kwc Posted October 24, 2014 at 03:43 PM Share Posted October 24, 2014 at 03:43 PM Maryland's lame duck Attorney General is anti-gun. As is the democratic candidate running to replace him. Neither is likely to assist the reciprocity process. Has anyone in other states been successful getting the survey answered via an alternative means (ie the Governor or Chief LEO of the County)? Or has anyone acquired a copy of the Illinois survey letter (ie via FOIA request)? I just noticed your post from August (must have missed it previously). I obtained (via FOIA request) copies of the survey request letters for all "no response" states. All were sent out end of October 2013. I've attached the Maryland letter. http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/24/5c461b1bbab30a00ef60f70c2e19b57d.jpghttp://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10/24/1d34eec0a446559b454c8c39dae42de1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherpunk Posted October 24, 2014 at 03:45 PM Share Posted October 24, 2014 at 03:45 PM Maryland's lame duck Attorney General is anti-gun. As is the democratic candidate running to replace him. Neither is likely to assist the reciprocity process. Has anyone in other states been successful getting the survey answered via an alternative means (ie the Governor or Chief LEO of the County)? Or has anyone acquired a copy of the Illinois survey letter (ie via FOIA request)? I just noticed your post from August (must have missed it previously). I obtained (via FOIA request) copies of the survey request letters for all "no response" states. All were sent out end of October 2013. I've attached the Maryland letter. Mega awesome work. I'll put this to good use right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherpunk Posted October 24, 2014 at 03:50 PM Share Posted October 24, 2014 at 03:50 PM Good news. It appears as if I was just approved as a IL CCL Instructor. Outstanding! That is great news! When did you apply? I'm still waiting for approval as a non-resident instructor (applied Aug 8). I arranged for anyone interested to get LiveScanned at the 29th Annual GRPC on 9/27 (since it has to be done by a double certified vendor, in state). It took about 1.5 weeks to get my ID, and I applied online 2-3 days later. Approval appears to have occurred early today or yesterday. So far, I only see it online and in list of instructors. No info by US Mail or email yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 24, 2014 at 03:52 PM Share Posted October 24, 2014 at 03:52 PM Good news. It appears as if I was just approved as a IL CCL Instructor. Outstanding! That is great news! When did you apply? I'm still waiting for approval as a non-resident instructor (applied Aug 8). I arranged for anyone interested to get LiveScanned at the 29th Annual GRPC on 9/27 (since it has to be done by a double certified vendor, in state). It took about 1.5 weeks to get my ID, and I applied online 2-3 days later. Approval appears to have occurred early today or yesterday. So far, I only see it online and in list of instructors. No info by US Mail or email yet. Whoa! That's less than one month. I'm quickly approaching 3 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnidelyWhiplash Posted February 7, 2015 at 05:10 AM Share Posted February 7, 2015 at 05:10 AM Does anyone have inside knowledge about how the new Governor of Illinois and the departure of the ISP director might affect non-resident permits? Can the definition of "similar" states be interpreted more loosely if some more pro-2nd Amendment are introduced into the ISP? Also, there were some bills in the last session:http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=5725&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=80999&SessionID=85http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=4619&GAID=12&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=79201&SessionID=85&GA=98http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=3010&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=79283&SessionID=85 Anyone know if any of those bills will be reintroduced, or heard of any new ones? I'm planning on attending the IGOLD rally again. http://isra.org/Events/AnnualEvents/iGOLD.aspxI'm a Cheesehead, but I so "appreciated" the visits by liberal FIBs to Madison, testi-lying at our public hearings trying to block Wisconsin CCW bills, that I thought I'd visit Springfield and show my appreciation by showing another pro-gun face and gold cap. It's fun to walk through the Capitol and look at the Cook County reps and lobbyists standing in hallways in their $1000 suits and looking like they had just finished eating **** sandwiches as they watched the IGOLD poeple pass by. Even if you are not a Friendly Illinois Bumpkin, you should consider attending the IGOLD rally on March 18th. The ISRA is running buses from several cities. If you live in a state adjacent to Illinois you might want to see if there is a city near to you and save part of the drive. They do charge for the ride, but it's worth it to have an hour or two to jabber with fellow pro-gun people during the trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted August 30, 2016 at 01:26 PM Share Posted August 30, 2016 at 01:26 PM BUMP!So when can a Wisconsin resident obtain an Illinois permit?I spent money on Training, Digital prints and obtained an Illinois Digital ID all for naught!The person heading the ISP area at the time told me that Wisconsin had not responded to an Illinois query.When I obtained the response and emailed it to her, no comment.So, I wait on this side of border.-Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 30, 2016 at 01:52 PM Share Posted August 30, 2016 at 01:52 PM (edited) BUMP! So when can a Wisconsin resident obtain an Illinois permit? I spent money on Training, Digital prints and obtained an Illinois Digital ID all for naught! The person heading the ISP area at the time told me that Wisconsin had not responded to an Illinois query. When I obtained the response and emailed it to her, no comment. So, I wait on this side of border.-Richard Wisconsin still does not meet the definition of "substantially similar," as the ISP has defined it. This specific issue is Wisconsin not restricting individuals from firearm possession that have voluntarily admitted themselves into an inpatient facility for treatment of mental health concerns. In my opinion, if it happens, we are at least six months to two years away. A lot depends on the outcome of Culp v. Madigan, and perhaps Meyers v. Schmitz, efforts to revise the administrative code, and legislative action. Others of us are in the same boat and share your pain. It's very frustrating. Edited August 30, 2016 at 01:56 PM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted August 30, 2016 at 02:08 PM Share Posted August 30, 2016 at 02:08 PM BUMP!So when can a Wisconsin resident obtain an Illinois permit?I spent money on Training, Digital prints and obtained an Illinois Digital ID all for naught!The person heading the ISP area at the time told me that Wisconsin had not responded to an Illinois query.When I obtained the response and emailed it to her, no comment.So, I wait on this side of border.-RichardCurrently, the only states considered to be substantially similar are Hawaii, New Mexico, South Carolina and Virginia. I dont expect any others to be added any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted August 30, 2016 at 04:44 PM Share Posted August 30, 2016 at 04:44 PM Meyers vs Schmitz is going to a hearing on Sept 7 to try and disqualify this insane survey. Cup vs Madigan is in Court on Sept 22 (can't speak for what the yard doing) 430 ILCS 65/ has the following regarding mental illness under Section 4:iv) He or she has not been a patient in a mental health facility within the past 5 years, or if he or she has been a patient in a mental health facility more than 5 years ago, submit the certification required under subsection (u) of Section 8 of the FOID xv) He or she has not been adjudicated as a person with a mental disability xvi) He or she has not been involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility The survey is asking something the FOID (430 ILCS 65/) , FCCA (430 ILCS 66/) and Admin Code (20 Ill. Admin. Code 12310.10) does not unless Im missing it, in that the Survey asks regarding possession and the aforementioned docs mention carrying. Just for clarification purposes, substantially similar as of today means:- Comparable state regulars who may carry firearms concealed or otherwise in public- Prohibits all who have involuntary mental health admissions, and this with voluntary admissions within 5 years from carrying firearms concealed or otherwise in public- Reports Denied persons to NICS- Participates in reporting persons authorized to carry firearms, concealed or otherwise in public through NLETs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 30, 2016 at 04:51 PM Share Posted August 30, 2016 at 04:51 PM Just for clarification purposes, substantially similar as of today means: . . - Prohibits all who have involuntary mental health admissions, and those with voluntary admissions within 5 years from carrying firearms concealed or otherwise in public . . I wrote my response too quickly and goofed--yes, it is "carrying," not "possession." My bad--thanks for citing the definition from the admin code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted August 30, 2016 at 04:52 PM Share Posted August 30, 2016 at 04:52 PM Also important to note the voluntary admission is not a disqualified of a FOID (possession) but is for CCW for the purpose of carrying although the 2013 survey indicates this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 30, 2016 at 05:14 PM Share Posted August 30, 2016 at 05:14 PM (edited) Also important to note the voluntary admission is not a disqualified of a FOID (possession) but is for CCW for the purpose of carrying although the 2013 survey indicates thisExpanding on this for those interested in seeing more: see post #241 above for a sample survey. Note that question 4 of the survey links voluntary mental health admissions and "possession," even though the definition of substantially similar specifically addresses "carrying." Edited August 30, 2016 at 05:15 PM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted August 31, 2016 at 07:48 PM Share Posted August 