - 10:11 PM

The training should be enough

Have you read the carry concealed law, in particular the do not carry areas?



Why yes I have. I've read sites, blogs, forums (this one) and read the bill myself to make sure the things I learned were valid.

#87 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,795 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 20 December 2013 - 07:39 AM

We will all be waiting till next time the house is in session. I'm fairly sure the only way is a trailer bill. And the way I see it, if retired cops arn't getting a full exemption on training, we aint either.
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#88 kestrou

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 04

Posted 08 January 2014 - 08:23 PM

Well, the letter of the law is pretty damned clear that someone that's been through the FAC training has their training covered, but I don't see a way that this is handled in the CCL4Illinois.com website.

Anybody FAC holders have any traction on this?

kestrou

#89 TJSum1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Joined: 05-August 13

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:24 PM

Well, the letter of the law is pretty damned clear that someone that's been through the FAC training has their training covered, but I don't see a way that this is handled in the CCL4Illinois.com website.

Anybody FAC holders have any traction on this?

kestrou

it is pretty clear "...,completed the required training and (emphasis added) 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. The applicant must submit verification that the training requirements for the FCC Card have been completed.

#90 TJSum1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Joined: 05-August 13

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:30 PM

I hope they don't give you the run around. I didn't see any changes to this section in the trailer bill and haven't seen any changes on the ISP website.

They added "(emphasis added)" to their FAQ on exemptions. Further entrenched into the FCC card requirement. While they say training is the most important thing, FCC couldn't be less important in the training. Might be time to stick a fork in this.