Jump to content

Out of state applicants


Recommended Posts

Virginia is back on again. It was off for a couple hours.... :shrugs: Doesn't help the majority of legal citizens anyways.

 

I personally doubt they'll be many, if any more added this year.

 

Based on the response chart in the FAQs, I agree--it is unlikely more will join the ranks of these three unless those states currently offering "no response" provide a surprising answer.

 

But at least now military members assigned here on orders from South Carolina and Virginia can carry concealed in Illinois (with the appropriate prerequisites, of course). Granted, the total of IL, SC, and VA residents serving here is small, but it's non-zero.

 

I'm TRYING to keep a glass half full attitude even though I'm currently not one of the "elite." :)

Edited by kwc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might add, the "ignore" button is at the top right, by clicking on your screen name, and then entering the annoying person/s who add nothing to the discussion. For those who didn't know. :)

 

Useful tip, but it reduces the entertainment factor and ceases to teach some of us the ability to exercise restraint in the face of adversity. Given the topic near and dear to our hearts (concealed carry), that is an extremely valuable skill to possess. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly, that is an interesting question, especially since Hawaii, a May Issue state, has been declared substantially similar.

 

Here's another thing I find very interesting. I have they Virginia nonresident permit, yet I'm prohibited from obtaining the Illinois Concealed Carry License. Why, when I've already submitted to the same requirements elsewhere? Imo, as long as abide by the laws of the state I am in it shouldn't matter what state I'm from. A state ISP has now declared to be substantially similar seems to agree with my assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just looked at the "similar summary" document linked from the faq's, and apparently the only thing keeping California off the list is the absence of a checkmark in the "reports persons authorized to carry firearms to NLETS (National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System).

 

Ironic, that I can't apply for an Illinois license (even though my family still owns property in Illinois, and even though I spend an average of 30+ days per year working in Illinois), because my state of residence doesn't report to a database I'd never even heard of before today. Especially ironic since California DOJ is a member of NLETS and one person from CA sits on their board, but apparently they don't parse the data the right way. Or something. Especially ironic since we're one of only five states that prohibits issuance to "voluntary" mental health admissions, another IL requirement.

 

I'm wondering if that's because CA CCW's are issued by county sheriff's (or in a few cases by police chiefs in municipalites) and not by the state; DOJ sets the rules and provides a standardized application, but delegates the actual issuance.

 

There's a fascinating description here http://michellawyers.com/silvester-v-harris/ of how the California reporting system works, it's the trial transcript from Sylvester vs Harris. Caution, it's 500+ pages of reading, but enlightening in a very scary sort of way. 1984 on steroids. And NLETS is about the only database not mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is how does "substantially similar" come to mean "exactly alike"?

 

And that is the very problem with subjective, qualitatively-defined criteria. In this case ISP has been given the latitude to cherry-pick specific criterion to create a definition for "substantially similar."

 

What did the legislature intend when it chose to use this wording? Does anyone know? Was this phrase actually meant to apply to reciprocity agreements instead, but errantly brought into the section restricting issuance of non-resident licenses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iirc, IC is on record as saying it's one of those things that got by them. The intent and the application of the law are not one in the same here.

 

I also recall Valinda stating they were looking into filing a lawsuit about this. What's going on with that?

 

Where's the push about the bill to eliminate the substantially similar laws requirement? The bill exists, but only 1 very quiet call to action by Mauserme. If you weren't paying attention you would have missed it.

 

I fight with IC. I have donated money to the cause for functions such as brochures, IGOLD (which I couldn't attend), forum membership rating, etc, yet I don't see much going on for all nonresidents. Instead, it's focus is on nonresident active duty military. A focus on what I'm talking about does solve the problem for nonresident active duty military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

domin8,

 

We're moving slightly off-topic, but I can't not respond to this. My impression is that the IC leadership is acutely aware of the many problems that need to be addressed, including those faced by non-residents. I trust they will tackle each in its own time and have to be patient while the political landscape changes. What has been accomplished by this team so far, in my opinion, has been incredible. I also believe there are things that should not be discussed in open dialogue simply because those discussions could place strategies in jeopardy. For instance, if I were personally filing a lawsuit, I wouldn't be comfortable talking about it in public... and my attorney would probably advise the same.

 

Just my 2 cents... I'm giving IC the benefit of the doubt but will continue to offer my views and recommendations in support of our overall effort to expand 2A freedoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mentioned has already been mentioned publicly on this forum. I doubt IC is working hard on all issues. My suspicion is that due to limited funding, this limited staff, they are picking the issues they feel are most relevant to the Illinois tax payers, and not just the most blatant case of Constitutional Rights violations.

