Jump to content


Photo

Federal Suit Against CCLRB - John Berron v. ISP

Berron Obenberger CCLRB

This topic has been archived.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

#1 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 22 April 2014 - 06:06 AM

The case that the attorney filed in Federal District on behalf of Mr. John Berron of Skokie, IL against the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board is cited as 1:14-cv-02839. The complete complaint in the case is attached to this email. A copy of his denial letter from ISP is also attached. My intention is to continue to monitor the case and update as appropriate.

Attached Files

  • Attached File  1-main.pdf   189.36KB   219 downloads
  • Attached File  1-1.pdf   51.71KB   159 downloads


#2 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,325 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 22 April 2014 - 06:31 AM

I am just curious, considering that as far as I know there has yet to be a single change to get "discovery" as to why an applicant was denied by the review board, how does anyone know exactly why they are being objected to?


Edited by Patriots & Tyrants, 22 April 2014 - 06:36 AM.


#3 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 22 April 2014 - 06:34 AM

I am just curious, considering that as far as I know there has yet to be a single change to get "discovery" as to why an applicant was denied by the review board, how does the defendant know his rejection is liked to a prior arrest?

Unfortunately, due to work related time commitments, I am not going to have time to respond in depth to many comments, you can get an understanding of this situation by reading the entire complaint. There hasn't been any substantive discovery yet in this case, though it will certainly proceed on a quicker track than the other matters in Illinois Circuit Court. This case was essentially filed due to the attorney's view that the rules of evidence and hearing procedure in Circuit Court aren't going to provide his client with a meaningful forum to have his grievance heard.



#4 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,325 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 22 April 2014 - 06:36 AM

 

I am just curious, considering that as far as I know there has yet to be a single change to get "discovery" as to why an applicant was denied by the review board, how does the defendant know his rejection is liked to a prior arrest?

Unfortunately, due to work related time commitments, I am not going to have time to respond in depth to many comments, you can get an understanding of this situation by reading the entire complaint. There hasn't been any substantive discovery yet in this case, though it will certainly proceed on a quicker track than the other matters in Illinois Circuit Court. This case was essentially filed due to the attorney's view that the rules of evidence and hearing procedure in Circuit Court aren't going to provide his client with a meaningful forum to have his grievance heard.

 

Gotcha that is what I thought that there had not been discovery yet; I will be watching closely and hoping i don't get lawn darted because my father and I have the same name and shared the same address at one point and he has a couple of DUI's.


Edited by Patriots & Tyrants, 22 April 2014 - 06:47 AM.


#5 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 22 April 2014 - 07:10 AM

So this is to resolve the wrongfully denied folks, the ones who are a danger to themselvew? Lol
"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-

#6 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 22 April 2014 - 07:11 AM

So this is to resolve the wrongfully denied folks, the ones who are a danger to themselvew? Lol

Its a bit more than that...the attorney has concluded that due to the rules of evidence and procedure in Circuit Court he doesn't think that his client is going to get a fair shake in that forum.



#7 McCroskey

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,536 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 22 April 2014 - 08:13 AM

Should be interesting to see how it pans out. Even so, people shouldn't be damaging property or resisting police. The resisting thing always gets me... who thinks that's ever a good idea and who has ever resisted police and had the police say "oh well, this is too much work so nevermind"? Dumb.


“By concord little things grow great, by discord the greatest come to nothing.”
-Roger Williams

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#8 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,788 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 22 April 2014 - 08:16 AM

Not cooperating and resisting are two different things. The police routinely charge resisting when they don't get cooperation. Not saying that occured with the plaintiff, but it is commonplace.


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#9 xxxlaw

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 09:57 AM

Thanks for the good wishes.

 

The center focus of this lawsuit is that a secret hearing on the basis of a secret objection that you may never see, all without any notice to you or any opportunity to provide your side of the story or introduce your own evidence, determined by a board biased toward the side of prosecutors, simply falls very short of the fairness required by Due Process of Law in the Fourteenth Amendment. That, unfortunately, describes the law. A denial letter after this abuse still provides no detail, not even the identity of the objector. We argue further that the administrative review law does not correct the situation or make up for the denial of rights because review under the ARL is limited to a judicial examination of the record below. It does not provide for a new hearing at which the applicant can present his own evidence and arguments. Perhaps that was necessary to get the votes in Springfield, but what they enacted just can't stand consistent with American ideas of fairness as set out in the Constitution.

 

It would do well to compare the concealed carry process with that provided for FOID Cards. If you are denied a FOID Card, you have a right to a trial "de novo" in the circuit court, in other words, a reall and full hearing, at which you can present your own evidence and argue why you possess a right to own a firearm. All of that is denied when applying for a concealed carry card.

