Jump to content

411 from ISP on board review


Recommended Posts

I talked to from a very courteous, helpful and polite officer in the CCL department at the ISP.

 

Some of the following info is redundant from other threads but I'll list for those that may have not of seen it.

 

1) contrary to what was stated by someone else, according to the gentleman I spoke with very few objected apps (if any) ended up there due to a miss placement by a staff member. If you have been placed under board review, it's because someone in LE put you there.

 

2) all objected apps get set aside and will be reviewed by the board on an "as needed" basis.

Apparently there are no specific dates set aside for review, however the app must be reviewed within 30 days of it being placed aside. (The board also has the option of requesting more info or more time to review)

 

3) once reviewed, the boards decision will be sent back to the ISP at which time their analysts will update the applicants status in the online portal to either denied, under review again or possibly even approved depending on whether or not the system is set up to process cards. The applicant will not "just receive a letter in the mail"

 

4) The Board takes an applicants entire criminal history into account. There were no specifics mentioned here as to the process but my impression was that the lack of a criminal or arrest record for a period of time that exceeds the ISP's minimum requirements would be considerably favorable for an applicant that was flagged for something that happened years ago, particularly if there are no convictions. Again that was not empirically stated, it was my take away.

 

5) the appeal process, if denied, would be directly to the circuit court that correlates To an applicants county of residence.

 

6) (and as far as I'm concerned one of the most reassuring bit of info) a denial by the board to receive a CCL does NOT mean your FOID gets revoked! The only aspect of denial that would cause someone to lose their FOID is if in the objection process something was uncoveredin your history that goes directly against the list of FOID eligibility Requirements, which is highly unlikely if the individual has an FOID, out of state permit and firearm purchases through nics.

 

Being denied a ccl is exclusive of ones eligibility to maintain their FOID standing.

 

I wish I had more info to offer or could of asked better questions. I refrained from publishing the number/name of the person I spoke with even though It's public info out of courtesy to the officer. PM if you would like that contact info.

 

Hope this helps some of you in the board review category. :-)

 

 

Edited to add from Molly B.

 

If your status changes from under review to under board review - as difficult as it may be, sit tight, do not panic and above all, do not bombard the ISP with a bunch of emails and phone calls. Doing this could raise even more flags.

 

This is a new process and everyone is working their way through it. Be patient and you may even see your status return back to under review just like so many others have seen.

Edited by Molly B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My impression is that the applicant is not afforded an opportunity to supplement the information forwarded to the Review Board so that it is a totally one sided review.... Am I correct?

 

The Board can request additional information if they feel they need it, but I haven't seen a mechanism for presenting data along with the LEO objection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6) (and as far as I'm concerned one of the most reassuring bit of info) a denial by the board to receive a CCL does NOT mean your FOID gets revoked! The only aspect of denial that would cause someone to lose their FOID is if in the objection process something was uncoveredin your history that goes directly against the list of FOID eligibility Requirements, which is highly unlikely if the individual has an FOID, out of state permit and firearm purchases through nics.

 

 

The problem is that the primary thing the reviewing officers are looking for is evidence that someone is a danger to themselves or others. If you're denied based on that evidence, the state would almost have to revoke your FOID since that's one of the disqualifying criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My impression is that the applicant is not afforded an opportunity to supplement the information forwarded to the Review Board so that it is a totally one sided review.... Am I correct?

unfortunately your assessment is correct. Your only recourse if denied is to appeal to the court for judicial review. Although it does suck that one can't defend themselves to the board before a decision is rendered, I find consultation in being able to present an appeal to a different set of ears. Yes it will incur attorney fees but I I personally feel one would have a better chance "asking daddy when mommy said no"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6) (and as far as I'm concerned one of the most reassuring bit of info) a denial by the board to receive a CCL does NOT mean your FOID gets revoked! The only aspect of denial that would cause someone to lose their FOID is if in the objection process something was uncoveredin your history that goes directly against the list of FOID eligibility Requirements, which is highly unlikely if the individual has an FOID, out of state permit and firearm purchases through nics.

