Jump to content

Thomann,Finnigan,Knoll, IllinoisCarry vs CCL Review Board


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...

I have a philosophical problem with any number of "arrests"/ "charges" be a disqualifier without some more objective criteria. From a legal standpoint, if the ISP or some police agency wants to have an applicant denied for something short of a conviction for a felony involving violence I believe they need to do so in open court with at least civil burden of the preponderance of the evidence before a judge or even a jury. We are talking about a constitutional guaranteed right. Right now some of these denials are a "joke". Rumor, innuendo, spite, who knows what all is involved.

 

Try to enjoin the exercise of free speech and see how that goes without some serious "evidence". We should not be willing to accept anything less. Think outside the box...we are not "sheeple".... we do not need the "Kings" permission to defend ourselves.

I feel the same way hygmeyer . To many inner city youth have been arrested because 1 person out a crowd of 3 or 4 ran from the police . Police could'nt catch them so arrested everyone else . I personally have seen it happen to many times and has happened to me with my work uniform on and everything . These laws are to help Law enforcment pick and choose instead of doing there job and protect our community . Making a donation today Molley .

Edited by usda101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Chrislinger! Thanks so much! But thank Molly! She and Todd has been working their butts off. Hopefully what we can do is get enough lawsuits going where the board will only be able to deny if certain tangible criteria are met and it must be like 5 to 7 arrests.

 

How about no denials for arrest alone? Since when did an 'arrest' (or even multiple arrest) and not a single conviction in a court of law become an acceptable reason for the government to revoke and deny Constitutionality protected rights? To endorse or even accept that policy IMO is simply wrong on multiple levels, and we should be standing 100% behind abolishing and destroying any law/policy like that...

 

I can see the abuse happening already, a local law enforcement agency doesn't want Billy Bob to carry a gun, no need to object to his application they only need to execute 5 arrest (your know for serious crimes like loitering, jaywalking, or the ever popular disorderly conduct) and they just fixed their problem no gun for Billy... Continue to arrest him once a year from there on and Billy will never get his license... And this is somehow acceptable to anyone here?

 

Exactly . Not many cops kids have been arrested 5 times . But i insure you more then a few have been caught with drugs . But they leave being denied for drugs to there Discretion . It's all a Sham .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth would they file in State Court....the action belongs in Federal Court where real rules apply

 

 

Maybe to avoid Rooker-Feldman abstention,

 

It was brought up in Woollard, (by King, who as just trying to get out of doing his job), I think mainly they avoided a Rooker-Feldman abstention because Maryland AG never claimed it to begin with, never mentioned it in any of the briefs, didn't seem to know what it was and was too dumb to claim it when Davis seemed to hand it to him on a platter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

You should have seen the spit-take I did when I read Aziz's bald-faced statement that:



". . . the law enforcement objection as heard by the Concealed Carry Board does not straightly implicate the right to bear arms. What it implicates is the right to a license."



If that isn't the most mealy mouthed, disingenuous, word-twisting argument I've ever heard made, I don't know what is. It's like putting a towel over someone's head and whacking the towel with a hammer, then saying, "I didn't hit you in the head, I hit the towel. The damage to your head from me hitting the towel with the hammer is of no consequence, and I'm not to blame for your cracked skull, because the hammer never touched your head directly."



Patterson calling BS on it by noting, "This does implicate the right to bear arms because the only way you can bear arms is with the license" is entirely spot on and puts the lie to Aziz's wordplay shenanigans succinctly and powerfully.



D@mn, whenever he shuffles off this mortal coil, Bilal A. Aziz most definitely has a job waiting for him writing contracts for souls as a junior demonic partner in the firm of Beelzebub, Adremelach, and Dis. That was some malevolent sophistry there, boy. Chilling.


Edited by ChicagoRonin70
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You should have seen the spit-take I did when I read Aziz's bald-faced statement that:

". . . the law enforcement objection as heard by the Concealed Carry Board does not straightly implicate the right to bear arms. What it implicates is the right to a license."

If that isn't the most mealy mouthed, disingenuous, word-twisting argument I've ever heard made, I don't know what is. It's like putting a towel over someone's head and whacking the towel with a hammer, then saying, "I didn't hit you in the head, I hit the towel. The damage to your head from me hitting the towel with the hammer is of no consequence, and I'm not to blame for your cracked skull, because the hammer never touched your head directly."

Patterson calling BS on it by noting, "This does implicate the right to bear arms because the only way you can bear arms is with the license" is entirely spot on and puts the lie to Aziz's wordplay shenanigans succinctly and powerfully.

D@mn, whenever he shuffles off this mortal coil, Bilal A. Aziz most definitely has a job waiting for him writing contracts for souls as a junior demonic partner in the firm of Beelzebub, Adremelach, and Dis. That was some malevolent sophistry there, boy. Chilling.

 

Much like

 

"But Rabbit, I wasn't going to eat it - I was just going to taste it." - Pooh Bear or

 

" We had to destroy the village in order to save the village" - Major Booris on the destruction of Ben Tre, Viet Nam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Sounds like the court is giving them a second chance to do it right. I think this is a win.

 

 

It is a win! The judge just signed the remand order on March 2, 2015. The 29 listed members of IllinoisCarry will be informed as to why they were denied and who filed the objection. Their applications will be remanded back to the CCL Review Board for review and reconsideration. They will be provided 15 days to respond - more days will be allowed upon request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Fourth District affirmed the denial of attorney's fees and expenses to Plaintiffs.

 

"Plaintiffs, Illinois Carry, an organization supporting the concealed carrying of

firearms, and three individuals, Matthew Thomann, Samuel Finnigan, Jr., and Deanna Knoll, appeal from the circuit court’s order dismissing their petition for attorney fees and costs against defendants, the Illinois Department of State Police (Department), the Department’s then director, the Concealed Carry Licensing Board (Board), and the Board’s then members. The sole issue on appeal is whether the circuit court’s dismissal was in error. We affirm."

 

Awards of attorney's fees and expenses are barred by the Illinois Constitution.

 

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/580a2992bb8ec/4150936.pdf

 

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

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
×
×
  • Create New...