 

I do find it frustrating that an issue that came to light a few months after the nonresident issue became evident has a lawsuit already, but the nonresident issue seems to be sitting. It is ironic that Virginia got added yesterday because it qualifies under substantially similar. Virginia is almost as easy as Utah to get a concealed firearms permit. Like Utah, the course is 4 hours long. Unlike Utah, that 4 hours includes range time. The 5 requirements ISP mandates through JCAR was made available to all applicants by VSP regardless of residency. That means Virginia permit holders have already submitted to the same requirements as Illinois. VSP understands that while in Virginia people must abide by Virginia law. This concept seems to be lost on Illinois.

 

Oh, and I don't recall submitting a HIPAA waiver when I applied for my Virginia permit either.

 

ISP adding Virginia yesterday has only made me mad. It is another reminder of how rights are still be impeded in this state.

Edited by domin8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please support HB5725, and contact your reps and urge them to support this bill.

 

On another note, I spoke to Drury's staff today. She said something interesting concerning the concealed carry amendment bills. It was something along the lines of trying to lump as many of them as possible into 1 bill and trying to pass that during the veto session in the fall. We need to be watchful and alert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to take the opportunity to share with IC the email I sent Rep. Drury last night. For those that don't know, Drury's district includes Naval Station Great Lakes, Fort Sheridan, Military Entrance Processing, and Marine Corps Reserve Center, along with all 5 military housing communities for these bases. I know it's long. It's also not as strong as I feel it could be. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. And, yes, I understand I'm preaching to the choir by addressing Drury.

 

My name is Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx. I am a Utah resident that has been living in Highland Park, IL since July 11, 2012. I am the spouse of an active duty service member stationed in Illinois. Under the 2009 Military Spouses Relief Act, spouses and dependent children of active duty service members are not required to adopt residency of the state the service member is stationed in so long as the service member does not adopt residency in that state. Essentially, the 2009 Military Spouses Relief Act extends the rights active duty service members were granted under The Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act to the service members immediate family. My wife has chosen to maintain her Utah residency, the state where we resided prior to her joining the US Navy.

 

As a Utah resident I have the privilege to obtain and possess the Utah Concealed Firearms Permit (CFP). While my wife was stationed in Virginia, even though Virginia recognizes Utah's CFP, I chose to obtain the Virginia Nonresident Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP). Since moving to Illinois I partook in a NRA Basic Pistol Course, which satisfied the requirements for the Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm Permit (CWP), which I did obtain.

 

As a Marine Infantryman Veteran it can be assumed that I am also experienced and proficient in firearms handling and safety, yet my right to do so in Illinois has been very frustrating at the least. When I heard about the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the Shepard & Moore v Madigan lawsuit I was excited to hear Illinois would be legalizing the concealed carry of firearms. I watched intently as the various bills went through the legal process, then the legalization of HB183, also known as the Firearm Carry and Conceal Act of 2013. Although this isn't an ideal piece of legislation for either side of the firearms debate, there is one problem with the law I am experiencing that is prohibiting nonresidents, including active duty military personnel stationed in Illinois, from obtaining the necessary license to exercise their right to self-defense. 430 ILCS 66/40 reads:

 

(430 ILCS 66/40)

Sec. 40. Non-resident license applications.

(a) For the purposes of this Section, "non-resident" means a person who has not resided within this State for more than 30 days and resides in another state or territory.

(B) The Department shall by rule allow for non-resident license applications from any state or territory of the United States with laws related to firearm ownership, possession, and carrying, that are substantially similar to the requirements to obtain a license under this Act.

© A resident of a state or territory approved by the Department under subsection (B) of this Section may apply for a non-resident license. The applicant shall apply to the Department and must meet all of the qualifications established in Section 25 of this Act, except for the Illinois residency requirement in item (xiv) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Section 4 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. The applicant shall submit:

(1) the application and documentation required under

Section 30 of this Act and the applicable fee;

(2) a notarized document stating that the applicant:

(A) is eligible under federal law and the laws of

his or her state or territory of residence to own or possess a firearm;

(B) if applicable, has a license or permit to

carry a firearm or concealed firearm issued by his or her state or territory of residence and attach a copy of the license or permit to the application;

© understands Illinois laws pertaining to the

possession and transport of firearms, and

(D) acknowledges that the applicant is subject to

the jurisdiction of the Department and Illinois courts for any violation of this Act; and

(3) a photocopy of any certificates or other evidence

of compliance with the training requirements under Section 75 of this Act; and

(4) a head and shoulder color photograph in a size

specified by the Department taken within the 30 days preceding the date of the application.