 

Watch for more news as we start our own campaign to fight for the rights of gun owners. I am delighted that this client came forward and gave me a chance to fight for him. It takes courage. We expect to to fight for the rights of other clients as they come to us, and we will keep you posted.


Edited by xxxlaw, 22 April 2014 - 10:02 AM.

Attorney JD Obenberger - 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2600 - Chicago, IL 60603 - 312.558.6420 - xxxlaw at gmail.com


#10 pdpsc

    Member

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

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:19 AM

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...
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

#11 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:25 AM

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...

Whoa!!!......last time I looked each and every one of us that is a US citizen is entitled to go to court and seek to protect our rights.....it isn't written anywhere that one individual is better than any other individual. This guy is just as much entitled to seek relief in the courts as you, me or any one of the plaintiffs that NRA puts forward. We had better not start down the path of suggesting that certain people are entitled to better access to justice. Whatever the guy's background is the courts will deal with it.



#12 Dr. Rat

    JMHO

  • Members
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:44 AM

 

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...

Whoa!!!......last time I looked each and every one of us that is a US citizen is entitled to go to court and seek to protect our rights.....it isn't written anywhere that one individual is better than any other individual. This guy is just as much entitled to seek relief in the courts as you, me or any one of the plaintiffs that NRA puts forward. We had better not start down the path of suggesting that certain people are entitled to better access to justice. Whatever the guy's background is the courts will deal with it.

 

 

Yeah, but from a PR perspective it would be nice if at the end of the suit, in addition to the law being changed, the plaintiff could say he actually got his CCL. Doesn't seem likely in this case.



#13 bob

    Member

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

Posted 22 April 2014 - 10:48 AM

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...

I don't see how it messes anything up for the rest of us. The suit is asking for a fair hearing mostly. 


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 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 22 April 2014 - 11:11 AM

 

 

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...

Whoa!!!......last time I looked each and every one of us that is a US citizen is entitled to go to court and seek to protect our rights.....it isn't written anywhere that one individual is better than any other individual. This guy is just as much entitled to seek relief in the courts as you, me or any one of the plaintiffs that NRA puts forward. We had better not start down the path of suggesting that certain people are entitled to better access to justice. Whatever the guy's background is the courts will deal with it.

 

 

Yeah, but from a PR perspective it would be nice if at the end of the suit, in addition to the law being changed, the plaintiff could say he actually got his CCL. Doesn't seem likely in this case.

 

We are talking about a person's constitutional rights.......the PR isn't what this is about......its more important that he has his day in court.



#15 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 April 2014 - 11:22 AM

This action doesn't screw with any future civil actions against the same entity/entities.  Any new action will actually bolster this one. 

 

@xxxlaw

 

Excellent complaint, great read.  Blanketed the CCLRB and Skokie Chief.  Individual capacity claims against all members of the Board as well as Grau and Trame?  That's bold but I like it.


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#16 ChadN.

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,024 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 12

Posted 22 April 2014 - 11:24 AM

Thanks for the thread, I'll be following this as well. 


Please note that all my comments in this thread are only my own opinion, and do not in any way represent IC, or anyone else's opinions. I am NOT a lawyer.

#17 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 22 April 2014 - 11:26 AM

Not cooperating and resisting are two different things. The police routinely charge resisting when they don't get cooperation. Not saying that occured with the plaintiff, but it is commonplace.

 

Exactly, resisting arrest is many times just an add on charge for any lack of cooperating or not listening, we can argue all day about right or wrong but police are not Gods and you don't have to obey everything they tell you to do even though many police believe the contrary...


What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!


#18 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,450 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 22 April 2014 - 11:47 AM

 

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...

I don't see how it messes anything up for the rest of us. The suit is asking for a fair hearing mostly. 

Right, this suit is focused on the process for the most part, the current license scheme doesn't hardly even allow for a hearing on the merits of the denial.

 

There will likely end up being several cases going to the appeals court, some of which may well be combined.


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

#19 JSharp

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 10

Posted 22 April 2014 - 02:05 PM

 

 

 

Whoa!!!......last time I looked each and every one of us that is a US citizen is entitled to go to court and seek to protect our rights.....it isn't written anywhere that one individual is better than any other individual. This guy is just as much entitled to seek relief in the courts as you, me or any one of the plaintiffs that NRA puts forward. We had better not start down the path of suggesting that certain people are entitled to better access to justice. Whatever the guy's background is the courts will deal with it.

 

 

Yeah, but from a PR perspective it would be nice if at the end of the suit, in addition to the law being changed, the plaintiff could say he actually got his CCL. Doesn't seem likely in this case.

 

We are talking about a person's constitutional rights.......the PR isn't what this is about......its more important that he has his day in court.

 

 

So far waiting and hoping for good PR got us exactly ZERO. What got us this far is a Federal Court. No one should need to wait or accept that their rights have been abrogated just because they aren't quite a 'good enough' case.