31, 2016 at 07:48 PM I can assure you that Wisconsin will NOT change it's reporting requirements.Any person even remotely familiar with Drug & Alcohol addition knows that reporting of voluntary admissions to any Federal, State or Local agency is considered not a sound requirement and a hinderance.So it seems that Illinois will keep it's Draconian system.My understanding is that the ISP put this requirement in when it wrote the rules and this requirement was not in the Legislation that was passed. I believe it's up to the Illinois Legislature to fix that process.Maybe more would get done if Wisconsin would not recognize Illinois concealed permits? -Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted August 31, 2016 at 09:59 PM Share Posted August 31, 2016 at 09:59 PM (edited) Maybe more would get done if Wisconsin would not recognize Illinois concealed permits?Illinois doesn't care in the least if any other state recognizes their licenses. As I mentioned in the other thread on the survey, the survey questions do not match up with what is stated in the Admin code. The 5 year voluntary mental health thing is not in the statute, it's an invention of the administrative rules. The 5 year restriction are on those in residential or court ordered substance abuse treatment. "Substantially similar" is not defined in the statute and is an invention of the administrative rules. The statute DOES say, with regards to non-resident applicants: In lieu of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card, the applicant shall submit documentation and information required by the Department to obtain a Firearm Owner's Identification Card, including an affidavit that the non-resident meets the mental health standards to obtain a firearm under Illinois law, and the Department shall ensure that the applicant would meet the eligibility criteria to obtain a Firearm Owner's Identification card if he or she was a resident of this State.Which is not being performed AFAIK. This part of the statute would seem to establish the legislative intent for dealing with mental health for non-resident license applicants which is not being followed in the process invented in the admin code. Also note that the requirement is to meet the requirements to obtain a firearm in Illinois (FOID), not to carry a firearm. This may have been an oversight by the legislature, but that's what the law says. Edited August 31, 2016 at 10:03 PM by Gamma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted August 31, 2016 at 10:47 PM Share Posted August 31, 2016 at 10:47 PM (edited) I think the ISP's logic is this: 1. A resident can lose his or her FOID if admitted into a mental health facility for treatment within the last 5 years.2. Lose FOID = Lose FCCA.3. In the FCCA, substantially similar is defined relative to "laws related to firearm ownership, possession, and carrying,"4. The admin code indirectly incorporates the 5-year provision for voluntary admissions. Of course we all believe this is overreach, but I think this represents the rationale they are using. Similar should not equal identical. Edited August 31, 2016 at 10:53 PM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted September 1, 2016 at 04:36 PM Share Posted September 1, 2016 at 04:36 PM A lot of this has been and continues to be argued in Meyers vs Schmitz. Next up will be arguing it to the ALJ next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted September 3, 2016 at 03:53 PM Share Posted September 3, 2016 at 03:53 PM I can assure you that Wisconsin will NOT change it's reporting requirements.Any person even remotely familiar with Drug & Alcohol addition knows that reporting of voluntary admissions to any Federal, State or Local agency is considered not a sound requirement and a hinderance.So it seems that Illinois will keep it's Draconian system.My understanding is that the ISP put this requirement in when it wrote the rules and this requirement was not in the Legislation that was passed. I believe it's up to the Illinois Legislature to fix that process.Maybe more would get done if Wisconsin would not recognize Illinois concealed permits? -RichardReporting voluntary admissions to the fed would be illegal since states can only legally report involuntary admissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cypherpunk Posted September 23, 2016 at 03:11 AM Share Posted September 23, 2016 at 03:11 AM Maryland's lame duck Attorney General is anti-gun. As is the democratic candidate running to replace him. Neither is likely to assist the reciprocity process. Has anyone in other states been successful getting the survey answered via an alternative means (ie the Governor or Chief LEO of the County)? Or has anyone acquired a copy of the Illinois survey letter (ie via FOIA request)? I just noticed your post from August (must have missed it previously). I obtained (via FOIA request) copies of the survey request letters for all "no response" states. All were sent out end of October 2013. I've attached the Maryland letter. Any chance anyone has access to the latest survey sent to Maryland as mentioned in the recent court hearing? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted September 23, 2016 at 10:44 AM Share Posted September 23, 2016 at 10:44 AM (edited) Any chance anyone has access to the latest survey sent to Maryland as mentioned in the recent court hearing? The State's legal counsel in Culp v. Madigan yesterday briefed during oral arguments at the CA7 that surveys were "recently" sent to the other 49 states again. That happened in Sep/Oct 2015, nearly one year ago. Unfortunately, Maryland didn't respond to the original 2013 survey (as you know), nor did they respond in 2015. I've attached the survey request letter sent by the ISP. You can also read more in this thread: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=62994&hl= Maryland 2015 Survey Request.pdf . Edited September 23, 2016 at 10:45 AM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted November 16, 2016 at 05:43 PM Share Posted November 16, 2016 at 05:43 PM I really appreciate the effort put forth by kwc!As before, Wisconsin does not report voluntary admissions.I would think a Federal Concealed Carry law would be at most optimistic in President elect Trump's second term.But Trump now owes the NRA and I wonder what the actual price will be from the NRA?Anyway, I have stopped most of my Illinois activities in the City of Chicago because, armed or not it's dangerous.-RichardPolitically speaking, Trump's legacy will be the Supreme court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted November 17, 2016 at 01:22 AM Share Posted November 17, 2016 at 01:22 AM I would think a Federal Concealed Carry law would be at most optimistic in President elect Trump's second term. But Trump now owes the NRA and I wonder what the actual price will be from the NRA?There should not be a "federal concealed carry law", any more than what already exists. What we should get, and that there are already bills for, and that Trump has said he supports, is nationwide recognition. Such that all states have to do like say Missouri or Indiana do and just recognize all permits for non-residents. The worst they can do is limit recognition to permits that meet some set of criteria. If that happens, expect states like Indiana to follow the lead of states like Idaho that have an optional "enhanced" permit that meets the standards. Pretty confident that Illinois will meet whatever standard out of the gate. Look at how LEOSA is set up, this is not rocket science, this road is already built. There will not be federal concealed carry permits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted November 17, 2016 at 05:27 PM Share Posted November 17, 2016 at 05:27 PM I really appreciate the effort put forth by kwc! Glad to do it--I'm very invested in this issue, to put it mildly! There will not be federal concealed carry permits. I agree this should not happen. A federal license/permit could be dangerous in the hands of a future legislature that decides to use that licensing process to gradually infringe even more upon the rights protected by the 2A. Will national recognition pass in the current legislature? As I've mentioned in another thread, despite the campaign rhetoric, I believe it will be much harder than President-elect Trump has led us to believe. Overcoming a filibuster in the Senate will be the biggest hurdle, followed by those who believe the 10th Amendment trumps all. We'll see what happens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bk2323 Posted February 28, 2017 at 07:21 PM Share Posted February 28, 2017 at 07:21 PM (edited) Hello All, I'm a New Mexico resident that went through the Illinois non-resident CCL process, and legally obtained my license in July of 2016. Just a short time ago, I received a notice in the mail that my non-resident Illinois CCL had been revoked due to New Mexico no longer meeting the "substantially similar" state criteria. With a little research of the survey, it looks like the issue is that they answered No to the 2015 question #6 "Does your state prohibit the use or possession of firearms based on a voluntary mental health admission within the last five years?". However, they answered this as Yes in the 2013-14 survey. I can't seem to find anything on record that New Mexico no longer monitors voluntary mental health in their application process, so I'm wondering if this survey answer was misinterpreted. In addition Arkansas, seems to have answered similarly to New Mexico in the 2015 survey, and they were granted "substantially similar" state status. I guess my question is, do I have anything to stand on in presenting this argument to an appeal board to try to keep my Illinois non-resident license? If not, I feel pretty slighted by the fact that I didn't have my license more than 6-7 months before Illinois found a way to invalidate it. Basically $300+ dollars, and a weekend in a classroom down the drain for almost nothing. If I don't stand a chance in appeal, is there any use in trying to get a portion of my application fee back? Thanks for the help, this forum is a great resource! Edited February 28, 2017 at 07:21 PM by bk2323 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangrel Posted February 28, 2017 at 07:35 PM Share Posted February 28, 2017 at 07:35 PM Hello All, I'm a New Mexico resident that