Jump to content


Photo

430 ILCS 66 - Suggested changes.


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 08 November 2013 - 03:01 PM

Section 10. Issuance of licenses to carry a concealed
firearm.
...

( 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 prove the applicant is disqualified or
issue
the applicant a license.





Section 80. Firearms instructor training.

( c ) A person seeking to become a certified firearms
instructor shall:
( 1 ) be at least 21 years of age;
( 2 ) be a legal resident of the United States; and
( 3 ) meet the requirements of Section 25 of this Act,
and any additional uniformly applied requirements

established by the Department.

...

( f ) An application for a firearms instructor
certification submitted to the Department that contains all the

information and materials required by this Act 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 prove the applicant is disqualified or
issue the applicant a firearms instructor certification.

Edited by kevinmcc, 08 November 2013 - 03:01 PM.

Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#2 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,126 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 08 November 2013 - 03:36 PM

i don't see how you can force the ISP to "prove" anything. I suspect that would require the intervention of a court.

What we have says they have to issue in 90 or 120 days. i don't see how this language changes anything.

So far the ISP has been fairly even handed in applying what the law actually says. I don't see any need to stir up things that don't need to be stirred up. In any case, there is little or no chance of getting any substantive changes made to this law that are in our favor.
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/

#3 KarlJ

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: 20-November 12

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:04 PM

Should anyone meet all the requirements, then on what grounds could you be denied? The law is "shall" issue. If you meet the minimums & provide all the required documentation and are still denied then the ISP is going to have to answer for it
Applied 1/5/13 Approved 2/28/14 Recieved 3/7/14 postmarked 3/4 Will Co. / Cook Co. border

#4 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:23 PM

Should anyone meet all the requirements, then on what grounds could you be denied? The law is "shall" issue. If you meet the minimums & provide all the required documentation and are still denied then the ISP is going to have to answer for it


Apparently you have not been paying attention.

ISP is denying because they can not check people's records in some states because the state they live in does not participate in the system.

They are denying people because the ISP can not prove they are qualified to be issued a permit or firearms instructors certificate.

Everyone is guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the ISP, and lack of evidence results in denial.
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#5 transplant

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,016 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:25 PM

How about something like this for FOID's, FOID renewals, instructor permits, and FCCL permits:

http://www.vsp.state...Not_Complete_45

If Your Application is Not Complete within 45 Days – Section 18.2-308.05

If the court has not issued the permit or determined that the applicant is disqualified within 45 days of the date of receipt noted on the application, the clerk shall certify on the application that the 45-day period has expired, and send a copy of the certified application to the applicant. The certified application shall serve as a de facto permit, which shall expire 90 days after issuance, and shall be recognized as a valid concealed handgun permit when presented with a valid government-issued photo identification until the court issues a five-year permit or finds the applicant to be disqualified. If the applicant is found to be disqualified after the de facto permit is issued, the applicant shall surrender the de facto permit to the court and the disqualification shall be deemed a denial of the permit and a revocation of the de facto permit. If the applicant is later found by the court to be disqualified after a five-year permit has been issued, the permit shall be revoked.


However I would flip it around.

Require the state to send an approval or denial via certified mail within X days (e.g. 60 for a FCCL). If applicant hasn't received an approval or denial in writing by the statutory limit plus 15 days (e.g. 75 days for FCCL), the applicant may take a certified copy of their original application documents to their local courthouse, and a judge shall issue a temporary permit for 90 days.

That way, if the state is interested in denying applications, well then they need to get their act together and review them on time by the statutory time frame.
When seconds count, the fire department is only minutes away - that's why I have an extinguisher.

#6 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:26 PM

So far the ISP has been fairly even handed in applying what the law actually says.


Are you kidding me???

I've been emailing my representative for over a month about ISP nonsense.

Edited by kevinmcc, 08 November 2013 - 04:28 PM.

Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#7 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,126 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:28 PM


Should anyone meet all the requirements, then on what grounds could you be denied? The law is "shall" issue. If you meet the minimums & provide all the required documentation and are still denied then the ISP is going to have to answer for it


Apparently you have not been paying attention.

ISP is denying because they can not check people's records in some states because the state they live in does not participate in the system.

