Jump to content

Appealing CCL Review Board Denial


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

when we go to file at the daley center what exactly do we need besides the petition above....anybody know/help

 

You need 3 copies of it. You will also need to fill out two other forms and an envelope and certified mail return reciept for each defendant served, and $300 (cash check or charge, they charge you extra for charge). When I went, I had my copies and I filled everything else out there. I only named the ISP, but according to some it might be a good idea to name "John Doe" as a place holder so you can name other if needed. It took me about 10 -15 minutes to fill out the paper work. I was very lucky in that there was only 1 person in line when I got there and they were just finishing up. When I was leaving, there were about 10 people in line (and of course only 1 clerk working). There clerk was really nice and helped me with the forms and answered all my questions.

 

Good luck with the appeal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given

Seems to me the burden of proof would have to be on cclrb . there are no terms in the law on how the judicial review needs to be conducted. Where as in the FOID act there are terms set forth ilcs 65/10 . no where in the law does it say that isp is to be notified of the appeal. I would think if the cclrb denied you. You would only list the members as the defendants. The law does not state that the even they must be served. I am speaking to this as I was originally denied a FOID card and I appealed to the court pursuant to ilcs 65/10 . I Presented my evidence to the judge and have issued an order to ISP to issue me a FOID. It was really pretty simple process. Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

I think the problem is that it's the ISP that denies the license, not the Board. The Board just determines whether or not you're eligible.

Link to comment

Yes but the Ccl law does not state you must make ISP a party to the court proceeding. Whereas the FOID card act states you must make the relevant states attorney a party by serving them notice 30 days before any court date. Ilcs65/10c . There has been a case where a FOID was denied. Then the denied appealed to the court and the court issued an order that ISP must issue a FOID. But then ISP argued they were not made party the the hearing. In the end the courts ruled that the FOID act does not state that they be made party. So the initial order was upheld. I believe you can read the case at the ISRA web site.

 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given

 

lawyers I've spoken to have said these cases would be very long and expensive to pursue. I've had zero luck finding an affordable lawyer. What are most people doing? Petitioning on their own, then seeking council?


It's funny how lawyers are saying this when no one, not one of them has done it before.
The administrative process goes like this in laymen terms.
You /lawyer files paperwork, wait for court date. On first court date you /lawyer receive other sides evidence against you, then on to the next court date. Where you fight /show your proof against their evidence that your not a danger to yourself or others. Then judge orders up.
Wow two court dates and some paperwork. Whole lot of stuff happening there,Smh.
Fill out the paperwork yourself takes away from the lawyer adding bs to your fees. You have all the forms you need on top page.

 

 

 

Well, I think you're oversimplifying things, particularly in light of the fact that no lawyers have done it before now. I have some hours in my case thus far and I haven't even received an answer yet and I didn't have to schedule an appointment, interview the client and familiarize myself with their circumstances. That's zero court hearings so far.

 

Administrative agencies are famous for filing rafts of motions to dismiss for failure to comply with various obscure technical provisions of the law, insisting on unnecessarily lengthy briefing schedules to wear down opponents and deplete their funding and changing attorneys whom inevitably need a parade of continuances to 'familiarize' themselves. Yes, these cases can take a heck of a long time.

 

Add to that the fact few lawyers want to teach themselves a new process and perhaps be liable if it somehow goes awry or they make a seemingly minor, yet totally catastrophic misstep, the hassle of battling administrative agencies represented by the seemingly endless parade of well-funded assistant AG's makes breaking new legal ground relatively unappealing and somewhat risky. Lawyers have little idea of what they are getting into at this stage which makes setting a fee somewhat more challenging.

 

Unless you have experience challenging administrative decisions in the circuit courts and you intentionally simplified your explanation for the purposes of the forum, then you may find that it is far more complicated than you might think.

 

ETA: For example - those short forms that look so simple. They are certainly not without deficiency- how long do you suppose they took to draw up?

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given

FWIW, my lawyer looked at the form Valinda posted and filled it out for me. The defendant being ISP, they sent the letter.