 

 

The problem is that the primary thing the reviewing officers are looking for is evidence that someone is a danger to themselves or others. If you're denied based on that evidence, the state would almost have to revoke your FOID since that's one of the disqualifying criteria.

not necessarily true. An applicant could have been arrested for verbally threatening to harm someone in a road rage incident or maybe a domestic arrest neither of which resulted in a conviction for example that caused the LE officer to flag them. The board decides "yes this person could be a threat in carrying a concealed firearm"

 

Neither of those arrests are are disqualifiers in holding a FOID though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sooner everyone leaves these people alone to do their jobs the better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming they will be fair. This is Illinois.

If they aren't, I'm pretty sure we'll hear it here first!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not necessarily true. An applicant could have been arrested for verbally threatening to harm someone in a road rage incident or maybe a domestic arrest neither of which resulted in a conviction for example that caused the LE officer to flag them. The board decides "yes this person could be a threat in carrying a concealed firearm"

 

And I hope every one denied for a non-conviction sues the State and all those involved in the denial from top to bottom and gets their big payday for a denial of a civil right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sooner everyone leaves these people alone to do their jobs the better.

deleted Edited by jkdkaliman101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly. ..I seen your edit which contradicts my personal philosophy but I humbly accept that advice. Your insight, experience and standing with the ISP as well as this community is highly respected so I appreciate your edit and advice and will refrain from contacting the ISP. Edited by jkdkaliman101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be one of very few you can't demand to go in front of the board with a lawyer lawsuits in 3.2.1 for failure to be allowed to respond to your accuser

 

Loctite/paint pen/regularly check your gear. A gun falling off your belt is unacceptable

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly. ..I seen your edit which contradicts my personal philosophy but I humbly accept that advice. Your insight, experience and standing with the ISP as well as this community is highly respected so I appreciate your edit and advice and will refrain from contacting the ISP.

 

I don't mean to contradict your philosophy. I think the info you provided is very helpful. One phone call to inquire is not a problem. I advised against bombarding the ISP with calls and emails. They have no more control over the who, what, when, and where of the review board than we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of posts removed from view. Let's please stay on topic here. It boils down to we don't know exactly how the board is going to handle these objections but it is becoming clear that not many have a lot of patience for Sheriff Dartt's shenanigans.

 

Let's watch this play out before we make accusations that will make us look foolish down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6) (and as far as I'm concerned one of the most reassuring bit of info) a denial by the board to receive a CCL does NOT mean your FOID gets revoked! The only aspect of denial that would cause someone to lose their FOID is if in the objection process something was uncoveredin your history that goes directly against the list of FOID eligibility Requirements, which is highly unlikely if the individual has an FOID, out of state permit and firearm purchases through nics.

 

 

The problem is that the primary thing the reviewing officers are looking for is evidence that someone is a danger to themselves or others. If you're denied based on that evidence, the state would almost have to revoke your FOID since that's one of the disqualifying criteria.

not necessarily true. An applicant could have been arrested for verbally threatening to harm someone in a road rage incident or maybe a domestic arrest neither of which resulted in a conviction for example that caused the LE officer to flag them. The board decides "yes this person could be a threat in carrying a concealed firearm"

 

Neither of those arrests are are disqualifiers in holding a FOID though.

 

I think in both those cases though the reason given for any denial would be that the applicant was a danger to others. That is a disqualifier for a FOID. By applying for a CCL, you're agreeing to undergo a more thorough background check. It seems from a liability point of view that it would be very dangerous for the ISP to let someone keep their FOID after they have been presented with new evidence by local LEOs - sufficient to warrant a denial of the CCL by the Board - that someone was a danger to others. I'm not one to get too worked up over things that haven't happened yet, but you can bet the antis will be all over this and it seems it would be very difficult for the ISP to justify not revoking the FOID after someone has been denied a CCL for being a danger to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the state/ISP are viewing this as a bi-level criteria concerning firearms. Certain criteria pertaining to owning and another criteria for carrying one in public. Kind of like a driver's license and a CDL.