(d) In lieu of an Illinois driver's license or Illinois identification card, a non-resident applicant shall provide similar documentation from his or her state or territory of residence. 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.

(e) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a non-resident from transporting a concealed firearm within his or her vehicle in Illinois, if the concealed firearm remains within his or her vehicle and the non-resident:

(1) is not prohibited from owning or possessing a

firearm under federal law;

(2) is eligible to carry a firearm in public under

the laws of his or her state or territory of residence, as evidenced by the possession of a concealed carry license or permit issued by his or her state of residence, if applicable; and

(3) is not in possession of a license under this Act.

If the non-resident leaves his or her vehicle unattended, he or she shall store the firearm within a locked vehicle or locked container within the vehicle in accordance with subsection (B) of Section 65 of this Act.

(Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13; 98-600, eff. 12-6-13.)

 

There are several problems with this section of the FCCA that are being used to discriminate and treat nonresidents as "lesser" citizens. First off, 430 ILCS 66/40 (B) "The Department shall by rule allow for non-resident license applications from any state or territory of the United States with laws related to firearm ownership, possession, and carrying, that are substantially similar to the requirements to obtain a license under this Act." At what point did the laws of another state matter when it came to an individual’s actions within the state of Illinois? In Utah some sections of I-15 have a posted speed limit of 80 miles per hour. In Lake County the posted speed limit of I-94 is 55 miles per hour. If I were pulled over by the Illinois State Police for driving 80 mph on I-94 I doubt they would let me go without a citation because I have Utah license plates on my car. The same concept should apply here: Indiscriminant and equal treatment to the laws of Illinois while I’m in Illinois. Utah’s laws for how and when they will issue a CFP is only applicable in Utah. This should also be the case in Illinois.

 

While investigating this matter I came across the 5 questions the Illinois State Police are asking every state in the country to determine if that state has “substantially similar laws” to Illinois. They are:

1) Does the state regulate who may carry firearms in public?

2) Does the state prohibit individuals that have involuntary mental health admissions from obtaining a concealed carry permit?

3) Does the state prohibit individuals that have voluntary mental health admissions within the last 5 years from obtaining a concealed weapons permit?

4) Does the state report persons denied to own or possess firearms to NICS (National Instant Criminal Check System)?

5) Does the state report persons authorized to carry concealed firearms through NLETS (National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System)?

Although the Illinois State Police reports that Utah has not responded to the questionnaire (as evident at https://ccl4illinois.com/ccw/Public/similarsummary.pdf), Utah Bureau of Criminal Investigations (BCI) has informed me via email that they in fact did answer and submit to the ISP the questionnaire. Utah BCI further informed me they answered Yes to questions 1, 2, and 4, and No to questions 3 and 5. Therefore, Utah will not be determined to have substantially similar laws to Illinois.

 

To make things a bit interesting, the ISP determined on Tuesday, April 29, 2014 that the state of Virginia has been determined to have substantially similar laws to Illinois because they answered positively to all 5 questions. If you recall at the beginning of this email, I currently hold a valid Virginia Nonresident CHP. That means I have already subjected myself to the requirements the state of Illinois requires for anybody to obtain a FCCL. Virginia’s CHP is almost as easy to obtain as Utah’s CFP, but costs a little more money.

 

Under the 14th Amendment, Section 1 states. “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As a citizen of a state in the United States, being prohibited from obtaining the Illinois FCCL, even though such a law was made with the intent to extend that Right to a nonresident occupying a home in Illinois, I ask that Illinois and its legislators act to stop the unlawful discrimination occurring. My life, and the lives of those under my care, being my wife and two sons, are no less significant than that of an Illinois resident.

 

Under the laws of Illinois I would otherwise qualify for a FCCL as regulated. I have completed the proper training with a certified instructor recognized by the ISP. I took the time and effort and create a digital ID, as required by the ISP. I understand that my application for an Illinois FCCL creates a waiver to HIPAA that allows the ISP to look into my mental health background. I am able to provide a 10 year history of residency, and the places I have also occupied a home (to distinguish the 2 we must recognize that although I am a Utah resident I have lived, and own property in, other states due to my wife’s military career). Yet, when I try to complete the online application for an Illinois FCCL I am not allowed to proceed beyond the 30% portion. The attachment to this email is a screen shot of what happens when I try to use both my Utah and military identification info. Remember, nonresident active duty military personnel stationed in

Illinois are also being prohibited from obtaining the Illinois FCCL.

 

In conclusion, I understand that the position of Representative Scott Drury is to keep firearms off the streets. Regardless, Judge Posner has ruled that the right to self-protection exists outside the home as well as inside. I implore you to recognize a simple fact as to why my request is in the best interest of all people in Illinois.

 

Currently, under the FCCA, as a nonresident with a concealed firearms permit from my home state, 430 ILCS 66/40 (e) stipulates, “Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a non-resident from transporting a concealed firearm within his or her vehicle in Illinois, if the concealed firearm remains within his or her vehicle and the non-resident:”. The killing of a 14 year old girl on Chicago’s south side on 4/29/2014 is a tragedy, but possibly one that could have been avoided had the individual who had his firearm stolen from his vehicle on 4/14/2014 had possibly not been required to keep his firearm in their car. As of July 9, 2013, inside my vehicle is exactly where my firearm has had to stay because I cannot carry it with me in public. I fear the odds of this same exact thing happening in the state of Illinois again are much higher, versus allowing all nonresidents to carry concealed firearms lawfully. Just look at the numbers.

 

On average the percentile of the general populace in the United States that have concealed firearms permits is approximately 5%. In Illinois there are approximately 20,000 active duty service members at any given time. Over 80% of them are married. That means Illinois has a long term nonresident population in its state of approximately 36,000 people. Long term in this case is more than 30 days. The military populace is also more likely to have firearms, and want to carry concealed when not accessing federal property, such as a military base, but at the low end we’ll stick with the number 5%. This means that at the minimum there may be 1,800 firearms being stored in vehicles at any given time. Military bases, not only in Illinois, but nationwide too, are typically located in communities that would be described as less than desirable. For example, Naval Station Great Lakes and the Marine Corps Reserve Center are both located in North Chicago.

Scott Air Force Base is located near East Saint Louis. I’ve sat in the Forest City Housing Community Residential Advisory Board (RAB) meetings where a North Chicago police officer has described the amount of robberies that occur in only the military housing communities located in North Chicago. The info and data is really frightening. Fortunately, to the best of my knowledge none of the items stolen were a firearm, but I fear it is only a matter of time. It should be noted that the RAB meetings have not occurred in 2014 due to lack of interest.

 

I am just as concerned as anybody who advocates for gun control about the violent crimes in Illinois and elsewhere. I have been an advocate for genuine sensible solutions to deter crime for many years. I too am a victim of violence where a firearm was utilized in the commission of the crimes, not just once but twice. My experiences are firsthand accounts, and that is why I advocate for my right to self-defense, which I am currently being denied. I have witnessed firsthand what being a victim in these senseless crimes truly is like. Unlike Rep Schneider or Mrs. Chen of Moms Demand Action, I have experienced this. My “victimization” is not lived vicariously through other family members, who likely experienced these ordeals without the Representative or Mom's Demand Action Spokesperson around them. I bear the scars and memories of actually surviving these ordeals. That is why I am asking for your help to allow all people in Illinois, not just residents, the right to self-defense. In return, let me show you the realities of the populace you so fervently rally against – the people that wish to lawfully carry a concealed firearm for self-protection against violent crime.

 

Like you, we deplore crime. We do not wish to be victims of any crime. And, we care for the safety and well-being of all people. Many of us cried when Sandy Hook occurred. Let me, an individual with experience carrying a concealed firearm, show you the realities of the scenario. I understand concealed carry is new to Illinois. It is not new to me. Together we can work to find common sense solutions to Illinois' crime pandemic.

 

Will you be willing to work with me to achieve real solutions?

 

Sincerely,

 

Edited by domin8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

domin8,

 

Nicely written, but I agree it's a little long.

 

I assume, based on what I've heard, that he is strongly anti-2A and anti-concealed carry, but supports the military as a basic nature or at least politically because of his connection to installations within or near his district.

 

Given his views, a general plea to "work with me to achieve real solutions" will IMHO fall on deaf ears. It would be better to persuade him on specific issues where he is presently neutral or favorable and target only those matters. Calling on him to vote for existing legislation, or to introduce some of his own, that specifically addresses something you know he would likely support--such as extending carry rights to military members and theIr spouses--would, I believe, get a more favorable response.

 

Please let us know if he replies! Thank you for continuing to press our representatives. Far too many people sit on the sidelines and want others to carry the load for them rather than taking action themselves.

 

Kwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is long, but that's because he wanted to know the details of the problem.

