Tvandermyde Posted July 10, 2014 at 08:56 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 08:56 PM We learned this afternoon that the FCCL review board filed emergency rules to deal with objects and refferals to the board the the process. We do not know what they say at this time. But we are tying to get a copy of them to look over and figure out how to handel them and if objections need to be filed with JCAR. WE are also hearing that this is a scramble to try and head off much of the litigation over bad denials from the Board. I can tell you one thing, we are going to make their Senate Confirmation a nighmare if they keep this up. more as we get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted July 10, 2014 at 08:58 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 08:58 PM Go get em, Todd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted July 10, 2014 at 09:01 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 09:01 PM Get 'em Todd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marie Posted July 10, 2014 at 09:11 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 09:11 PM Get 'er done, Todd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronSam Posted July 10, 2014 at 09:29 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 09:29 PM Me 4! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted July 10, 2014 at 09:53 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 09:53 PM JCAR minutes May 20th. Todd what is this about? REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKINGSIllinois State Police Firearm Concealed Carry Act Procedures (20 Ill. Adm. Code 1231; 38 Ill. Reg. 9703)Co-Chair Schmitz asked if a representative from the Illinois State Police was present. Suzanne Bond, ISP Chief Legal Counsel, and Matthew Davis, ISP Lieutenant Colonel (Division of Administration), were present.Co-Chair Schmitz: It is the desire of the Committee that the Department make several necessary technical modifications to these emergency rules.Ms. Bond: We understand and will comply.Representative Leitch, seconded by Senator Rezin, moved that JCAR object to the Department of State Police's use of emergency rulemaking to adopt this rule because it did so 4 months after the underlying Public Act was effective. Since 4 months provided sufficient time for adoption of a proposed rule, any situation requiring use of emergency rulemaking appears to be Department- created. He also moved that JCAR object to Sections 1231.20(a)(1) and (2) and 1231.30(a) of this emergency rule because they contain deficiencies and technical errors resulting in rule text that does not clearly convey the Department's policy.The motion passed unanimously.http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/Minutes/20140520_May%2020,%202014.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted July 10, 2014 at 10:04 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 10:04 PM JCAR minutes May 20th. Todd what is this about? REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKINGS Illinois State Police Firearm Concealed Carry Act Procedures (20 Ill. Adm. Code 1231; 38 Ill. Reg. 9703) Co-Chair Schmitz asked if a representative from the Illinois State Police was present. Suzanne Bond, ISP Chief Legal Counsel, and Matthew Davis, ISP Lieutenant Colonel (Division of Administration), were present. Co-Chair Schmitz: It is the desire of the Committee that the Department make several necessary technical modifications to these emergency rules. Ms. Bond: We understand and will comply. Representative Leitch, seconded by Senator Rezin, moved that JCAR object to the Department of State Police's use of emergency rulemaking to adopt this rule because it did so 4 months after the underlying Public Act was effective. Since 4 months provided sufficient time for adoption of a proposed rule, any situation requiring use of emergency rulemaking appears to be Department- created. He also moved that JCAR object to Sections 1231.20(a)(1) and (2) and 1231.30(a) of this emergency rule because they contain deficiencies and technical errors resulting in rule text that does not clearly convey the Department's policy. The motion passed unanimously. http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/Minutes/20140520_May%2020,%202014.pdf If I read that right it means JCAR isn't going to let them utilize the emergency (faster/shorter) method of rulemaking as they are doing so 4 months after the Act became effective. Seems even politicians can smell cow droppings even when dressed in ISP colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted July 10, 2014 at 10:22 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 10:22 PM JCAR minutes May 20th. Todd what is this about?REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKINGSIllinois State Police Firearm Concealed Carry Act Procedures (20 Ill. Adm. Code 1231; 38 Ill. Reg. 9703)Co-Chair Schmitz asked if a representative from the Illinois State Police was present.Suzanne Bond, ISP Chief Legal Counsel, and Matthew Davis, ISP Lieutenant Colonel (Division of Administration), were present.Co-Chair Schmitz: It is the desire of the Committee that the Department make several necessary technical modifications to these emergency rules.Ms. Bond: We understand and will comply.Representative Leitch, seconded by Senator Rezin, moved that JCAR object to the Department of State Police's use of emergency rulemaking to adopt this rule because it did so 4 months after the underlying Public Act was effective. Since 4 months provided sufficient time for adoption of a proposed rule, any situation requiring use of emergency rulemaking appears to be Department- created. He also moved that JCAR object to Sections 1231.20(a)(1) and (2) and 1231.30(a) of this emergency rule because they contain deficiencies and technical errors resulting in rule text that does not clearly convey the Department's policy.The motion passed unanimously.http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/Minutes/20140520_May%2020,%202014.pdfIf I read that right it means JCAR isn't going to let them utilize the emergency (faster/shorter) method of rulemaking as they are doing so 4 months after the Act became effective.Seems even politicians can smell cow droppings even when dressed in ISP colors.That