They are denying people because the ISP can not prove they are qualified to be issued a permit or firearms instructors certificate.

Everyone is guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the ISP, and lack of evidence results in denial.


the law is at fault. Not the ISP. Fix the law. Your suggested changes would have zero effect on the situations you mentioned.
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/

#8 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,126 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 08 November 2013 - 04:30 PM


So far the ISP has been fairly even handed in applying what the law actually says.


Are you kidding me???

I've been emailing my representative for over a month about ISP nonsense.


name a single thing the ISP has done that is in violation of the law as actually written.
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/

#9 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 08 November 2013 - 07:58 PM



So far the ISP has been fairly even handed in applying what the law actually says.


Are you kidding me???

I've been emailing my representative for over a month about ISP nonsense.


name a single thing the ISP has done that is in violation of the law as actually written.


For one my LEO experince and training is not exempt in thier eyes.

They want me so submit Iowa Law Enforcement Acedemy firearms training for 8 hour credit. :headbang1:
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#10 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 08 November 2013 - 08:04 PM



Should anyone meet all the requirements, then on what grounds could you be denied? The law is "shall" issue. If you meet the minimums & provide all the required documentation and are still denied then the ISP is going to have to answer for it


Apparently you have not been paying attention.

ISP is denying because they can not check people's records in some states because the state they live in does not participate in the system.

They are denying people because the ISP can not prove they are qualified to be issued a permit or firearms instructors certificate.

Everyone is guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the ISP, and lack of evidence results in denial.


the law is at fault. Not the ISP. Fix the law. Your suggested changes would have zero effect on the situations you mentioned.


Why would this not work? No record in NICS for lack of state participations would not be proof of disqualification as they are currently doing.

Applicatants that have submitted all the required paper work should not be denied based on the the ISP's inablity to conduct the investigation as they like.

That is not the problem of the applicant.

I suspect we will see tons of denials for permits, especially out of state appliacants.

I figure the appeals process will be a joke as well.

In reality, you are 100% qualified, but no permit and out hundreds of dollars?
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#11 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,126 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 09 November 2013 - 10:12 AM

the law is what is flawed. fix the provision(s) of the law you do not like.

if you believe the ambiguous wording relating to prior training for LE personnel is being interpreted wrongly, bring a law suit or try to get the legislature to change the wording to be less ambiguous.

I agree they are not being generous in their interpretation but I do not think it is in violation of what the law actually says. It is a legitimate interpretation. Just because you do not like it does not mean they are wrong to interpret it the way they are.
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/

#12 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 09 November 2013 - 11:01 AM

the law is what is flawed. fix the provision(s) of the law you do not like.

if you believe the ambiguous wording relating to prior training for LE personnel is being interpreted wrongly, bring a law suit or try to get the legislature to change the wording to be less ambiguous.

I agree they are not being generous in their interpretation but I do not think it is in violation of what the law actually says. It is a legitimate interpretation. Just because you do not like it does not mean they are wrong to interpret it the way they are.


Honestly, the statute needs to tell the ISP what they must do and not let them make up thier own rules.

That would be a lot of re-writing of the law.
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#13 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,126 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:46 PM


the law is what is flawed. fix the provision(s) of the law you do not like.

if you believe the ambiguous wording relating to prior training for LE personnel is being interpreted wrongly, bring a law suit or try to get the legislature to change the wording to be less ambiguous.

I agree they are not being generous in their interpretation but I do not think it is in violation of what the law actually says. It is a legitimate interpretation. Just because you do not like it does not mean they are wrong to interpret it the way they are.


Honestly, the statute needs to tell the ISP what they must do and not let them make up thier own rules.

That would be a lot of re-writing of the law.


in fairness to the ISP, the law says they can make up their own rules. we should not be one bit surprised that they are making the rules up in the way they are. why would anyone have expected it to be any different?