He said I could file it myself and he would take over once we hear back. ISP gave us no instruction or direction for it, released no evidence, nor did they follow due process.

I just have to get it in before my 35 days and hope that the NRA suit will negate any mistakes made by all denied that are filing appeals.

Link to comment

Defens, I never said it's going to be a walk in the park and I did say in "laymen terms"

 

I don't understand how lawyers are asking thousands of $$ for retainers fees when in fact they have no clue. A lawyer I talked to wanted $2000 off the bat. Told him he is a nut job. I have all the documents filled out and filed just needed a person with legal experience to go to court for me and do the talking so I myself wouldn't say something stupid. I'm not a lawyer work a full time job and a part time, have two kids in sports , and still found time to read the Illinois conceal carry law, the administrative review law, basic procedures of administrative review, FOIA, and many other laws and information to get a footing on whats ahead. Filled out paperwork, and file it with fees.

 

I got arrested years ago for trespassing maybe 16yo and the lawyer wanted $1000 bucks to fight my case. I wasn't stupid then and I'm definitely not stupid now. No pun intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defens, I never said it's going to be a walk in the park and I did say in "laymen terms"

 

I don't understand how lawyers are asking thousands of $$ for retainers fees when in fact they have no clue. A lawyer I talked to wanted $2000 off the bat. Told him he is a nut job. I have all the documents filled out and filed just needed a person with legal experience to go to court for me and do the talking so I myself wouldn't say something stupid. I'm not a lawyer work a full time job and a part time, have two kids in sports , and still found time to read the Illinois conceal carry law, the administrative review law, basic procedures of administrative review, FOIA, and many other laws and information to get a footing on whats ahead. Filled out paperwork, and file it with fees.

 

I got arrested years ago for trespassing maybe 16yo and the lawyer wanted $1000 bucks to fight my case. I wasn't stupid then and I'm definitely not stupid now. No pun intended.

 

 

If you can do it without counsel, I agree that you would be a fool to pay thousands to do what you can do yourself. I sincerely hope that you can. That's how the 'justice' system ought to work.

 

Just know that I support those who are in the same position as me and so I have no reason to see you do anything but succeed. Regardless, it is a bad idea to underestimate the Attorney General's office. Your case isn't going to be handled by your local assistant state's attorney but rather by some AAG (or more commonly, a string of them ) dispatched from regional offices whom do nothing but fight administrative review complaints day in and day out using an array of technical objections and dilatory tactics. The LAST thing they want is the circuit court to reach claims on their merits. Administrative law is a different field of law from criminal law altogether. It's a bit of a bizarro world. If you think about it, administrative agencies themselves are unconstitutional.

 

Have you ever seen such a flagrant violation of the 'separation of powers' and 'checks and balances' principles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given

The whole process that they signed into law and backed is unconstitutional. It sad that the ones who are supposed to back us would stoup to the anti level to pass a bs law. The only reason I applied in the first place was because finally I had a means to carry my firearm legally and express my constitutional right in some way. Now I'm wishing I didn't. Lol.

 

I've looked back and fourth on possible injections they could have . And there doesn't look to be any. First off they have not given us due process, have violated on our rights, just throwing the bill of rights at them will have them on their butts. Then throw the conceal carry act into it providing that a person "must" have been convicted, and "is'nt" any of the other reasons for denial by the act.

If none how exactly would they have a standing case against you if they are not following what is written in the act. Five years is five years, seven is seven, convictions is conviction.

 

It goes without saying that we have laws in place to follow if they or anyone else is not following them then they are in the wrong.

 

Maybe I just have high hopes, or maybe I'm just stuck in my own little world . But no matter how I look at it, It just doesn't seem like any ag or aag has a good case to prove any of us wrong with the conceal carry act in our favor.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given

Ist like to add. The danger to yourself and what not.

 

As far as I have read and understand. Only and I mean only a doctor can express someone as being a danger to themselves. As far as I'm concerned. Show us proof of where a doctor has treated us and has filed this.