is what I thought but Rep Leitch said, "adopt this rule" and I didn't see the rule he was referencing. Maybe it was ANY emergency rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted July 10, 2014 at 10:27 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 10:27 PM This makes me believe that they've had a chance to digest the suits against them and aren't so confident with their odds in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted July 10, 2014 at 10:47 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 10:47 PM That is what I thought but Rep Leitch said, "adopt this rule" and I didn't see the rule he was referencing. Maybe it was ANY emergency rule.I read it to be any emergency rule. They're saying there is time to go through the normal rulemaking process. They're tired of dealing with uproar over "emergency" rules that they have had no input into. This makes me believe that they've had a chance to digest the suits against them and aren't so confident with their odds in court.I don't see how anyone with a lick of sense thought their process would withstand scrutiny. And if the reports coming forth on obvious mistaken identity denials, where the board's own records indicate that they know it's mistaken identity yet they deny anyway, how any members of the board thought their actions would withstand scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhawk99 Posted July 10, 2014 at 10:55 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 10:55 PM Awesome work Todd, you and board here at Illinois Carry are doing a great job for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hgmeyer Posted July 10, 2014 at 11:40 PM Share Posted July 10, 2014 at 11:40 PM However, reversing some or many of the denials is not a satisfactory result. Nor, is any set of rules that does not require notice of all objections, stating the objector and an opportunity to see that objection. Further, an opportunity to answer and present evidence as well as an opportunity to confront witnesses and objections. That, among other changes. None of that can happen under the current statute. The clauses that setup the board, describe how objections are handled will not mesh with those changes. And, administrative review is not an adequate review of the current star chamber "hearings". The statute needs to be defeated in Federal Court and then a stay for the legislature to fix it (short and de-novo hearings under new rules and some punishment, like they all get canned and new ones appointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:11 AM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:11 AM JCAR minutes May 20th. Todd what is this about?REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKINGSIllinois State Police Firearm Concealed Carry Act Procedures (20 Ill. Adm. Code 1231; 38 Ill. Reg. 9703)Co-Chair Schmitz asked if a representative from the Illinois State Police was present.Suzanne Bond, ISP Chief Legal Counsel, and Matthew Davis, ISP Lieutenant Colonel (Division of Administration), were present.Co-Chair Schmitz: It is the desire of the Committee that the Department make several necessary technical modifications to these emergency rules.Ms. Bond: We understand and will comply.Representative Leitch, seconded by Senator Rezin, moved that JCAR object to the Department of State Police's use of emergency rulemaking to adopt this rule because it did so 4 months after the underlying Public Act was effective. Since 4 months provided sufficient time for adoption of a proposed rule, any situation requiring use of emergency rulemaking appears to be Department- created. He also moved that JCAR object to Sections 1231.20(a)(1) and (2) and 1231.30(a) of this emergency rule because they contain deficiencies and technical errors resulting in rule text that does not clearly convey the Department's policy.The motion passed unanimously.http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/Minutes/20140520_May%2020,%202014.pdfI believe this is referring to the emergency rules filed on April 16, 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnwfan3 Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:12 AM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:12 AM I'm sure they are now starting to see their screw ups!! I got the reason for my denial and it was because someone with my first and last name (not my middle name, or address) has some orders of protection filed against them. The documents are plain as day and they out and out missed it (or chose not to look at them). What a mess they created. My lawyer said that they are offering deals to the AAG so they can safe face. Unbelievable! I think most of these denial will prevail and Dart and the board will come away from this looking bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:49 AM Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:49 AM we are working on it. Molly and I are talking and we just got the notice around 2:30 pm so lets see what Monday brings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCroskey Posted July 11, 2014 at 01:50 AM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 01:50 AM It's like going into Berlin at the end of WWII, they've already lost but they still insist on fighting street by street and to the last person. This stuff is just time wasting. What is so hard about them telling people why they've been denied and giving them a proper appeals process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnwfan3 Posted July 11, 2014 at 02:19 AM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 02:19 AM Thanks Todd! I hope you and Molly can get this whole mess straightened out. It's just an unbelievable absolute train wreck. How this could actually happen is beyond me. I'm glad we have the two of you working for us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double-J Posted July 11, 2014 at 02:20 AM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 02:20 AM So a dictatorship that answers to no-one is being called out. Go figure. If inquiring minds remember, I alerted you to this problem months before the first license was issued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad O. Posted July 11, 2014 at 02:59 AM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 02:59 AM