Edited by bob, 09 November 2013 - 02:47 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/

#14 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,742 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:53 PM

You guys know the drill strikethrough is to be deleted, bold and underlined is newly proposed:

Section 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; and
(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.
(7) The training requirements of this section and Section 75 of the Act shall be deemed to be met if the applicant provides proof of:
(A)Previous completion of the 40-hour Mandatory Firearms Training Course for Law Enforcement that meets the criteria established by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, as defined in 50 ILCS 710, the Peace Officer Firearm Training Act; or
(B.) previous completion of a course of at least 40 hours that meets the requirements of 50 ILCS 710, the Peace Office Firearm Training Act, as administered by the Illinois Department of Corrections; or
(C.) previous completion of a "course of similar content and duration" as defined in 50 ILCS 710/2(e) from another agency or governmental entity. Suitability of content shall be based on either previous issuance of a waiver for such training for an applicant for out-of-state reciprocity by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, or by approval after evaluation by the Department of State Police. The Training Board shall make public a list of all previously accepted training that has been allowed as a part of the waiver process, and the Department shall make the list available for public viewing.


Section 75. Applicant firearm training.

(h) A person who has previously qualified to carry a firearm as an active law enforcement officer by completing the 40-hour Mandatory Firearm Training as required in 50 ILCS 710, the Peace Office Firearm Training Act, a "course of similar content and duration" as defined in 50 ILCS 710/2(e) from another agency or governmental entity that has been deemed acceptable for issuance of a waiver by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, or completion of a "course of similar content and duration" that was previously completed for the applicant to be employed as a law enforcement officer of this or any other state, a person certified as a firearms instructor by this Act or by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, or a person who has previously completed the required training and has been issued to be eligible for the issue of a firearm control card by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation shall be exempt from the requirements of this Section. Proof of such eligibility may be satisfied by inclusion of certificates of completion for such training courses or of proof of current employment as a police officer as defined in 50 ILCS 705, the Illinois Police Training Act, a peace officer under 20 ILCS 2910, the Peace Officer Fire Investigation Act, or as defined in 725 ILCS 5/107-4 (a)(2), the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.


Oh, and the reference to 726 ILCS 5? It's this:

725ILCS 5/107-4 (from Ch. 38, par. 107-4)
Sec. 107-4. Arrest by peace officer from other jurisdiction.
(a) As used in this Section:
(1) "State" means any State of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(2) "Peace Officer" means any peace officer or member of any duly organized State, County, or Municipal peace unit, any police force of another State, the United States Department of Defense, or any police force whose members, by statute, are granted and authorized to exercise powers similar to those conferred upon any peace officer employed by a law enforcement agency of this State.

Edited by Tango7, 09 November 2013 - 02:59 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.

#15 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 09 November 2013 - 05:51 PM

You guys know the drill strikethrough is to be deleted, bold and underlined is newly proposed:

Section 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; and
(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.
(7) The training requirements of this section and Section 75 of the Act shall be deemed to be met if the applicant provides proof of:
(A)Previous completion of the 40-hour Mandatory Firearms Training Course for Law Enforcement that meets the criteria established by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, as defined in 50 ILCS 710, the Peace Officer Firearm Training Act; or
(B.) previous completion of a course of at least 40 hours that meets the requirements of 50 ILCS 710, the Peace Office Firearm Training Act, as administered by the Illinois Department of Corrections; or
(C.) previous completion of a "course of similar content and duration" as defined in 50 ILCS 710/2(e) from another agency or governmental entity. Suitability of content shall be based on either previous issuance of a waiver for such training for an applicant for out-of-state reciprocity by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, or by approval after evaluation by the Department of State Police. The Training Board shall make public a list of all previously accepted training that has been allowed as a part of the waiver process, and the Department shall make the list available for public viewing.


Section 75. Applicant firearm training.

(h) A person who has previously qualified to carry a firearm as an active law enforcement officer by completing the 40-hour Mandatory Firearm Training as required in 50 ILCS 710, the Peace Office Firearm Training Act, a "course of similar content and duration" as defined in 50 ILCS 710/2(e) from another agency or governmental entity that has been deemed acceptable for issuance of a waiver by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, or completion of a "course of similar content and duration" that was previously completed for the applicant to be employed as a law enforcement officer of this or any other state, a person certified as a firearms instructor by this Act or by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, or a person who has previously completed the required training and has been issued to be eligible for the issue of a firearm control card by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation shall be exempt from the requirements of this Section. Proof of such eligibility may be satisfied by inclusion of certificates of completion for such training courses or of proof of current employment as a police officer as defined in 50 ILCS 705, the Illinois Police Training Act, a peace officer under 20 ILCS 2910, the Peace Officer Fire Investigation Act, or as defined in 725 ILCS 5/107-4 (a)(2), the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.