went through the Illinois non-resident CCL process, and legally obtained my license in July of 2016. Just a short time ago, I received a notice in the mail that my non-resident Illinois CCL had been revoked due to New Mexico no longer meeting the "substantially similar" state criteria. With a little research of the survey, it looks like the issue is that they answered No to the 2015 question #6 "Does your state prohibit the use or possession of firearms based on a voluntary mental health admission within the last five years?". However, they answered this as Yes in the 2013-14 survey. I can't seem to find anything on record that New Mexico no longer monitors voluntary mental health in their application process, so I'm wondering if this survey answer was misinterpreted. In addition Arkansas, seems to have answered similarly to New Mexico in the 2015 survey, and they were granted "substantially similar" state status. I guess my question is, do I have anything to stand on in presenting this argument to an appeal board to try to keep my Illinois non-resident license? If not, I feel pretty slighted by the fact that I didn't have my license more than 6-7 months before Illinois found a way to invalidate it. Basically $300+ dollars, and a weekend in a classroom down the drain for almost nothing. If I don't stand a chance in appeal, is there any use in trying to get a portion of my application fee back? Thanks for the help, this forum is a great resource!Hi and welcome to our site. Very sorry to hear about this ordeal, as this is the first time I have heard of such action being taken, but I have wondered if they were going to do something like this. Depending on how many licensees are in the State of New Mexico and other states that have now been removed from "substantially similar", I wonder if this has the makings of a class action suit. After all, you went through the required 16 hours of training, paid the state the $150 required to obtain a license for 5 years, and now through no fault or action of your own, they have revoked that license less than a year later. Just food for thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 28, 2017 at 07:36 PM Share Posted February 28, 2017 at 07:36 PM (edited) 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. Edited February 28, 2017 at 08:50 PM by kwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bk2323 Posted February 28, 2017 at 08:13 PM Share Posted February 28, 2017 at 08:13 PM Wow, looks like you guys are way ahead of me on this! Still very unfortunate news, and I don't have high expectations of this playing out very well based on those responses. A PM has been sent though. Fingers crossed an appeal will help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmeyers Posted February 28, 2017 at 08:28 PM Share Posted February 28, 2017 at 08:28 PM Ill chime in here that I know of atleast 1 attorney that would be happy to represent in a phone based appeal for the NM residents (not sure who/how would pay the bill for it), but if you want that contact info PM me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bk2323 Posted February 28, 2017 at 08:40 PM Share Posted February 28, 2017 at 08:40 PM PM sent, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted April 28, 2017 at 08:50 PM Share Posted April 28, 2017 at 08:50 PM (edited) Burp! Err Bump!If I didn't know this is real, I would have thought it was the script for a movie rivaling, 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'!-RichardBTW, this is what happens when Legislation is passed mandated by a CourtI have no doubt that the ISP and disgruntled Illinois Legislators conspired to find a method to hinder the process or maybe they just inadvertantly stumbled on a method?In any event when the Wis DOJ put in requirements contrary to Legislation, the Wis Legislature passed Emergency Legislation rendering the onerous DOJ requirements null and void.Now Wis is battling to have the right to carry without any permit.You should read the self serving letter I got from my Democratic State Representative. My Rep used to be a Republican and a good one at that until gerrymandering put me in this idiot's District. My State Senator, even though a Democrat is on-board and so far gets my vote.BTW For the record, my Property taxes have decreased for the third straight year, directly as a result of our Republican Governors policies. Edited April 28, 2017 at 08:52 PM by budrichard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted August 5, 2019 at 09:40 PM Share Posted August 5, 2019 at 09:40 PM Well, two years on and I see that nothing has changed in Illinois.In Wisconsin we have a Democratic Governor who for the present has not been able to change The Personal Protection Act.My wife and I have our 5 year renewals and the State of Wisconsin has not experienced the Armageddon predicted.We have sadly curtailed visits to Chicago 100% not because I cannot carry concealed but because of the high volume of crime.One would be foolish to venture into high crime areas just because one had a firearm concealed.Will check in another few years but I don’t expect any change.-Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now