Jump to content

IllinoisCarry Meets with Legal Counsels for ISP, CCL Review Board, Public Safety


Recommended Posts

Not that I am not appreciative and find the information interesting, this is only giving us half the info. It is nice to get a peek behind the curtain at what the Wizard of OZ is doing but there is no way to draw any conclusions when you don't have all the statistics. The review board may be getting through more objections but what is happening to the rate of objections being made? Is there a net gain or loss on the backlog? How long is it taking for the review board to get a first look at objections? A year ago they were 13 months behind on reviewing objections as seen below.

 

I've been collecting all the stats I can get from the ISP, but they will not share the number of incoming objections, nor the length of time they've been waiting to be processed, nor the originator of each objection (by county, department, etc.). It's unfortunate but they claim it is a violation of the FCCA and the Freedom of Information Act to share much beyond what I am able to get. I elevated it to the assistant attorney general and they upheld the ISP's objections.

 

But I am able to track the current backlog at the end of each month, and I report this in my monthly CCL and FOID updates. I don't have data yet from the end of April but expect to get it within the next week.

 

The attached spreadsheet should give you an idea of the current backlog and the trend over the last few months. The backlog has been going down, which simply means the CCLRB is processing more than they are receiving.

 

You could derive the number of new objections by comparing the report linked in a thread above to the monthly trend. If this is important to you feel free to marry them up.

 

CCL and CCLRB Totals - Trend - 1 Apr 2017.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true problem on the waiting period is the review board requesting additional information from objecting LEOs. Most people only wait about a year unless the LEOs (most of the time I believe purposely) don't respond to the Review board.

 

If "most people only wait about a year" and it is taking the review board about a year to even look at the objection for the first time... it would seem the problem is not the LEO's response time to the board. It is the review board not getting to the objections in a reasonable amount of time.

 

If the above is accurate, then only once the wait time is over 2 years is the response time from LEOs the "true problem"... and of course that is only for those specific cases.

 

It sounds like most objections are resolved without further input from LEO or the applicant. If that is the case, then the vast majority of the delay people are experiencing is from the review board.

 

It would be great if LEO had a time limit to respond to review board requests... but it seems like having a time limit for the review board to get to objections would be more beneficial for most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not that I am not appreciative and find the information interesting, this is only giving us half the info. It is nice to get a peek behind the curtain at what the Wizard of OZ is doing but there is no way to draw any conclusions when you don't have all the statistics. The review board may be getting through more objections but what is happening to the rate of objections being made? Is there a net gain or loss on the backlog? How long is it taking for the review board to get a first look at objections? A year ago they were 13 months behind on reviewing objections as seen below.

I've been collecting all the stats I can get from the ISP, but they will not share the number of incoming objections, nor the length of time they've been waiting to be processed, nor the originator of each objection (by county, department, etc.). It's unfortunate but they claim it is a violation of the FCCA and the Freedom of Information Act to share much beyond what I am able to get. I elevated it to the assistant attorney general and they upheld the ISP's objections.

 

But I am able to track the current backlog at the end of each month, and I report this in my monthly CCL and FOID updates. I don't have data yet from the end of April but expect to get it within the next week.

 

The attached spreadsheet should give you an idea of the current backlog and the trend over the last few months. The backlog has been going down, which simply means the CCLRB is processing more than they are receiving.

 

You could derive the number of new objections by comparing the report linked in a thread above to the monthly trend. If this is important to you feel free to marry them up.

 

attachicon.gifCCL and CCLRB Totals - Trend - 1 Apr 2017.pdf

 

 

Awesome info. Thanks for your efforts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We are currently working on a law which gives the objecting LEO only 30 day period to submit additional information and if they don't submit anything within that time frame, the Board must make a decision.

 

 

!

 

The law needs to be worded such that the objecting LEO has 30 days to respond OR THE OBJECTION IS AUTOMATICALLY WITHDRAWN. By requesting additional info the Board has already indicated an inability to rule on said objection, just sending the same objection back to the Board accomplishes nothing but delay. If the Board could have ruled they already should have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

We are currently working on a law which gives the objecting LEO only 30 day period to submit additional information and if they don't submit anything within that time frame, the Board must make a decision.

 

 

!

The law needs to be worded such that the objecting LEO has 30 days to respond OR THE OBJECTION IS AUTOMATICALLY WITHDRAWN. By requesting additional info the Board has already indicated an inability to rule on said objection, just sending the same objection back to the Board accomplishes nothing but delay. If the Board could have ruled they already should have.

 

 

Correct, this is the change we are trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't understand how and why the CCLRB has been allowed to get away with denying an individual his license by sending out multiple 30 day letters.

 

I have been reading this post and the law since it went into effect and have been teaching it since it's inception. I think the original CCLRB under potato head Quinn starting sending out multiple 30 day letters and they were never challenged and it became the norm. If you read the FCCA, it's pretty evident that the CCLRB happens to be violating the law.

 

I believe that it should be pointed out to the legal staff / counsel for the ISP and CCLRB that they are violating the law and unless they want to lose another court case they should change their practices immediately.

 

If I was objected to, knowing and having read the law numerous times, I would have filed a lawsuit immediately and it would have included as many people that were also receiving multiple 30 day letters. The law is pretty clear in what it says. Below are the relevant sections. You decide on what you think the law says.

 

430 ILCS 66/10(e)- An application for a license submitted to the Department that contains all the information and materials required by this Act, including the requisite fee, shall be deemed completed. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no later than 90 days after receipt of a completed application, the Department shall issue or deny the applicant a license.

 

I know the above says 90 days, but I also realize they have up to 120 days if fingerprints have not been submitted.

 

430 ILCS 66/15©- The referral of an objection under this Section to the Board shall toll the 90-day period for the Department to issue or deny the applicant a license under subsection (e) of Section 10 of this Act, during the period of review and until the Board issues its decision.

 

In their own words, the law states they "shall" toll the 90 day period. Pretty clear and concise.

 

 

 

 

430 ILCS 66/20(f)- The Board shall issue a decision within 30 days of receipt of the objection from the Department. However, the Board need not issue a decision within 30 days if:
(1) the Board requests information from the
applicant, including but not limited to electronic fingerprints to be submitted to the Department, in accordance with subsection (e) of this Section, in which case the Board shall make a decision within 30 days of receipt of the required information from the applicant;
(2) the applicant agrees, in writing, to allow the
Board additional time to consider an objection; or
(3) the Board notifies the applicant and the
Department that the Board needs an additional 30 days to issue a decision.

 

Under (3) it gives the board AN ADDITONAL 30 days to issue their decision. It doesn't say multiple 30 day extensions which has become the norm. If you read the law it is pretty clear that the intent is for the board to issue their decision in that 90 to 120 day time frame.

 

Anything other than what the law above has stated is unacceptable and needs to be challenged immediately.

 

KING

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add one more thing.

 

If the Law Enforcement agency that makes the objection, does not submit their information to the Board if requested in a timely fashion as outlined by law, then the Board shall make a decision in the time frame allotted.

 

If there is not enough substantial evidence to deny an applicant a license then they must approve the applicant. PERIOD.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

KING

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add one more thing.

 

If the Law Enforcement agency that makes the objection, does not submit their information to the Board if requested in a timely fashion as outlined by law, then the Board shall make a decision in the time frame allotted.

 

If there is not enough substantial evidence to deny an applicant a license then they must approve the applicant. PERIOD.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

KING

 

 

Too add to the frustration is the fact that everyone applying already has accesses to purchasing firearms, so if they are a threat to themselves or others than why the are they issuing FOID cards to these people.

 

My 2 cents is, is if you qualify for a FOID card you should automatically qualify for a CCL. Until, then I wait for the board to review my application and continue to wait like a sheep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too add to the frustration is the fact that everyone applying already has accesses to purchasing firearms, so if they are a threat to themselves or others than why the are they issuing FOID cards to these people.

 

My 2 cents is, is if you qualify for a FOID card you should automatically qualify for a CCL. Until, then I wait for the board to review my application and continue to wait like a sheep

 

 

I'm surprised the ISP and anti's haven't come up with the idea that if there is an objection to someone getting a FCCL the ISP should automatically pull the applicants FOID (and confiscate their guns) until the objection is resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Too add to the frustration is the fact that everyone applying already has accesses to purchasing firearms, so if they are a threat to themselves or others than why the are they issuing FOID cards to these people.

 

My 2 cents is, is if you qualify for a FOID card you should automatically qualify for a CCL. Until, then I wait for the board to review my application and continue to wait like a sheep

 

 

I'm surprised the ISP and anti's haven't come up with the idea that if there is an objection to someone getting a FCCL the ISP should automatically pull the applicants FOID (and confiscate their guns) until the objection is resolved.

 

 

There not taking my guns lol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I really don't understand how and why the CCLRB has been allowed to get away with denying an individual his license by sending out multiple 30 day letters.

 

I have been reading this post and the law since it went into effect and have been teaching it since it's inception. I think the original CCLRB under potato head Quinn starting sending out multiple 30 day letters and they were never challenged and it became the norm. If you read the FCCA, it's pretty evident that the CCLRB happens to be violating the law.

 

I believe that it should be pointed out to the legal staff / counsel for the ISP and CCLRB that they are violating the law and unless they want to lose another court case they should change their practices immediately.

 

If I was objected to, knowing and having read the law numerous times, I would have filed a lawsuit immediately and it would have included as many people that were also receiving multiple 30 day letters. The law is pretty clear in what it says. Below are the relevant sections. You decide on what you think the law says.

 

430 ILCS 66/10(e)- An application for a license submitted to the Department that contains all the information and materials required by this Act, including the requisite fee, shall be deemed completed. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no later than 90 days after receipt of a completed application, the Department shall issue or deny the applicant a license.

 

I know the above says 90 days, but I also realize they have up to 120 days if fingerprints have not been submitted.

 

430 ILCS 66/15©- The referral of an objection under this Section to the Board shall toll the 90-day period for the Department to issue or deny the applicant a license under subsection (e) of Section 10 of this Act, during the period of review and until the Board issues its decision.

 

In their own words, the law states they "shall" toll the 90 day period. Pretty clear and concise.

 

 

 

 

430 ILCS 66/20(f)- The Board shall issue a decision within 30 days of receipt of the objection from the Department. However, the Board need not issue a decision within 30 days if:

(1) the Board requests information from the

applicant, including but not limited to electronic fingerprints to be submitted to the Department, in accordance with subsection (e) of this Section, in which case the Board shall make a decision within 30 days of receipt of the required information from the applicant;
(2) the applicant agrees, in writing, to allow the
Board additional time to consider an objection; or
(3) the Board notifies the applicant and the
Department that the Board needs an additional 30 days to issue a decision.

 

Under (3) it gives the board AN ADDITONAL 30 days to issue their decision. It doesn't say multiple 30 day extensions which has become the norm. If you read the law it is pretty clear that the intent is for the board to issue their decision in that 90 to 120 day time frame.

 

Anything other than what the law above has stated is unacceptable and needs to be challenged immediately.

 

KING

At what point do we just say "f*ck it"? Our lives are more important to us than waiting for some bureaucrat hack and leo's infringing upon on god givin' right, protected by the constitution, to defend our families, homes, life, and liberty. We spent the absurd cost. We put in the training hours. We have FOIDs. We wouldn't have applied if we didn't meet the requirements. Living in Chicago, I don't want to be another statistic on the 5 o'clock news because my rights to life and liberty were delayed.

 

I pay my taxes; obey our laws(with the exception of going a bit above the speed limit on occasion). At what point is the risk worth the reward? Reward as in not being a victim when some thug with an illegal firearm decides he wants my car, wallet, cause death or extreme bodily harm?

 

As cliche as it sounds: "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6", or even worse have my daughter carried by six because I wasn't able to protect her against an armed criminal.

 

This system needs a massive overhaul, and those running it need to be held accountable. It is completely unacceptable to take our money, quote 90-120 days, and have people waiting for over two years. Politicians work for us, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not advocate breaking the law, in fact, it is against our code of conduct to do so. We have protections here in Illinois if the use of lethal force is justified. It does not hinge on whether someone has a license to carry or not - FOID carry is still legal until a carry license is obtained. It's not ideal, but it is an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both sided do that now in court cases. They call it a continuance and since that is a big (more then 3 syllables) word it's legal and they can get away with it.

 

 

 

 

Yes, but to get a continuance, one has to show a proper cause. Judges don't automatically grant them except in extenuating circumstances.

 

When it comes to the CCLRB, the continuances are automatically granted over and over and over and over without cause.

 

Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not advocate breaking the law, in fact, it is against our code of conduct to do so. We have protections here in Illinois if the use of lethal force is justified. It does not hinge on whether someone has a license to carry or not - FOID carry is still legal until a carry license is obtained. It's not ideal, but it is an option.

I apologize Molly. Not trying to encourage people to break the law. Just fed up with all the unconstitutional stuff that's been going on in our state. Work hard, pay taxes, be a decent human being = get constantly screwed by the communist Illinois political machine. Be a thug or illegal alien, rape, murder, rob, carry illegal firearms, and still get first hand treatment from the government, free healthcare, food stamps, obama phones and internet, all from taxpayer money. Very, very sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We do not advocate breaking the law, in fact, it is against our code of conduct to do so. We have protections here in Illinois if the use of lethal force is justified. It does not hinge on whether someone has a license to carry or not - FOID carry is still legal until a carry license is obtained. It's not ideal, but it is an option.

I apologize Molly. Not trying to encourage people to break the law. Just fed up with all the unconstitutional stuff that's been going on in our state. Work hard, pay taxes, be a decent human being = get constantly screwed by the communist Illinois political machine. Be a thug or illegal alien, rape, murder, rob, carry illegal firearms, and still get first hand treatment from the government, free healthcare, food stamps, obama phones and internet, all from taxpayer money. Very, very sad.

 

 

Most of us understand your frustration. Unfortunately that is the way things are right now. Doesn't mean it won't change in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I apologize Molly. Not trying to encourage people to break the law. Just fed up with all the unconstitutional stuff that's been going on in our state. Work hard, pay taxes, be a decent human being = get constantly screwed by the communist Illinois political machine. Be a thug or illegal alien, rape, murder, rob, carry illegal firearms, and still get first hand treatment from the government, free healthcare, food stamps, obama phones and internet, all from taxpayer money. Very, very sad.

 

 

 

I do understand your frustration, really, I truly do. I also truly hope that all our hard work has us on the verge of turning this thing around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I apologize Molly. Not trying to encourage people to break the law. Just fed up with all the unconstitutional stuff that's been going on in our state. Work hard, pay taxes, be a decent human being = get constantly screwed by the communist Illinois political machine. Be a thug or illegal alien, rape, murder, rob, carry illegal firearms, and still get first hand treatment from the government, free healthcare, food stamps, obama phones and internet, all from taxpayer money. Very, very sad.

 

 

 

I do understand your frustration, really, I truly do. I also truly hope that all our hard work has us on the verge of turning this thing around.

 

We all appreciate the hard work you and the rest of IC have put into protecting our 2nd amendment rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...