 

Think about it.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given

Ist like to add. The danger to yourself and what not.

 

As far as I have read and understand. Only and I mean only a doctor can express someone as being a danger to themselves. As far as I'm concerned. Show us proof of where a doctor has treated us and has filed this.

 

Think about it.

 

I can't argue with any of that. Despite the Act appearing to me to be flagrantly unconstitutional (along with the FOID Act) the courts are bound to presume that the law is constitutional. So, even if you're right, you're stepping into that batter's box with two strikes before the first pitch is thrown.

 

The danger to one's self language is beyond inexplicable. Why is it that I'm more dangerous to myself carrying a pistol about in public than I am with a house full of rifles, shotguns and pistols? It's utterly nonsensical.

 

I didn't say that the AG's office would win... just that they know how to gum up the works and unless you've been on the wrong end of that before, it may be hard to understand until you are. Court proceedings, particularly of this nature, tend to be unnecessarily complex and technical proceedings.

 

I mentioned the simple forms posted in this thread before. They were drafted by an attorney and took several hours of research, drafting, redrafting and conferring with other practitioners. Anyone using them is using the fruits of several hours of free legal work done by a lawyer that just wanted to help out the 2A community, and did without asking for a thing in return. Unfortunately, the sample documents are just the beginning for us fighting in the circuit courts.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given

ADVERTISING MATERIAL

 

Dear illinoiscarry readers and members:

I am an attorney and an infrequent reader of these forums.

 

Until recently, I had chosen not to pull the trigger on creating an account. But the number of posts I have seen relating to denials of CCW permits without cause is alarming. As a former LEO and strong supporter of our Second Amendment RTKBA, I am less than impressed with the way ISP is handling many law-abiding citizens’ CCW applications. That’s putting it mildly. I firmly believe that CC is an integral part of the spirit of the RTKBA; it would be my pleasure to help any of you in your fight to exercise that right.

 

I am in a position to offer many of you information and advice on how to proceed, especially if you have had your CCW application denied. I have helped several clients get their FOIDs reinstated after erroneous revocation, and am already working on some CCWs.

 

I am willing to offer a free consultation to illinoiscarry.com members. I am open to Skype or in-person consultation, whichever is more convenient for you. Please don’t hesitate to PM me and we can start a conversation.

 

Lastly, I apologize for the disclaimers, but they are necessary.

 

ADVERTISING MATERIAL

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given

Defens,

That is exactly what I mean. "They have to presume the law constitutional"

And we will use it against them. The law clearly states what for and reasons why a person can be denied.

It does not say that because a person has been arrested for something and not convicted of it, that they are to be denied.

It doesn't say that because a person had a dui 15 years ago that they can be denied.

It doesn't say that because a cop has a problem with you for any reason you can be denied. Etc etc.

We all know what the law entitles for denials by now. And we know the review board isn't following the law with most people.

 

To me this is just a scam put together by the governor and anti s to make us firearm owners and hunters pay more to this state through court costs, then we already are with other resources.

I know it's like a broken record but the more it's said the more it's engraved. Lol

Link to comment

The law clearly states what for and reasons why a person can be denied.

 

I beg to differ, the law list some disqualifying reasons that disqualify before and outside of the board of review, but in no way does it limit what the board itself can deny for if an objection is made by LE...

 

 

 

If the Board determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant poses a danger to himself or herself or others, or is a threat to public safety, then the Board shall affirm the objection of the law enforcement agency or the Department and shall notify the Department that the applicant is ineligible for a license.

 

There is absolutely no criteria established in the law that the board has to adhere to, to make their determination...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is what it states for objections from law enforcement

 

Public Act 098-0063

HB0183 Enrolled LRB098 05760 MGM 35799 b

applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety. The objection shall be made by the chief law enforcement officer of the law enforcement agency, or his or her designee, and must include any information relevant to the objection. If a law enforcement agency submits an objection within 30 days after the entry of an applicant into the database, the Department shall submit the objection and all information related to the application to the Board within 10 days of completing all necessary background checks.