 

They can't change FOID law, at least not without a fight.

 

Yeah, there might be some wiggle room since the FOID statute contains the term "clear and present danger to himself, herself, or to others" while the FCCA talks about determining whether someone "poses a danger to himself or herself, or to others". I believe that the medical reporting requirements use the "clear and present danger" criterion though, so being denied by the Board based on medical evidence would seem to mean your FOID could be revoked on that evidence. I'm sure the ISP isn't thinking about routinely revoking the FOID for people denied CCLs at this point, but I wonder how they'll justify not doing so once they get some pressure from an anti-gun legislator, at least until the differential burden of proof is codified. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the state/ISP are viewing this as a bi-level criteria concerning firearms. Certain criteria pertaining to owning and another criteria for carrying one in public. Kind of like a driver's license and a CDL.

 

They can't change FOID law, at least not without a fight.

this.... Oh and rat...wa'sup? You just completely did a 180 in a split second. Did you have an epiphany or see my other post that said pretty much exactly what you just said? Lol. .it was getting frustrating reading your posts "there going to take your FOID!!!" But then WHAM. .the switch flipped Edited by jkdkaliman101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the state/ISP are viewing this as a bi-level criteria concerning firearms. Certain criteria pertaining to owning and another criteria for carrying one in public. Kind of like a driver's license and a CDL.

 

They can't change FOID law, at least not without a fight.

this.... Oh and rat...wa'sup? You just completely did a 180 in a split second. Did you have an epiphany or see my other post that said pretty much exactly what you just said? Lol. .it was getting frustrating reading your posts "there going to take your FOID!!!" But then WHAM. .the switch flipped

 

Well, I don't think I change my position at all. Like everyone else, I have no evidence yet of how things are going to play out. At this point, we're all just thinking out loud. I was just trying to point out that, as written, the FOID act seems to allow for revocation using the same criteria as can be used to deny a CCL. I also think that this fact isn't going to slip by a rabidly anti legislator who can use a state liability argument to pressure the ISP into revoking someone's FOID. Until the law is clarified, I definitely think someone denied by the Board for being a danger to someone else has something to worry about. That said, I'm in no way a conspiracy theorist, I have no idea what will actually happen, and I could be completely wrong about it.

 

Actually, I'm certain an attorney with the proper expertise could tell us in a second whether the "clear and present" qualifier under the FOID act is a real legal distinction. I really have no idea.

Edited by Dr. Rat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice to focus on one task at a time CCL vs Foid. Less than 45 days and we shall see. I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment but if these people are being flagged legitimately I support the law enforcement agencies 100%. Last thing we need is a bunch of "illegal" legal firearms accidents to give the state ammunition to push for more regulations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks! I got some valuable and helpful information to share with everybody. For starters, absolutely do not waste your time calling the ISP to find out any information regarding anything. They barely know what they are talking about and basically parroting what they been told by upper management but seem to have trouble articulating even that. I did manage to contact a manager of ISP, I have no idea what her rank is but she definitely had great insight in how the process works. She told me for starters, if your application was placed under Board Review, that could only be done by ISP or a local law enforcement agency period. As far as a letter being sent out to you, the ISP has up to 90 days if you had your live scan submitted or 120 days if you did not to either deny or approve your application. That said you may not get a letter period during this time up until the final decision to approve or deny. ISP call center folks will tell you that you will get a letter but that is not going to be within 7 to 30 days as they have been wrongfully telling everybody. Adding to this, the board or review during this period will on their own either deny the LEO's claim and go ahead and approve the applicant at which point the applicant will not be notified other than his status will change to "approved." If the Board requires more info then they will contact you with instructions how to proceed further. If at the end of the 90 or 120 days you were denied, again you will have directions on how to appeal. I was also told by this higher up staff that they cannot control what LEO objects to but unless they have documentation and proof that you are a clear and present danger they will not be able to get your permit denied and she dared anybody to prove her wrong.