Edited by JSharp, 22 April 2014 - 02:05 PM.


#20 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 22 April 2014 - 02:12 PM

 

So far waiting and hoping for good PR got us exactly ZERO. What got us this far is a Federal Court. No one should need to wait or accept that their rights have been abrogated just because they aren't quite a 'good enough' case.

 

 

Personally I'm of the opinion that as far as gun rights are concerned politically correct PR isn't even holding as zero but has netted us a lose...


What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!


#21 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 22 April 2014 - 02:26 PM

The case that the attorney filed in Federal District on behalf of Mr. John Berron of Skokie, IL against the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board is cited as 1:14-cv-02839. The complete complaint in the case is attached to this email. A copy of his denial letter from ISP is also attached. My intention is to continue to monitor the case and update as appropriate.

 

Good luck with your case.  Each one of these that is successful will move the ball forward.  I have little hope in quick fixes by the legislature.  Maybe I am wrong in having little hope in that.


"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#22 Chiburbian

    Member

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

Posted 22 April 2014 - 02:31 PM

I think the argument is that bad plaintiffs make bad lawsuits that make bad law.  Good plaintiffs like Mary Shepherd and Otis McDonald who are exceptionally sympathetic in their story and/or demeanor are more likely to get favorable rulings... Or are they?

 

I understand the argument but I don't think it matters in this case.  Has this guy kept his nose completely clean?  No.  But his charges are very minor and if he had, he wouldn't have had his rights denied and thus he wouldn't have had standing.

 

Good luck to the law team and the plaintiff.



#23 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Members
  • 9,346 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 22 April 2014 - 02:39 PM

I had a favorable ruling from a Cook County court judge...it is possible.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#24 JSharp

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 10

Posted 22 April 2014 - 03:49 PM

There's been little payback from this winning hearts and minds campaign. For many years we were stalled 6 votes short, 10 votes short, 2 votes short, endlessly. Fact is we'd still be sitting at 'just a few more votes next year!' and we still wouldn't have *any* ccw law if it weren't for the courts.

 

Taking cases to court and convincing judges got us here. The rest is wishful thinking that's as silly as listening to the NRA tell me I can't call a pistol a weapon because of potential bad connotations.


Edited by JSharp, 22 April 2014 - 03:52 PM.


#25 Windchaser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 04:31 PM

Why would you say he would be in eligible? His record only includes arrests, no convictions and they were all longer than five years ago. This really is a good example of denials being handed out on a whim and not based on facts. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#26 remchance

  • Members
  • 29 posts
  • Joined: 22-March 14

Posted 22 April 2014 - 04:52 PM

Why would you say he would be in eligible? His record only includes arrests, no convictions and they were all longer than five years ago. This really is a good example of denials being handed out on a whim and not based on facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree. But he does have convictions (from what he said)
There is a set time frame and I don't believe the review board is following it.
Criminal damage to property can be anything as example slamming a car door.
Same with resisting arrest example talking back at cop.

It's great how we are supposed to be on the same side but we are judging people who we know nothing about.
Do any of you know his criminal record, seen the police reports ect. ?

I hope he wins I hope everyone denied unjustly wins.

The real bad guys are the thugs , dealers, felons, and ones killing innocent people in the city every day. Stop forgetting that.

#27 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 19,134 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 22 April 2014 - 04:58 PM

Philby v ISP can be found here.


.
 
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

 
Difficult days demand decisions of faith (Max Lucado)
 
On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.

#28 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 19,134 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 22 April 2014 - 05:49 PM

Off topic opinion has been removed.

 

I'm sure many will find Mr. Obenberger's point of view more informative.


.
 
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

 
Difficult days demand decisions of faith (Max Lucado)
 
On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.

#29 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 22 April 2014 - 07:12 PM

Back in....oh a long long time ago, I had a friend who was charged with obstruction because he was in an apartment and a fight between some random person and his roommate broke out in the parking lot, the Macomb PD showed up after he had left to go to another apartment in a different building and the police hunted him down (and everyone else who had left because of the fight) by threatening witnesses (they charged them with the same thing they threatened to charge them with had they not told the police where everyone had gone) and arrested him for obstruction. I don't even know if it was misdemeanor. I think it may have been an ordinance since everything is a city ordinance violation there...more $$$ for the city. He ate it and paid up just to avoid having to deal with it. I don't really understand how an obstruction charge would even stick under those circumstances. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#30 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 22 April 2014 - 07:25 PM

We differ on what we believe are grounds for denial, but that's not really a surprise, is it?

 

 

 

It's a right not a privilege and thus it doesn't matter what you or I think, only a court of law and due process of law has the right to deny that person their rights...


What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!