(B) If an applicant has 5 or more arrests for any reason, that have been entered into the Criminal History Records Information (CHRI) System, within the 7 years preceding the date of application for a license, or has 3 or more arrests within the 7 years preceding the date of application for a license for any combination of gang-related offenses, the Department shall object and submit the applicant's arrest record, the application materials, and any additional information submitted by a law enforcement agency to the Board. For purposes of this subsection, "gang-related offense" is an offense described in Section 12-6.4, Section 24-1.8, Section 25-5, Section 33-4, or Section 33G-4, or in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 12-6.2, paragraph (2) of subsection

(B) of Section 16-30, paragraph (2) of subsection (B) of Section 31-4, or item (iii) of paragraph (1.5) of subsection

(i) of Section 48-1 of the Criminal Code of 2012.

© The referral of an objection under this Section to the

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is what it states for objections from law enforcement

 

 

This is what is says for the LE objection...

 

 

 

(a ) Any law enforcement agency may submit an objection to a license applicant based upon a reasonable suspicion that the applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety.

 

And this is what is says for board confirmation...

 

 

 

If the Board determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant poses a danger to himself or herself or others, or is a threat to public safety, then the Board shall affirm the objection of the law enforcement agency

 

Now as I said there is no criteria established in the law that they must adhere to for them to determine who "poses a danger to himself or herself or others, or is a threat to public safety"

 

It's a wide open blank book... Are blondes a danger to themselves, some people think so... Does the neighborhood you reside in or came from make you a danger to public safety, some most certainly believe so... And on and on, there is no shortage of claims that can be made since no specific criteria is outlined that must be followed, what determines a danger or public threat?

 

In the end it's simply their opinion based on whatever facts they decide support or not support, or on whatever information they choose to review or whatever information they chose to ignore or whatever they never bothered seeking... And worse when the information is only provided by one side (the side objecting) what side do you suspect he preponderance of evidence presented will support, even if it's all fabricated and/or false? It's basically like the joke Grand Jurys have become, but worse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:32 PM - No reason given

 

lawyers I've spoken to have said these cases would be very long and expensive to pursue. I've had zero luck finding an affordable lawyer. What are most people doing? Petitioning on their own, then seeking council?

It's funny how lawyers are saying this when no one, not one of them has done it before.

The administrative process goes like this in laymen terms.

You /lawyer files paperwork, wait for court date. On first court date you /lawyer receive other sides evidence against you, then on to the next court date. Where you fight /show your proof against their evidence that your not a danger to yourself or others. Then judge orders up.

Wow two court dates and some paperwork. Whole lot of stuff happening there,Smh.

Fill out the paperwork yourself takes away from the lawyer adding bs to your fees. You have all the forms you need on top page.

 

That's what I needed to hear, thanks

Link to comment

Hey Guys, I got denied and received the pose a danger to myself and others letter. So I will embark on this appeal journey. I called the Daley Center Room 802 and was told to bring the denial letters and to make copies for my personal keeping and $279 for the filing fee. I asked if I could get my money back if I won the appeal from the county and she laughed saying this is the court system we keep your money. I am a little confused. Is the appeal forms which were posted by Molly the first step to do and wait for a response or appealing to the Daley Center is the only form of appeal and the forms Molly posted are what the Daley Center has? The Daley Center rep said they have all the forms to fill out in their office by the way. I am going Monday to start the process. Money and time is all I have so I am not worried I want to help everyone out as well since a lot of yous are busy. Retired at 27 seems great, but getting blown up in Fallujah wasn't... Any guidance or comments would help... Ooh Rah!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

remchance, on 17 Apr 2014 - 3:51 PM, said:

It does not say that because a person has been arrested for something and not convicted of it, that they are to be denied.

It doesn't say that because a person had a dui 15 years ago that they can be denied.

 

 

 

 

You're right about what it doesn't say.