Oh, and the reference to 726 ILCS 5? It's this:

725ILCS 5/107-4 (from Ch. 38, par. 107-4)
Sec. 107-4. Arrest by peace officer from other jurisdiction.
(a) As used in this Section:
(1) "State" means any State of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(2) "Peace Officer" means any peace officer or member of any duly organized State, County, or Municipal peace unit, any police force of another State, the United States Department of Defense, or any police force whose members, by statute, are granted and authorized to exercise powers similar to those conferred upon any peace officer employed by a law enforcement agency of this State.



I agree with that.


Saves a lot of headaches for some local reservists.

I guess here in Illinois they get a certificate saying they had 40 hours, but not an FCC?

Thought that was odd, but they should be covered by that too.
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#16 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 09 November 2013 - 05:54 PM

in fairness to the ISP, the law says they can make up their own rules. we should not be one bit surprised that they are making the rules up in the way they are. why would anyone have expected it to be any different?


They can make up some rules, but not rules that conflict with the act.

Unfortunately the ISP thinks they can do what ever they want, even do things that conflict with the act.
Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation

#17 john_horstman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 05

Posted 10 November 2013 - 08:56 AM

Tango,
1) It appears your new Sec 25(7)(A) is redundant since it's already covered under Sec 75(h), "... a person certified ... by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board ... shall be exempt from the requirements of this Section." This means Sec 25(6) would not apply to such a person. Also, new Secs 25(7)(B ) and (C ) would be better in Sec 75(h) since they also speak to exemptions to Sec 75 training requirements.

2) The quotes around "course of similar content and duration" have to go, since the term is defined elsewhere.

3) "Proof of such eligibility may be satisfied..." change to "Proof of such eligibility shall be satisfied... ." "May be" also means, "maybe not," "don't have to," "not required." Don't give them an out.

3) Please explain the need for the adverb, "previously," since it begs the question, "Previous to what?"
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
- Benjamin Franklin, in the Continental Congress just before signing the Declaration of Independence, 1776.

#18 TJSum1

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 515 posts
  • Joined: 05-August 13

Posted 10 November 2013 - 09:21 AM

Why include language that mentions the Tan card at all? The Tan is issued by your employer upon proof of training. The training is recorded, and easily verfied, at the idfpr website. I don't know of any other training or job (Armed Security Guard) that uses Tan card. Why not something like "has completed the required 40 hour Security Guard Training, as required by the illinois Department of Financial and Professional Reguation, shall be exempt."

Edited by TJSum1, 10 November 2013 - 09:22 AM.


#19 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,670 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 10 November 2013 - 09:22 AM

That's fine, there are things that need to be changed for non reidents but let's first focus on our own like 150 apps, 16 hrs of "training" and prohibited places.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#20 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,126 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 10 November 2013 - 05:16 PM

Why include language that mentions the Tan card at all? The Tan is issued by your employer upon proof of training. The training is recorded, and easily verfied, at the idfpr website. I don't know of any other training or job (Armed Security Guard) that uses Tan card. Why not something like "has completed the required 40 hour Security Guard Training, as required by the illinois Department of Financial and Professional Reguation, shall be exempt."


take out the "40 hour" part of it. It used to be 30 hours. No reason to exclude old timers.
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/

#21 kevinmcc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 12

Posted 10 November 2013 - 09:00 PM


Why include language that mentions the Tan card at all? The Tan is issued by your employer upon proof of training. The training is recorded, and easily verfied, at the idfpr website. I don't know of any other training or job (Armed Security Guard) that uses Tan card. Why not something like "has completed the required 40 hour Security Guard Training, as required by the illinois Department of Financial and Professional Reguation, shall be exempt."


take out the "40 hour" part of it. It used to be 30 hours. No reason to exclude old timers.


Yeah, that would be good idea. Maybe add another exception or maybe say duration of atleast 30 hours.

Edited by kevinmcc, 10 November 2013 - 09:01 PM.

Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA
Life Member, Oath Keepers
Life Member, Second Amendment Foundation




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users