So a dictatorship that answers to no-one is being called out. Go figure. If inquiring minds remember, I alerted you to this problem months before the first license was issued. And I remember so many people saying things like "no one as been denied yet, give the process a chance"....and later "lets see what the review board does, I bet they scold lawn Dart....give the process a chance to play out". No wonder the same politicians keep getting re-elected. Way too many gullible over-trusting foolish voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted July 11, 2014 at 11:45 AM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 11:45 AM There's actually an editorial today in of all places the Libtune calling for applicants to know the reason for denial. One might almost call it pro-2A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hgmeyer Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:35 PM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:35 PM Rules will not solve this train wreck. The statute created this star chamber proceeding. The statute needs to be amended or we will just be back in the shadows letting Dart file objections all over again. The Board needs to meet in four or five different locations around the state during a 60 day period so applicants and witnesses are not inconvenienced unnecessarily. All of my previous comments are valid. The judicial review process should be similar to the FOID process...."has substantial justice been done" and a de-novo hearing. This is a fundamental right. Would anyone tolerate a denial of First Amendment rights from a system like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted July 11, 2014 at 01:12 PM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 01:12 PM And I remember so many people saying things like "no one as been denied yet, give the process a chance"....and later "lets see what the review board does, I bet they scold lawn Dart....give the process a chance to play out". No wonder the same politicians keep getting re-elected. Way too many gullible over-trusting foolish voters. Just to keep things in perspective, if my math is correct, the board denials make up less than 1% of applications submitted. They have largely overruled Dart's objections. However, when they get it wrong, they go big! They have the authority to involve the applicant and have chosen not to do so. They can ask for further information from any of the law enforcement agencies or the applicant in order to clarify details about the applicant but they have chosen not to do so. That will change with the lawsuits, legislation, and their rules and regs. We will hammer, hound, and pursue until this is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hgmeyer Posted July 11, 2014 at 01:49 PM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 01:49 PM That 1% could just as easily be 5% or 10% under the current statute. There is nothing stopping them now except the possible bad publicity they are going to get and even now are beginning to get. That is not an adequate protection for a fundamental right. Do not accept a short term fix that leaves the statute unchanged. 1% is an insignificant portion, until you are the 1%. Then it is a 100%, for you, nightmare. Hopefully, the Federal Court Civil Rights action will result in a real fix in time. My suggestion would be to work within the framework that negotiates an end to that suit and anmendment to the Act. That is the only "deal" that in the long term furthers everybody's rights. Legally, IANAL, but IMO they do not even have the power to "rehear" an application without an order from the Court overturning their decision. Typical for Illinois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George72 Posted July 11, 2014 at 01:53 PM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 01:53 PM I love that statement " We will hammer, hound, and pursue until this is right". I don't post often mainly because I work for a local unit of government and interact with people daily and no I'm not in law enforcement. I check this site every day. I just thought it was time to tell Molly B. how much I appreciate all the work she does for all of us here.So Molly, thank you and I think you are awesome Todd, same goes for you. The work you have done on behalf of us here is appreciated and I thank you. Again awesome I am sure there are others from this site that have worked for all of us as well. I thank you ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted July 11, 2014 at 04:23 PM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 04:23 PM There needs to be cost recovery for appeals, they are civil rights actions after all. Paying for appeals would give them strong motivation to get it right in the first place, but also offer an informal hearing where many issues could be cleared up rapidly. The amount of time that is involved in FOID and CCL appeals & restoration is unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted July 11, 2014 at 04:59 PM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 04:59 PM Here is a copy of the CCL Review Board proposed rules. Bear in mind JCAR has not approved these yet so edits and changes are still a possibility. Let's take a close look: CCL Review Board Emergency Rules - July 10, 2014.pdf CCL Review Board Emergency Rules - July 10 2014 (1).doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:05 PM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:05 PM Can someone convert this to a Word doc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0beit Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:12 PM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:12 PM Can someone convert this to a Word doc.? Only way to do it would be OCR or manual typing since it's scans and not actual text, unless you want the images in the word doc, then I can probably work it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:22 PM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:22 PM Molly check your email .....you have a Word doc in your email Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:34 PM Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:34 PM 10 days to respond from date of mailing??? Seems a tad short Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.