Jump to content

Appealing CCL Review Board Denial


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given

I have a Freedom of Information Act request that addresses many of the issues discussed in this thread that has gone through the first couple of steps with the ISP and hasn't received a response. It will be in the hands of the Illinois Attorney General's Public Access Coordinator this coming week, and depending upon what happens there, the next step is Circuit Court. The request is all about procedures, guidelines and timelines. It doesn't involve a specific person's application. When and if useful information is available it will get shared. Unfortunately, until it reaches that point, it needs to stay under wraps. Suffice it to say that once it comes through it should answer a whole lot of questions.

 

Good luck and a Happy Easter to all.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given

A suggestion has been made to add the Chairman of the CCL Review Board to the complaint:

Robinzina Bryant, any idea what the address would be for the CCL Review Board?

I see another FOIA request zapped in tomorrow morning :)

Link to comment

We filed a lawsuit today in federal court in three counts, due process violation, prior restraint violation, and administrative review (a claim actually under state law, filed here under supplemental jurisdiction of the federal court).

In sum, Plaintiff is a law-abiding citizen possessing a FOID card.

He applied for concealed carry on the first day that it was possible to do so, January 5, 2014. As part of the process, he uploaded his FOID Card, fingerprints, a training certificate, and granted a waiver for examination to any and all medical records and a world of other personal things. (And a $150 nonrefundable application fee, portions of which are specifically earmarked for purposes outside the application process.)

He received a terse letter on March 19 by which the State Police advise that an unspecified law enforcement objection was filed, that the Board determined by preponderance of the evidence that he was dangerous to himself or others or presented a danger to the public safety in a hearing, and that he was denied a permit.

To this day he does not know who objected or what they said. He had no prior knowledge of the secret proceeding and certainly no chance to present evidence or argue to the contrary. The concealed carry law exempts this Board from FOIA and the Open Meetings Act.

Though he letter did not say so, his only right to challenge this is through the Illinois Administrative Review Law, but it turns out that is a sham. In a FOID card denial, there would be a right to a full hearing in front of a judge as to all of the issues. In any normal administrative review, as for example a zoning case, the "record" below would be filed in court as the answer. However, under the Concealed Carry law, the record below is a secret that can't be disclosed except by a specific judicial order, and there is no right to a hearing de novo. In other words, the judge's decision would be limited to reviewing the facts in evidence before the secret tribunal - and then only if he ordered the Board to give it up. The review would be for abuse of discretion in the decision, and at no point would he have the right to actually speak or otherwise introduce evidence on his own behalf. Though the letter of denial didn't state it, even the right to a sham imitation of judicial review is lost without the filing of a lawsuit within 35 day. The time limit causes people to focus on that deadline - rather than the fact that the law denies them any honest or effective way of challenging the tilted bias and secret evidence of this hidden tribunal.

The Board itself, by the Concealed Carry Act, must include at least three individuals with at least five years experience as federal investigators and two who have at least five years experience as US Attorneys. It requires, in describing the composition of the Board,

(2) 2 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience serving as an attorney with the United States Department of Justice;

(3) 3 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience as a federal agent or employee with investigative experience or duties related to criminal justice under the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Homeland Security, or Federal Bureau of Investigation;

Section 20 (a), Public Act 098-0063

That's a majority of the seven commissioners provided for. There is no provision for persons with experience in advocating for or counseling the victims of gun assault or criminal defense attorneys, persons who might know the consequences of inability to defend a predatory criminal assault with lethal defensive weapons.

We filed today because all of this grossly violates the constitutional guarantee that liberty cannot be deprived without due process of law - fundamentally fair procedures in light of the right at issue - and because the exercise of fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech, the right to marry, the right to vote, cannot be conditioned on asking governmental guardians for permission.

The FOID Card procedure already in place goes as far - and perhaps further - than the constitution permits for the protection of the public. The main significant difference between it and the Concealed Carry Act is the creation of this secret tribunal to determine the objection of law enforcement to an individual's right to carry a defensive weapon outside the home. The vague standard contained in the law - and the secrecy of the proceedings and the lack of notice or right to defend to affected individuals - and the immunity of those who object and those who decide - and the lack of any serious judicial oversight to the proceedings - tends to assure that the screening process for the applicants, all of them FOID Card holders or applicants, amounts to little or nothing more than a visceral, gut-feeling test for the exercise of a fundamental right by a law-abiding citizen. We think that, in a country that stamps the word, "Liberty", on each and every coin, the secret and functionally unchallengeable proceedings of this procedure, simply cannot stand constitutional scrutiny, and will fall.

J. D. Obenberger, Attorney at Law

115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2600

Chicago, IL 60603

 

312.558.6420

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Plaintiff is a law-abiding citizen..."



Court records show he was arrested in 2000 for resisting a police officer and criminal damage to property, both misdemeanors. He was convicted and received court supervision.



In 2006, he was arrested once again for resisting a police officer and criminal damage to property. He was convicted and received conditional discharge for resisting a police officer and was ordered to pay a $200 fine and more than $1,400 in restitution for the property damage, records show.



:no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given

A suggestion has been made to add the Chairman of the CCL Review Board to the complaint:

Robinzina Bryant, any idea what the address would be for the CCL Review Board?

 

Do you think it will be an issue for those that already filed and did not name the Chairman of the board?

 

Does anyone know if you can ammend or modify the appeal if it has already been submitted?

Link to comment

Thanks for the good wishes!

