skinnyb82

An involuntary admission? Where adjudication occurs? Not the "admission by emergency certificate, conversion to voluntary" but straight up a judge shows up and "affirms" the involuntary hold? Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Could plead a deprivation of civil liberties under the color of law, due process as incorporated into 14A pleading. They're using the administrative state to deny rights of law-abiding citizens. It isn't constitutional and SCOTUS has already blown a giant hole in Auer deference, which is what would be applied here. "Government agencies know best and we shouldn't question them even if their conduct may be constitutional." is not something SCOTUS is a big fan of post-Trump. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

There's a very...ahem, "prestigious" college where I live that has...ahem, "students" (I can smell them before I see them, I'm not kidding) from all around the country (rich white kids ashamed of themselves aka leftists) and I got to talking to a couple of them as I get coffee at a local place known for employing the ones who bathe and aren't completely off their rocker. I heard from multiple students how they were being stopped for having California tags, New York tags, etc, and getting messed with about residency. I don't want them changing their residency to here and then packing my city council and county board with flaming liberals (too late) so I'm VERY sympathetic to their "plight." Do your four (or five, in many cases) years and go back to your home state. Already have enough problems here, don't need you people here making my life even more difficult. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Actually college students frequently get screwed with over this exact thing. Cop sees someone driving with out of state tags, OK, find probable cause to stop vehicle. Ask for DL while asking "What do you do?" and student replies "I'm a college student." Cue the "I see you have a license from (state of residency). Why don't you have a (insert state here) license? Why haven't you established residency?" and subsequent grilling. I could see cops using that to develop RS for continued detention. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I was convicted of DUI even though I got supervision, did all of that, and the charges were "dismissed" (sealed record) but I still plead guilty which is a conviction. Truth here is that you are always convicted unless you are acquitted by a judge or jury, the charges are nol prossed, stricken w/out leave to reinstate, etc. My DUI is ALWAYS visible to law enforcement even though it was "dismissed" so was it really dismissed? Nope. Just sealed. And if I'm within the lookback (I'm not) and I get another DUI (I won't), that'd be my second. How could I get a second DUI if my first was "dismissed?" I'd chalk up many outcomes here from the 70s and 80s and even 90s to just crap reporting to the state. IIRC at one point, something like 15 yrs ago, only like 4 of 102 circuit clerks were reporting mental health adjudications and admissions to the state. So many prohibited persons in Illinois were at least "eligible" to obtain a FOID, and some probably did. Same with criminal stuff. Last year my old lady's cousin got a reckless conviction and the SoS couldn't properly suspend his license (cop put the wrong date on the summary suspension form, didn't correct the defect) so he was driving on it the entire time and even had contact with LEOs who ran his DL, nothing happened and he completed his supervision a couple of months ago. So many things can go wrong...for the state. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Actually you'll find that they process FOID apps for women much faster than for men. Presumably it's because the husband/dad/significant other/uncle/whatever is the gun owner and woman needs the FOID to "make it legal" since "constructive possession." This could be argued as a sexist policy. Hrmph....Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

"Fix The FOID" is even more unconstitutional. Yep our legislators have to one-up one another. "I'm gonna introduce something MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! HA!" Apply logic here. If the current one is unconstitutional then "Fix The FOID" can't even withstand rational basis. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

^^^^^^^^THIS. We all know they troll this board.Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

No the case would probably still be heard without the brief. Justices wouldn't be happy about that and it wouldn't go well because it'd be based on the proceedings in the circuit court and Illinois would prevail as the record from the circuit Court is, uhhh, "lacking." Totally devoid of legal reasoning. Frankly, it's an awful order. Well, both of them. "Unconstitutional tax" but why, judge? How is this different from, say, a permit to assemble? I'd have liked to see a well-reasoned explanation that would have perfected the record for appeal. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Wait, what now? He didn't file a reply brief? Is he having a midlife crisis?Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Short answer is yes, an LCPC is good for a relief eval if they qualify under the IL MHDD (or whatever the eff acronym) code. Here's the citation of statute (MHDD statute adopted by FOID Act for definitions) to support it. You need a, "qualified examiner" which could be a psychiatrist, psychologist, LCPC, LCSW, psychiatric RN.... See 405 ILCS/5-122©. Relevant section of FOID Card Act in re relief cited below that. (405 ILCS 5/1-122) (from Ch. 91 1/2, par. 1-122) Sec. 1-122. Qualified examiner. "Qualified examiner" means a person who is: (a) a Clinical social worker as defined in this Act, ( a registered nurse with a master's degree in psychiatric nursing who has 3 years of clinical training and experience in the evaluation and treatment of mental illness which has been acquired subsequent to any training and experience which constituted a part of the degree program, © a licensed clinical professional counselor with a master's or doctoral degree in counseling or psychology or a similar master's or doctorate program from a regionally accredited institution who has at least 3 years of supervised post-master's clinical professional counseling experience that includes the provision of mental health services for the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of mental and emotional disorders, or (d) a licensed marriage and family therapist with a master's or doctoral degree in marriage and family therapy from a regionally accredited educational institution or a similar master's program or from a program accredited by either the Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy or the Commission on Accreditation for Counseling Related Educational Programs, who has at least 3 years of supervised post-master's experience as a marriage and family therapist that includes the provision of mental health services for the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of mental and emotional disorders. A social worker who is a qualified examiner shall be a licensed clinical social worker under the Clinical Social Work and Social Work Practice Act. (Source: P.A. 96-1357, eff. 1-1-11; 97-333, eff. 8-12-11.) (u) A person who has had his or her Firearm Owner's Identification Card revoked or denied under subsection (e) of this Section or item (iv) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Section 4 of this Act because he or she was a patient in a mental health facility as provided in subsection (e) of this Section, shall not be permitted to obtain a Firearm Owner's Identification Card, after the 5-year period has lapsed, unless he or she has received a mental health evaluation by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner as those terms are defined in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, and has received a certification that he or she is not a clear and present danger to himself, herself, or others. The physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner making the certification and his or her employer shall not be held criminally, civilly, or professionally liable for making or not making the certification required under this subsection, except for willful or wanton misconduct. This subsection does not apply to a person whose firearm possession rights have been restored through administrative or judicial action under Section 10 or 11 of this Act. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Yep because even if the Illinois Supreme Court rules it to be constitutional, SCOTUS can still say "nope you're wrong" and bork every blue state with this kind of garbage. Wouldn't be the first time SCOTUS has done it. Illinois v. Caballes, precedent for K9 walk-arounds, originally decided by ILSC, reversed by SCOTUS. Few others. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

That's because you were arrested less than a year ago. Any drug offense committed will end up with you classed as a "drug addict" for a year and check that box prohibiting ownership. What can you do? Nothing right now. Wait until December. Dismissed or not, still charged and convicted. I had a DUI "dismissed" after successfully completing court supervision. But I plead guilty and have therefore been convicted of DUI. Only in cases of pardon or expungement is the record wiped and the conviction erased. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

This goes beyond expungement. It's an adversarial proceeding. Well, so is expungement but the AG's office will fight you tooth and nail on this one. Your best bet would be to search the forum for others who have had their rights restored by a circuit court (or appellate court). Would retain a lawyer as there's not much room for screwing up. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Good stuff. That was back when ISP was under different management (2014) so who knows how it'll work out now but...it's worth a shot if your only other alternative is to appeal it which would be a waste of time and resources. Both yours and ISP so don't see why ISP legal would have a problem since you'll clear the background. Theoretically, they SHOULD know who's been in inpatient since they check all of the databases and just see that you screwed up. Cut and dry case. Regardless, since this is Illinois, please keep us updated. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk