Molly B. Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:34 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:34 AM Mr. B and I had a very productive meeting with some of the members of JCAR and ISP today. Mr. Pearson of the ISRA joined us. We want to thank Sen. Righter for helping put the meeting together. We had the opportunity to meet the new ISP Chief Legal Counsel Matthew R. Rentschler, who replaced Suzanne Bond - hooray! We went through our concerns line by line. There is a real possibility that most of our concerns with the new proposals are going to be addressed. We will know more after Mr. Rentschler and their Liaison for Governmental Affairs report back to the director. They are in a tough spot with the non-resident issue/statutory requirements put on the ISP. At this point we don't expect that issue to be resolved through rules. We are very encouraged after meeting Mr. Rentschler. Looks like with the change in administration, it is going to be easier to work with the ISP.
RoadyRunner Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:36 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:36 AM Awesome to hear! I look forward to their revised proposal. Thanks for the hard work!
sirflyguy Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:40 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:40 AM Valinda, you and Mike and the rest of all of the team do such a wonderful job. Thank you for being our voice in the room!
Davey Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:42 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:42 AM Good to hear. Imagine if we still had Quinn!
OrlandInstructor Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:43 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:43 AM You are awesome! Thank you for the Update.
SKplumber Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:46 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:46 AM That is great to hear Molly! Thank you so much for all of your hard work!
NRApistol Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:53 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:53 AM Cool, Dale`s my Senator. I`ll make it a point to stop by his office and thank him for the support!
wtr100 Posted August 20, 2015 at 02:01 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 02:01 AM from your keyboard to God's ear ... I wonder if the ISP runs off the Mao ( or was it Stalin) tactic of probe with the bayonet - if you feel steel pull back , if you feel flesh ram it home ... might could be a lesson there ...
SFC Stu Posted August 20, 2015 at 03:11 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 03:11 AM That is great to hear Molly! Thank you so much for all of your hard work! Molly B. and Mr. B are real ambassadors for our cause.
vezpa Posted August 20, 2015 at 04:12 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 04:12 AM They are in a tough spot with the non-resident issue/statutory requirements put on the ISP. At this point we don't expect that issue to be resolved through rules. This is a MAJOR let down.
Gamma Posted August 20, 2015 at 04:33 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 04:33 AM They can invent any definition they want for the phrase "substantially similar". Any state that issues a license or permit could be deemed "substantially similiar". I do wish the rules would be very clear on non-conforming signs. Something I have been seeing a lot recently are clear signs, with just the black and red, put on glass doors. They are almost impossible to see. As I mentioned in one of the other threads, I would like to see the fingerprint requirement for instructors go away. It's completely superflous, especially if someone is already licensed, and not required in the statute.
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2015 at 04:37 AM Author Posted August 20, 2015 at 04:37 AM They can invent any definition they want for the phrase "substantially similar". Any state that issues a license or permit could be deemed "substantially similiar". That isn't the big snag, it's in the FOID Act that the ISP is responsible for verifying the applicant meets the requirements, i.e. not been voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility in the past five years. How do you verify that if states do not report it?
tkroenlein Posted August 20, 2015 at 04:40 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 04:40 AM Would I be correct in assuming that the legal counsel and JCAR et al are a bit skittish about allowing/disallowing out of state resident applications due to the ambiguous nature of the phrase "substantially similar" and feel it needs addressed in the statute?
Tango7 Posted August 20, 2015 at 11:48 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 11:48 AM Glad to see Ms. Bond is gone. I'll always remember her work, most specifically her endorsement of Governor Quinn's Amendatory Veto that she signed as a representative of the ISP. The CoC prevents me from truly expressing the depth and sincerity of my sentiments, but I'm sure there's always a place for a good machine following {D}rone in a campaign office somewhere. They can invent any definition they want for the phrase "substantially similar". Any state that issues a license or permit could be deemed "substantially similiar". That isn't the big snag, it's in the FOID Act that the ISP is responsible for verifying the applicant meets the requirements, i.e. not been voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility in the past five years. How do you verify that if states do not report it? How about having the applicant fill out a waiver of confidentiality, list any admissions and the officer/agent assigned to the out of state applications actually <gasp> does some investigating rather than relying on the ability to simply scan an Excel sheet to see of the state of residence has been color coded red or green? And it's not that the states report it or not, it's that voluntary admissions are not automatic DQ's for a CCW in their home state, so basically if theur state doesn't follow the same rules as IL for their home license, they get bounced.