 

Drury does talk about being military friendly. I decided to use this issue as a way to call him out on that. He told me all sorts of stories about going on NSGL, trying out the firearms simulators, giving a speech at a graduation, etc. He wants to hear more from the military community in his district, and is frustrated that nobody is talking to him after supporting the additional housing in Highland Park. I explained to him that everybody in that community is E-7+ and doesn't want to jeopardize their careers by getting involved in politics.

 

I did fail to ask him to support HB5725 in the email. When he replied that he "will need to look things over and get back to me" I did respond that overall I would appreciate his support and Co-sponsorship of HB5725. We'll see what happens.

 

Mr. Walsh of ICHV seems interested in looking into this matter too. I told him he has to show me his interest is genuine after his boss, Colleen Daley, filed a witness slip in opposition to an amendment of a bill (iirc, HB4948) that would have allowed active duty military stationed in Illinois to purchase firearms without a FOID Card. I dropped him another email last night reminding him of what he said and that I'm willing to work with him to resolve these issues. I haven't heard from him yet. Looks like he's busted on talking out of both ends.

Edited by domin8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

the law seems clear.

 

 

(430 ILCS 66/40)

Sec. 40. Non-resident license applications.

(a) For the purposes of this Section, "non-resident" means a person who has not resided within this State for more than 30 days and resides in another state or territory.

( :cool: The Department shall by rule allow for non-resident license applications from any state or territory of the United States with laws related to firearm ownership, possession, and carrying, that are substantially similar to the requirements to obtain a license under this Act.

as part of this act, Illinois added a gem that required voluntary admissions to mental health facilities to be reported to the state and that a voluntary admission was a dis-qualifier for a FOID card and a LTC.

 

no other states have a similar provision, so no non-residents qualify.

 

I don't know if the wording of the law was an unintentional or deliberate thing. Either seems possible.

 

Regardless of the applicant's home state he/she must satisfy the IL CCL requirements. Can you imagine FL telling that same BS to IL residents?

RE: FOID card qualifications ... only IL has the requirement for a FOID type card. Has since the Daley SR regime in Chicago which was the excuse used because of the riots/clashes and violent demos that occurred during the Democrat Convention in Chicago when Daley sicced his Chicago Police thugs on the demonstrators.

Copied from the ISP site ...

NON-RESIDENTS
I am at least 21 years old.
I have not been convicted of any Felony.
I have not been adjudicated as a mental defective by a court of law.
I have not been involuntarily committed to a facility for the purpose of mental health treatment.
I have not been admitted as a voluntary patient in a facility for the purpose of mental health treatment within the past 5 years.
I have not been addicted to narcotics.
I am not intellectually disabled or developmentally disabled.
I am not subject to any active Order of Protection.
I have not within the past 5 years been convicted of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in which a firearm was used or possessed.
I have not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic battery or substantially similar offense.
I have not been adjudicated a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony.
I have not been convicted or found guilty of a misdemeanor involving the threat of physical force or violence to any person within the past 5 years.
I do not have 2 or more violations related to driving while under the influence of alcohol, other drugs, intoxicating compounds within the past 5 years.
I am not subject to a pending arrest warrant, prosecution or proceeding for an offense or action that could lead to disqualification to own or possess a firearm.
I have not been in a residential or court-ordered treatment for alcoholism, alcohol detoxification, or drug treatment within the past 5 years.
You may be eligible if you satisfy the above and no objections are filed by law enforcement. (Section 15)
Edited by K-9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Regardless of the applicant's home state he/she must satisfy the IL CCL requirements. Can you imagine FL telling that same BS to IL residents?

 

RE: FOID card qualifications ... only IL has the requirement for a FOID type card. Has since the Daley SR regime in Chicago which was the excuse used because of the riots/clashes and violent demos that occurred during the Democrat Convention in Chicago when Daley sicced his Chicago Police thugs on the demonstrators.

 

 

To compare apples to apples, many states who allow non-resident applicants do require them to meet most if not all of the requirements they impose on their own residents.

 

Illinois does not require non-residents to have a FOID card, but they must meet the requirements to qualify for one.

 

Please note that I am not defending Illinois' approach but simply recognizing this aspect is not unusual. It's the "substantially similar" clause that throws everything into a tailspin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Virginia was added, it took about a day before everyone was able to see the change. Assume there are caching issues (via internet service providers or the server farm) in play.

 

Unless, of course, Riverpilot looked at the calendar wrong and thought this was April 1. :)

 

NM is still showing as "no response" in the FAQ spreadsheet.

Edited by kwc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...