hceuterpe

This is same monkeys throwing feces on the wall nonsense they pulled with PICA. The original bill has to do with sending notifications when a broken fire hydrant is to be repaired. They slipped this garbage amendment in hoping no one would notice. We did, so I'm sure now they'll pull the guilt trip of "you're against fire safety if you vote against this bill! Think of the children?!" Ugh, bunch of twats.

I don't think stress management woud actually automatically exclude you. Take for example of adjustment disorder in the acute sense: "Adjustment disorders are caused by major changes or stressors in your life." An easy way to determine is if the facility has beds. And if there's an admissions process. An outpatient visit on the other hand entails scheduling for a set period of time, along with arriving and in particular leaving on your own. So if this facility entirely lacks the means to keep you say overnight, it's certainly outpatient and falls outside this critera. FYI, hospital emergency rooms actually potentially qualify, so don't give them a reason to make it so if you ever have to visit one. Also keep in mind even with outpatient if the provider deems it necessary to report you, then also bad.

I'm surprised no one has talked about this yet (at least that I could find): US appeals court upholds Maryland handgun licensing law https://ground.news/article/federal-appeals-court-upholds-marylands-handgun-licensing-requirements

I prefer the words infringed and taxed

So odd the commonly held yet bizarre notion that merely restricting ownership/possession of firearms for someone deemed too violent in the context of domestic abuse likelihood would alone completely dissuade them in acting upon it. If they're such a risk, it's not like they could carry that out with any other implement they devise as a weapon in which, a normally nonviolent person would consider innocuous. If they're that dangerous to restrict firearm possession for alleged (yet not convicted) domestic violence, then why are they not in jail? Then again this the commonly held mentality to restrict 2A rights in general of that particular political ideology--if we just ban guns, the violence and crime goes away, right?? /S

Isn't this merely about granting an injunction or not? Would imagine that should go faster.

IDHS defines it further: "Developmental Disability (DD): A disability which is attributable to an intellectual disability or a related condition. (Refer to the definitions of an intellectual disability and related condition for further details.)" "Intellectual Disability (ID): Refers to significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested before the age of 18 years. Significantly subaverage is defined as an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 70 or below on standardized measures of intelligence. This upper limit could be extended upward depending on the reliability of the intelligence test used. " https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=53030 Curious if you have records of any formal IQ testing done, as that's pretty commonly done to diagnose ADHD. Or, have an official one conducted now? Perhaps then you can appeal it as a records challenge? Being in special ed classes based on the claim of that doc is absolutely BS. That alone does not classify you as having an ID. IDPs are pretty common in schools, and that doesn't classify you as having an ID by itself. And, school performance by itself does not classify you to be having an ID, either. I'd go to a different evaluator if I were you, I don't think he knows what he's doing... Having a true ID, would woefully disqualify you from ever getting a LEO job, anywhere. 70 IQ is really low. It's roughly 2 SD below average, which would place you in the bottom 2%. It's probably too late, but I'd report that quack doctor, if I were you.

So another question that has been on my mind. In the Bruen ruling, the 14th amendment is mentioned time again. Specifically the equal protection clause is huge in that case specifically, along with Heller. So why do the states keep throwing out racist gun restrictions in support of their bans, that would be found unconstitutional (due to 14th amendment) today? Do they actually, honestly expect those specific laws to cite examples of, to actually stick and be valid? Or are they just really bad lawyers??? These are some of the same people that champion equality and civil rights more vocally and louder than just about anyone, yet when the 2A rolls around all they can think about to justify their bans, is more historically racist bans...

Tbh that order sounds like a teacher assigning a remedial term paper to a student who couldn't follow instructions the first time.😂

Could have been worse. He could have agreed and in turn written an unfavorable eval... The whole evaluation from *any* doctor (and not one that specializes in behavior health) is further proof the over 5 years facet is BS. They wouldn't be considered qualified in any way for any other mental health matter.

Not only that, but instead of the cop obtaining legal counsel on his own or through the union, the city themselves is representing him. Hard to argue there's only a few rotten apples when the city itself is throwing in their legal resources to assist. I've been watching lots of audit videos and getting more familiar with the legalities of cop stops. In particular even for stop and identify states, a cop can't demand/compel you to provide identity on a whim. Only if arrested or detained for reasonable suspicion of a crime. It's not the driver's fault that sizable chunks of your dumpy city is full of crime and prostitutes, let alone being aware of this, as he was out of town. Certainly not justified in violating several of his civil rights. Not to mention the cop losing all impartiality in conducting this stop as a fishing exercise primarily because the driver got lost in a dumpy part of your city--i.e. even if not immediately obvious, let's keep looking unconstitutionally until I find something illegal, or if necessary assumed to be illegal, expired. Not sure anyone can argue that, assumed to be illegal/expired without validating first could ever possibly be construed as reasonable...

The psychologist that I spoke to specializes in FOID evaluations and told me there isn't any point in trying until 5 years have gone by. I have been told to be VERY careful when selecting one to go to as many of them are anti gun to begin with and it's next to impossible to get them to clear you. As for attorneys, I've spoke to a couple but it just seems there aren't very many who really understand the whole thing and maybe that's because ISP makes their own rules as they go along. I actually had one attorney inform me that he may be able to get my IL FOID back but my federal FOID is another issue, I didn't even bother asking him to explain to me what a federal FOID is. I'm also disappointed in the gun groups, seems like one of them would offer some kind of legal assistance or would have filed some sort of class action suit on this. Or at least a suggested list of attorneys and psychologists would be nice. Where is the ACLU? They should be all over the removal of Constitutional rights without due process. It seems to me that I should be able to put a dollar value on the amount of time my rights were unlawfully taken away from me. Funny thing is, this whole ordeal has actually been a testament to the strength of my mental health. If I did have issues, going through this could have pushed me right over the edge. I am compiling information and creating an outline and plan to move forward with meeting with the chief and the officer who wrote the report. It may help me and I don't think it will hurt. I'd still say whoever told you that 5 year minimum is highly suspect and questionable. That particular prohibitor doesn't even have a 5 year period, whereby after the timespan its treated differently...

Seems like you've experienced firsthand one of the most unconstitutional laws the state has to offer. Due process need not apply to this law... The FOID law itself states clear and present danger reporting from LEO needs to be demonstrated behavior. This is in contrast to communicated to specifically psychiatrist, psychologist, etc. So unless you said something specifically to the cop that the cop didn't like, they didn't have grounds to report it. The problem is that report is purely circumstantial in nature and confidential. Seems the ISP also accepts the information unconditionally so they likely won't believe you regardless of whether or not you try to get the local PD to retract it. You're probably best off finding an attorney that specializes in FOID appeals. I wouldn't even bother contacting the police chief before then. The 5 years minimum is bogus. You'll want to get the evaluation from Someone else anyways. Finally in case you haven't figured it out: The cops aren't your friends. The less you say to them. The better off you are.

I'm going to try to say this as nicely as I can: You really should try to keep a more positive stance about appeals, whether it's yours or someone else's. Yes it takes a long time. Yes it seems unfair. But disenfranchising someone else about the appeals process with pessimism won't help anybody.

Your CCL number becomes what your old FOID number was, plus prepended with the 2 digit year the CCL was issued. Then the new FOID number is matched as well. They will send you both a CCL card, and a replacement FOID card reflecting the new number.