kwc

Posts 1 and 2 have been updated to reflect CCLRB outcomes through July 2018. I added this note to post 2:

Or, you could just join the military. 29 years and counting--it's been a good experience for me. But seriously, so sorry for your pain. I hope you are able to get this resolved quickly.

I attached the reports for Sep, Oct, and Nov 2017 to post #1 and updated the 2016-2017 summary attachment in post #2. Will add the Dec report and summarize all of 2017 when it is available.

Posts #1 and 2 have been updated with the latest reports (Jun-Aug 2017).

Bravo.Whiskey, ATF regulations (mandated by the Brady Act) require proof of (1) identification and (2) residency. In most states, for typical residents, this translates to a driver's license with your photo and street address; that satisfies both requirements. Of course, under federal law, military members are considered residents of the state in which they are stationed with respect to buying/selling/transferring firearms. Per the ATF, military members can provide a military ID to satisfy the identification requirement, and a copy of orders to satisfy the "residency" requirement. In Illinois, the FOID is intended to cover both ID and residency requirements, and the state has already seen your orders to verify you qualify for a FOID. If Gander Mountain objects to the different addresses, I would simply plan to have my orders with me if there's a chance I will purchase there. IMHO it's not a big deal. In case you aren't aware, this state does NOT consider you a resident for purposes of obtaining a concealed carry license. You can buy and sell firearms here all you want but don't take them outside of your home or car unless they're unloaded and in a case! FYI, I'm at Scott AFB too but will PCS in a couple of weeks to a "free" state where I am free to defend myself outside of my home and car.

If only we could find out how many backlogged applications fall into that category! Unfortunately, they won't release the data (FOIA-exempt). Do we have any self-reported data from applicants that could indicate the shortest possible turnaround time for a CCLRB review? Is anyone being cleared in the 1-3 month range?

Thanks for the update, much appreciated. I'm just confused as to why they still have not reviewed my application yet? They have gone through over ~2800 people since I have been UBR. Last time I checked there were only ~2400 people UBR. What is going on? How incredibly frustrating! So sorry you're having to go through this. My best guess is that the CCLRB isn't handling these first-in, first-out. They are batch processing applications with similarities they believe may be easier to clear first. See my post #33 above.

I just updated the first two posts with the latest data from March, April, and May 2017.

My opinion only--without preemption in the UUW statute, your questions can only be answered by reading the municipal codes and accompanying penalties for each area you transit. You wouldn't be charged with violating state law, due to SB607, but could still be charged with violating a local ordinance.

Not sure of the actual number of nonresidents who have FOIDs. There are at least 25K or 30K that are eligible. Nevertheless, most nonresidents don't qualify. Holmes doesn't help us here. The IL Supreme Court ruling addressed two issues: unloaded and in a case / accessibility, and a unified reading of both the UUW statute and the FOID Act as they apply to possession of firearms. It is the latter issue that you are probably thinking of here. The FOID Act allows possession of firearms, tasers, stun guns, and ammunition without a FOID card under specific circumstances. Provisions include: The court said that Holmes was legal to possess a firearm because he did have a license to carry in Indiana, even if he didn't have it with him. (As an aside, an actual physical license isn't required; a more recent Federal court ruling in the Central District Court of Illinois concluded that "allowed to possess" in one's home state is what this section of the statute really means.) But the FOID Act doesn't mention knives, nor does the proposed switchblade bill add anything about them. The bill only makes changes to the UUW/AUUW statute. So neither of these nonresident exemptions in the FOID Act apply to nonresident possession of switchblades. It's an important nuance because if the bill passes, the headlines will say that Illinois no longer bans switchblade knives for FOID holders, and nonresidents used to bringing firearms into the state under the FOID exemptions might assume they would also be legal carrying a switchblade into the state, too. They would be mistaken. Nevertheless, the legislation is progress and it's encouraging to see the level of support it is receiving. .

Just an observation, in case the question comes up: Nonresidents will not be covered by this bill unless they have a FOID. The current FOID Act allows nonresidents to possess firearms and ammunition in the state without a FOID card. SB607 does not add switchblades to this list. Nonresidents who qualify for and have a FOID will be allowed to possess a switchblade, but other nonresidents will not.

I haven't yet requested the reports covering March and April. I plan to request the next batch mid-June to cover March through May.

Very well stated, OldMarineVet.

And it falls well within the scope of the 2A--knives are "arms."

It is clear the CCLRB occasionally filters the application objections by source (county? LEO?), reason (contacts that didn't result in an arrest?), the applicant's age (under 18 at the time of the alleged offense?), or another factor, and processes those as a group regardless of position in the queue. March 2016 and Jan 2017 are good examples, when they overturned every single objection. I would REALLY like to know the common thread for those groupings. Unfortunately the ISP won't share this with us through a FOIA request. But the CCLRB knows what is happening. Just imagine if the ISP would identify these categories and post an advisory to LEOs to "consider" during the 30-day objection period. Something like "Objections based on xxxxxx have been historically overturned by the CCLRB..." might help to reduce the number of frivolous objections, if the LEOs would adjust to this feedback. Of course, there are much more dramatic actions that could and should be taken to uphold the spirit and intent of a shall-issue statute, but IMHO the feedback loop just described could have a helpful impact on reducing the backlog.

Posts 1 and 2 have been updated with data from the first two months of calendar year 2017. We're off to a good start this year.

bk2323, Welcome to IllinoisCarry! I'm sorry it is your current circumstances that brought you here, however. There is another thread you may wish to review on this topic: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=64716&hl= You'll note in post #75 of that thread a reference to another NM resident facing the same dilemma. Now we know about two of the three NM residents who are having their licenses revoked. I would absolutely recommend you appeal your case and if nothing else attempt to secure a pro-rated refund. However, given the current state of affairs on nonresident licensing, you face an uphill battle on both fronts. The ISP has dug its heels into the ground and isn't budging. Unfortunately, neither is the Illinois General Assembly. If you PM me with your email address I might be able to connect you with the other known NM resident. Building some synergy in your appeals to the ISP might be beneficial.

My interpretation is "yes." From SB 12:

I thought this post looked VERY familiar...

That was the OP's first and only post, and we've heard nothing from him in 1.5 months. Odd.

Looks like the plaintiff appealed to the CA7 in Dec 2016 but didn't file the Docketing Statement in time. The court ordered the cause dismissed. From the order, issued Jan 20, 2017:

Posts #1 and #2 have been updated to reflect the year-end totals. Reiterating the bottom line: - The CCLRB reviewed 2725 applications during 2016 - They affirmed denial for 437 of those applications - % denials upheld in 2016 = 16%

My previous post had a typo--this is a Southern District Court of Illinois, not Central. My mistake--"Central" has been my primary focus. This ruling was from Judge Rosenstengel.

The Central District Court of Illinois denied the motion to alter judgment, citing multiple reasons, depending upon the issue raised: irrelevance, should have introduced argument before ruling, raised argument already and the court rejected it, and the "reasonableness" of the state's substantially similar requirements for nonresident application rules as held by CA7 in the Culp v. Madigan preliminary injunction denial. Order on Motion to Alter Judgment.pdf

Unfortunately, despite submitting a revision to the request and limiting it to purely summary data, my appeal to the Attorney General was denied. It looks as though I won't be able to collect either county-by-county rejections or lag time for applications awaiting review by the CCLRB. ISP claims these data are all protected from FOIA and the Attorney General agrees with the ISP. Sorry 'bout this...