 

I disagree regarding just what it does say. The process and its criterion are vague, opaque, guarded and seemingly inconsistent with the purported "shall issue" nature of the Act. I believe that this is the fatal infirmity of the Act. Time will tell. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You don't want to miss anyone who is a part of your denial. It can lead to a dismissal of your case.

 

Someone else can provide the actual format used in Illinois courts for this as I'm unaware... Instead of naming people randomly that you have no idea if they had any involvement or not and missing someone that was involved, you should instead be adding 'John Doe' defendants that you can fill in at a later date...

 

Almost all courts will allow you to simply add 'John Doe' in the list of defendants for one unknown person or for multiples you would add for example 'John Doe 1-25' and this will allow you to fill in up to 25 names at a later date... Again I'm not sure of the actual and proper format to add John Doe defendants in IL so some further research should be done..

I'm not sure how to effectively research this without becoming frustrated, lol. I assume we should add "John Doe (1-25)" on the top of the documents in with the ISP and ISP director. Would we then print 25 seperate Summons' for the John Does? If the paper work isn't 100% formatted correctly, can it be thrown out of court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure how to effectively research this without becoming frustrated, lol. I assume we should add "John Doe (1-25)" on the top of the documents in with the ISP and ISP director. Would we then print 25 seperate Summons' for the John Does? If the paper work isn't 100% formatted correctly, can it be thrown out of court?

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree with those that claim you should be naming John Doe defendants. If you received a denial by way of an objection affirmed by the board, then I believe your beef is with the administrative agency issuing the denial in this context.

 

While you might take issue with anyone 'involved' in the denial, an administrative review case is not the setting to ask for monetary damages or non administrative review related remedies against those other parties. In the context of an administrative review complaint, the only parties are the aggrieved party and the administrative agency, IMO.

 

I don't know where the idea to serve all these John Doe defendants comes from but can anyone tell me just what is the purpose? Is anyone filing against John Doe defendants willing to share with me what they hope to accomplish by doing that in the context of an administrative review complaint? I just don't get it. I think that a lot of you are going to have to deal with the procedural issues associated with those filings that will distract from what you are trying to do but maybe I am just confused.

 

Thanks in advance for the education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defens look at this. Just a basic summary, can be possibly more to the case with ccl. http://www.isba.org/sections/adminlaw/newsletter/2010/07/achecklistforjudicialreviewofanadministrativeagencyde

 

1) Thank you for providing an actual reference, I appreciate that.

2) That is a broad overview dealing with ANY type of administrative review.

3) 735 ILCS 5/3-107 provides:

 

§ 3-107. Defendants.
(a) Except as provided in subsection ( b ) or ( c ), in any action to review any final decision of an administrative agency, the administrative agency and all persons, other than the plaintiff, who were parties of record to the proceedings before the administrative agency shall be made defendants. The method of service of the decision shall be as provided in the Act governing the procedure before the administrative agency, but if no method is provided, a decision shall be deemed to have been served either when a copy of the decision is personally delivered or when a copy of the decision is deposited in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope or package, with postage prepaid, addressed to the party affected by the decision at his or her last known residence or place of business. The form of the summons and the issuance of alias summons shall be according to rules of the Supreme Court.
No action for administrative review shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based upon the failure to name an employee, agent, or member, who acted in his or her official capacity, of an administrative agency, board, committee, or government entity, where the administrative agency, board, committee, or government entity, has been named as a defendant as provided in this Section. Naming the director or agency head, in his or her official capacity, shall be deemed to include as defendant the administrative agency, board, committee, or government entity that the named defendants direct or head. No action for administrative review shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based upon the failure to name an administrative agency, board, committee, or government entity, where the director or agency head, in his or her official capacity, has been named as a defendant as provided in this Section.
If, during the course of a review action, the court determines that an agency or a party of record to the administrative proceedings was not made a defendant as required by the preceding paragraph, then the court shall grant the plaintiff 35 days from the date of the determination in which to name and serve the unnamed agency or party as a defendant. The court shall permit the newly served defendant to participate in the proceedings to the extent the interests of justice may require.
( b ) and ( c ) deal with zoning rulings...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...