 

I also called Gat Guns to see what they knew and evidently the woman in charge of the CCW class was saying if LEO Objected to your application, the review board would most likely side with them because they figure if a law enforcement agency obects then it must be true. I do not have to have a law degree to know she does not know how the law works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks! I got some valuable and helpful information to share with everybody. For starters, absolutely do not waste your time calling the ISP to find out any information regarding anything. They barely know what they are talking about and basically parroting what they been told by upper management but seem to have trouble articulating even that. I did manage to contact a manager of ISP, I have no idea what her rank is but she definitely had great insight in how the process works. She told me for starters, if your application was placed under Board Review, that could only be done by ISP or a local law enforcement agency period. As far as a letter being sent out to you, the ISP has up to 90 days if you had your live scan submitted or 120 days if you did not to either deny or approve your application. That said you may not get a letter period during this time up until the final decision to approve or deny. ISP call center folks will tell you that you will get a letter but that is not going to be within 7 to 30 days as they have been wrongfully telling everybody. Adding to this, the board or review during this period will on their own either deny the LEO's claim and go ahead and approve the applicant at which point the applicant will not be notified other than his status will change to "approved." If the Board requires more info then they will contact you with instructions how to proceed further. If at the end of the 90 or 120 days you were denied, again you will have directions on how to appeal. I was also told by this higher up staff that they cannot control what LEO objects to but unless they have documentation and proof that you are a clear and present danger they will not be able to get your permit denied and she dared anybody to prove her wrong.

 

I also called Gat Guns to see what they knew and evidently the woman in charge of the CCW class was saying if LEO Objected to your application, the review board would most likely side with them because they figure if a law enforcement agency obects then it must be true. I do not have to have a law degree to know she does not know how the law works.

 

Although your exuberance is appreciated, you really didn't add anything to the original post of this thread and actually may have included some misinformation.

 

1) "if your application was placed under Board Review, that could only be done by ISP or a local law enforcement agency period" Common knowledge

2) "As far as a letter being sent out to you, the ISP has up to 90 days if you had your live scan submitted or 120 days" Common knowledge

3)".........and go ahead and approve the applicant at which point the applicant will not be notified other than his status will change to "approved" I addressed that in point number three in the OP

4) " If the Board requires more info then they will contact you with instructions how to proceed further. If at the end of the 90 or 120 days you were denied, again you will have directions on how to appeal" If they require more info from the Applicant, the ISP or the objecting agency they MAY request more information or time to review if needed. Otherwise the board will make a decision within a thirty day time period (the ISP also has ten days to get an objected application to the board for review per section 87 of the FCCL)

5) "I was also told by this higher up staff that they cannot control what LEO objects to but unless they have documentation and proof that you are a clear and present danger they will not be able to get your permit denied" True that they have no control over the nature of an objection. False that they need proof that you are a "clear and present danger". They only need reasonable suspicion that you are a danger to yourself or others to file an objection. The board then decides if there is a preponderance of evidence to support that claim. Clear and present danger applies to the FOID ACT and the eligibility to receive or maintain a FOID card.

6) your last statement in which you mention your conversation with a Gat Guns staff member contradicts what the ISP manager told you. The manager "dared to prove her wrong" in her affirmation that it's unlikely an applicant would be denied. The woman in charge of the CCW class evidently thinks otherwise

 

To add to that, "truth" is relative. You could potentially have 5 different law enforcement personal look at the same app and have differing opinions on the applicants "danger" risk.

 

Thanks for making the effort though.

Edited by jkdkaliman101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment but if these people are being flagged legitimately I support the law enforcement agencies 100%.

 

Short of a court order or court conviction that makes you a prohibited person (I don't even fully agree with the list of qualifiers that make you prohibited) there is no reason any LEO should be able to object let alone the board be able to deny...

 

I support the entire Constitution and that Constitution does not grant LEO or a politically appointed group the power to arbitrarily interfere or deny anyone's protected rights based on 'opinions or feelings' without that persons day in court and being found by that court through due process to lose the rights...

 

So unlike you I will not and can not support law enforcement in this matter as it will be abused, in fact by design it's pretty much abuse already, IMO...

Edited by RockerXX
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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