 

This is about a fundamentally unfair procedure that takes place in secret in front of a Board stacked against gun owners. It is about an objection that you don't know has been filed, about evidence that you may never see, submitted by an objector in the shadows whose name you may never learn. It is about a short letter denying you that gives no detail at all. It is about the mere illusion of judicial review, when, in fact, the judge has no right to allow you to present your side of the question or introduce your own evidence; the Administrative Review Law limits him to looking at what happened in the Board, and only then, on his or her special order to the Board to provide the court a copy. The judge just reviews the decision for obvious mistake, but there is no "hearing de novo" as you might get if you were denied a FOID Card.

 

Where we are at is not about the merits of my client or even particularly about the decision that was made in his case. It is about the procedures that are unfair to him and to everyone who applies for a concealed carry card. Everyone deserves a fair hearing. He and the others who have applied have no right to that under the procedures in the Concealed Carry Act. Those who were denied should get legal advice promptly, or they will simply risk their right to do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the good wishes!

 

This is about a fundamentally unfair procedure that takes place in secret in front of a Board stacked against gun owners. It is about an objection that you don't know has been filed, about evidence that you may never see, submitted by an objector in the shadows whose name you may never learn. It is about a short letter denying you that gives no detail at all. It is about the mere illusion of judicial review, when, in fact, the judge has no right to allow you to present your side of the question or introduce your own evidence; the Administrative Review Law limits him to looking at what happened in the Board, and only then, on his or her special order to the Board to provide the court a copy. The judge just reviews the decision for obvious mistake, but there is no "hearing de novo" as you might get if you were denied a FOID Card.

 

Where we are at is not about the merits of my client or even particularly about the decision that was made in his case. It is about the procedures that are unfair to him and to everyone who applies for a concealed carry card. Everyone deserves a fair hearing. He and the others who have applied have no right to that under the procedures in the Concealed Carry Act. Those who were denied should get legal advice promptly, or they will simply risk their right to do anything about it.

 

I totally agree!! I have been denied and the worst part is that have have no arrests, mental health issues, or anything else that should cause me to be denied. I suspect that it is a case of mistaken identity in my case (since there are many with my name that have a criminal history), but the fact that this was all done in secret and that I can't even see what was objected to and by who is so unfair. How can I even dispute it if I don't even know what I am being objected about. If it's going to be as difficult as you say to over turn in the circuit court, that is even more unfair. I really hope your case paves the way for the rest of us that were denied unjustly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given

Mulit-quote isn't working correctly for me.

 

 

No you can never apply for IL CCL again.

you are pretty much blacklisted.

If you miss the 35 day deadline you'll have to wait 2 years and then file your appeal.

Most are thinking that after 2 years you can re-apply, that is NOT the case.

My lawyer corrected this for me.

 

 

If your letter is dated March 19th, you have till May 7th to file.

But every lawyer that I spoke with is aim for 30 days vs the 35 days allowed.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given

Molly,

 

What do you think about using Robizina Bryants private practice address, with her name, and the title of Chairman of the CCL Review Board. Since there doesn't seem to be a CCL Review Board address?

 

I have asked if there is an address for the CCL Review Board. No answer yet. I would think the private practice address would work? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given

Damn this is bull**** wheres are rights CCL

sucks for Illinois I NEVER been convicted FOR A felony or misdemeanor and I've been denied, I work in Ohare airport on the airfield I have an I.D. that have to be aproved by TSA Homeland security I own and buy guns monthly, Ive been having my FOID for ten years or so where is the NRA ON ALL THIS wheres are HELP, no lawyers help from them are we on this appeal fight on our own. I know this form is great help I thanx all the ppls here for it this is how I feel maybe I'm wrong but I'm a Member of the NRA and I call them to get no help at all just saying.

Link to comment

For those whose denial letter is dated March 19, that's the date of the adverse action. I would act as though tomorrow, April 23, is the 35th day, the deadline for filing under the Illinois Administrative Review Law. And I don't mean to discourage anyone from doing that. I think it should be done to make sure that potentially serious rights are not waived, dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's and naming the board members, its chairman, the Chairman of that Board, the Director of the ISP, and the objector and the municipality he works for if you can figure that out.

 

But I recommend also an action based on civil rights, based on the violation of due process and prior restraint as well, preferably in federal court. For any who are unfortunate enough to blow the state deadline, there is some chance that the civil rights action might work anyway. No guarantees. And obviously, I am not the attorney of anyone here and this does not amount to legal advice. Get a lawyer and consult with him. But you are rapidly running out of time to do that under the Illinois Administrative Review Law if your letter is dated March 19,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given

Are you sure that we can not reapply after two years? That would seem really messed up if someone was denied for no reason, can't afford to appeal, and can never reapply again. Can anyone provide where in the CCL law it states that?

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., June 7, 2016 at 03:37 PM - No reason given

Mulit-quote isn't working correctly for me.

 

 

No you can never apply for IL CCL again.

you are pretty much blacklisted.

If you miss the 35 day deadline you'll have to wait 2 years and then file your appeal.

Most are thinking that after 2 years you can re-apply, that is NOT the case.

My lawyer corrected this for me.

 

 

If your letter is dated March 19th, you have till May 7th to file.

But every lawyer that I spoke with is aim for 30 days vs the 35 days allowed.

Where in this convoluted law does it say an applicant that is denied cannot re-apply and start the process over again? I read it again using the word "denied" as a search and couldn't find that.

Link to comment

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...