RoadyRunner Posted August 20, 2015 at 11:51 AM Posted August 20, 2015 at 11:51 AM That isn't the big snag, it's in the FOID Act that the ISP is responsible for verifying the applicant meets the requirements, i.e. not been voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility in the past five years. How do you verify that if states do not report it?There are many requirements for issuance, only one of which is 'not been voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility in the last 5 years'....The statute does not say 'identical'. It says 'substantially similar' - as in must meet most, though not all, of the requirements.JCAR/ISP seem to think that some requirements are required - but the statute does not bear that out. It does not define which requirements are required, nor which are optional when testing for 'substantially similar'. If a State meets most or all other requirements, why is it not still 'substantially similar'?
BIGDEESUL Posted August 20, 2015 at 12:25 PM Posted August 20, 2015 at 12:25 PM They can invent any definition they want for the phrase "substantially similar". Any state that issues a license or permit could be deemed "substantially similiar". That isn't the big snag, it's in the FOID Act that the ISP is responsible for verifying the applicant meets the requirements, i.e. not been voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility in the past five years. How do you verify that if states do not report it?Have them sign a HIPAA release and sign off on their own under penalty of perjury attesting that they haven't. Or they could just not worry about it. Many other states don't seem to have an issue with it. Regardless, thank you for the update, and all the work you do on our behalf!
ojmjr Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:07 PM Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:07 PM My issue is I had a current IL permit so I obviously met all the requirements and then moved to IN and became not qualified.How does that happen to be alright?
stm Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:56 PM Posted August 20, 2015 at 01:56 PM They are saying the FOID Act is what is keeping non-residents from getting a CCL? Then how is it that non-residents can possess a firearm and carry it in their vehicles without a FOID card? They don't all live in states that report voluntary admissions. What about non-resident police officers and armed security? They, as non-residents, are issued a FOID card for professional purposes, but how many of them live in "substantially similar" states that report voluntary admissions? Very few, if any. The inconsistencies and hypocrisy is astounding. I hope someone with some common sense can find a solution, even if it is a legislative fix.
DomG Posted August 20, 2015 at 02:11 PM Posted August 20, 2015 at 02:11 PM They are saying the FOID Act is what is keeping non-residents from getting a CCL? Then how is it that non-residents can possess a firearm and carry it in their vehicles without a FOID card? They don't all live in states that report voluntary admissions. What about non-resident police officers and armed security? They, as non-residents, are issued a FOID card for professional purposes, but how many of them live in "substantially similar" states that report voluntary admissions? Very few, if any. The inconsistencies and hypocrisy is astounding. I hope someone with some common sense can find a solution, even if it is a legislative fix. Typical Illinois political buffoonery.
catgunguy Posted August 20, 2015 at 02:31 PM Posted August 20, 2015 at 02:31 PM Thank you for all your hard work.
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2015 at 03:14 PM Author Posted August 20, 2015 at 03:14 PM They are saying the FOID Act is what is keeping non-residents from getting a CCL? Then how is it that non-residents can possess a firearm and carry it in their vehicles without a FOID card? They don't all live in states that report voluntary admissions. What about non-resident police officers and armed security? They, as non-residents, are issued a FOID card for professional purposes, but how many of them live in "substantially similar" states that report voluntary admissions? Very few, if any. The inconsistencies and hypocrisy is astounding. I hope someone with some common sense can find a solution, even if it is a legislative fix. No, what they are saying is that FOID Act requires the ISP to check an Illinois resident's mental health background for voluntary as well as involuntary admission to a mental health facility. They do that because those are both reported to the state. The ISP cannot do this same background check on non-residents who live in states that do not report. The ISP cannot fulfill what they are statutorily required to do. To issue a CCL to a non-resident without doing that mental health background check would then set up a special class for non-residents which is a legal/constitutional no-no. Work is still going on to find language for the rules that will fix this. I know Todd and his legal guys are working hard on it. Hopefully there is still a fix to be found.
stm Posted August 20, 2015 at 03:29 PM Posted August 20, 2015 at 03:29 PM The ISP cannot do this same background check on non-residents who live in states that do not report. The ISP cannot fulfill what they are statutorily required to do. To issue a CCL to a non-resident without doing that mental health background check would then set up a special class for non-residents which is a legal/constitutional no-no. Then how do they get around that requirement so they can issue FOIDs to non-resident police and armed security? I don't think any bordering state reports voluntary mental health admissions.
Gamma Posted August 20, 2015 at 03:58 PM Posted August 20, 2015 at 03:58 PM They can invent any definition they want for the phrase "substantially similar". Any state that issues a license or permit could be deemed "substantially similiar".That isn't the big snag, it's in the FOID Act that the ISP is responsible for verifying the applicant meets the requirements, i.e. not been voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility in the past five years. How do you verify that if states do not report it? How do they verify it for Illinois residents? As I said before, there is no difference if an Illinois resident goes to Indiana to get voluntary mental health help versus an Indiana resident. Neither would apparently be reported to the Illinois government, but all Indiana residents lose their civil rights because of it and no Illinois residents. And as previously mentioned, they issued FOIDs to special categories of non-residents. To issue a CCL to a non-resident without doing that mental health background check would then set up a special class for non-residents which is a legal/constitutional no-no.Your assertion is backwards. Creating an unenforceable requirement and then denying massive numbers of Americans their civil rights because it's unenforceable is NOT constitutional. What is Constitutionally required is that they provide for the exercise of fundamental civil rights. Its the STATE'S responsibility to perform a scheme of reasonable regulation if the STATE chooses to enact that. What I'm trying to say, is that issuance of licenses is what is Constitutionally required; the background check scheme is what is optional and is the responsibility of the state. If the scheme of regulation the state has devised is impossible to fulfill, it has to be changed. It's like a NICS check - if they can't come up with a definitive "deny", the sale is allowed to proceed. Presumably the additional $150 for non-resident licensing is to pay for the difficulty of these additional checks for non-residents, which ISP is not performing and apparently is unable to perform.
stockboyy Posted August 20, 2015 at 04:57 PM Posted August 20, 2015 at 04:57 PM That isn't the big snag, it's in the FOID Act that the ISP is responsible for verifying the applicant meets the requirements, i.e. not been voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility in the past five years. How do you verify that if states do not report it? Maybe ILLINOIS has exceeded the limits of (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED).
THE KING Posted August 20, 2015 at 05:26 PM Posted August 20, 2015 at 05:26 PM · Hidden by Molly B., August 20, 2015 at 05:32 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., August 20, 2015 at 05:32 PM - No reason given Hey Valinda After we talked this morning I realized that you didn't say that Todd V. was in this meeting. Which I find surprising. Why wasn't the NRA there?
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2015 at 05:45 PM Author Posted August 20, 2015 at 05:45 PM That isn't the big snag, it's in the FOID Act that the ISP is responsible for verifying the applicant meets the requirements, i.e. not been voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility in the past five years. How do you verify that if states do not report it? Maybe ILLINOIS has exceeded the limits of (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED). That goes without question!! They most certainly have.
BIGDEESUL Posted August 20, 2015 at 05:53 PM Posted August 20, 2015 at 05:53 PM What about on resident military? Don't they get issued foid cards? I wad reading the recent case of the woman from Montana in the air force not being able to obtain a ccl, yet she was issued a FOID. how can they verify the voluntary mental health reporting for her, and issue a foid but not do it for other non residents? Hasn't this created a special class?
Molly B. Posted August 20, 2015 at 05:59 PM Author Posted August 20, 2015 at 05:59 PM What about on resident military? Don't they get issued foid cards? I wad reading the recent case of the woman from Montana in the air force not being able to obtain a ccl, yet she was issued a FOID. how can they verify the voluntary mental health reporting for her, and issue a foid but not do it for other non residents? Hasn't this created a special class? LOL, I'm not saying I agree with them, only that this is their understanding.
kwc Posted August 20, 2015 at 06:00 PM Posted August 20, 2015 at 06:00 PM For non-resident applicants, the wording in the statute requires substantial similarity to Illinois firearm laws related to three areas: (1) ownership, (2) possession, and (3) carrying. (1) and (2) are regulated by the FOID Act and in the Criminal Code. (3) is regulated in the FCCA and in the criminal code. I presume this is why the FOID Act has become a sticking point and the reason ISP feels its hands are (somewhat) tied. Obviously we will never find laws in other states that are identical. But that still leaves a lot of room for defining "substantially similar" in these three areas. Ideally, just strike that language from the FCCA and all would be good.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.