Jump to content

CCLRB Denials - Reports and Trend Analysis


kwc
 Share

Recommended Posts

It is clear the CCLRB occasionally filters the application objections by source (county? LEO?), reason (contacts that didn't result in an arrest?), the applicant's age (under 18 at the time of the alleged offense?), or another factor, and processes those as a group regardless of position in the queue. March 2016 and Jan 2017 are good examples, when they overturned every single objection.

 

I would REALLY like to know the common thread for those groupings. Unfortunately the ISP won't share this with us through a FOIA request.

 

But the CCLRB knows what is happening. Just imagine if the ISP would identify these categories and post an advisory to LEOs to "consider" during the 30-day objection period. Something like "Objections based on xxxxxx have been historically overturned by the CCLRB..." might help to reduce the number of frivolous objections, if the LEOs would adjust to this feedback.

 

Of course, there are much more dramatic actions that could and should be taken to uphold the spirit and intent of a shall-issue statute, but IMHO the feedback loop just described could have a helpful impact on reducing the backlog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Thanks KWC for all the good work you are doing! I've been in limbo since November "Under Board Review" most likely for something that happen as a juvie. Everything was expunged so I am confident that the object will get overruled, just have to wait it out I guess.

 

The trend looks good though and they are increasing the number of applicants they review each month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It is clear the CCLRB occasionally filters the application objections by source (county? LEO?), reason (contacts that didn't result in an arrest?), the applicant's age (under 18 at the time of the alleged offense?), or another factor, and processes those as a group regardless of position in the queue. March 2016 and Jan 2017 are good examples, when they overturned every single objection.

 

I would REALLY like to know the common thread for those groupings. Unfortunately the ISP won't share this with us through a FOIA request.

 

But the CCLRB knows what is happening. Just imagine if the ISP would identify these categories and post an advisory to LEOs to "consider" during the 30-day objection period. Something like "Objections based on xxxxxx have been historically overturned by the CCLRB..." might help to reduce the number of frivolous objections, if the LEOs would adjust to this feedback.

 

Of course, there are much more dramatic actions that could and should be taken to uphold the spirit and intent of a shall-issue statute, but IMHO the feedback loop just described could have a helpful impact on reducing the backlog.

 

 

Any updates on April stats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I just updated the first two posts with the latest data from March, April, and May 2017.

 

Thanks for the update, much appreciated. I'm just confused as to why they still have not reviewed my application yet? They have gone through over ~2800 people since I have been UBR. Last time I checked there were only ~2400 people UBR. What is going on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just updated the first two posts with the latest data from March, April, and May 2017.

 

Thanks for the update, much appreciated. I'm just confused as to why they still have not reviewed my application yet? They have gone through over ~2800 people since I have been UBR. Last time I checked there were only ~2400 people UBR. What is going on?

How incredibly frustrating! So sorry you're having to go through this.

 

My best guess is that the CCLRB isn't handling these first-in, first-out. They are batch processing applications with similarities they believe may be easier to clear first. See my post #33 above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...because the review board has requested more information from the objecting law enforcement agency and the board is waiting for a reply...

If only we could find out how many backlogged applications fall into that category! Unfortunately, they won't release the data (FOIA-exempt).

 

Do we have any self-reported data from applicants that could indicate the shortest possible turnaround time for a CCLRB review? Is anyone being cleared in the 1-3 month range?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...because the review board has requested more information from the objecting law enforcement agency and the board is waiting for a reply...

If only we could find out how many backlogged applications fall into that category! Unfortunately, they won't release the data (FOIA-exempt).

 

Do we have any self-reported data from applicants that could indicate the shortest possible turnaround time for a CCLRB review? Is anyone being cleared in the 1-3 month range?

 

 

Not anyone that I know. The earliest that I have heard are at the 1 year mark. The board does group some reviews by similar type and some by geographical location so that one particular county does not monopolize all the board's reviewing time . . . these are not hard and fast rules, the process fluctuates with the type of objections filed and the number that are submitted.

 

The longest waiting for review are those waiting for the law enforcement agency to respond to the request for more information. Our position is if the agency has not responded within 30 days, then the application must be processed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...because the review board has requested more information from the objecting law enforcement agency and the board is waiting for a reply...

If only we could find out how many backlogged applications fall into that category! Unfortunately, they won't release the data (FOIA-exempt).

 

Do we have any self-reported data from applicants that could indicate the shortest possible turnaround time for a CCLRB review? Is anyone being cleared in the 1-3 month range?

 

 

Thanks for the responses! Yeah at this point I am beyond the point of frustration. I am hoping that Molly and illinoiscarry can put more pressure on the Review Board, so LEOs can stop taking advantage of the current system (i.e. give LEOs maximum 30 days to respond to the board and after the 30 days make a decision).

 

Very unfortunate but I have trust in the Review Board to allow justice to prevail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I filed my lawsuit they failed to answer so the Board and its members are in default. Tomorrow I am filing a motion and naming Sheriff Dart as A subject of NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION.

 

This is when a LEO does what is wrong but believes the end justifies the means..His objections based on the % of being overturned fits him perfectly. Up before Judge John Lee next Wednesday, hopefully I will get a court order to stop this Moron..

 

Check his 60 minute interview with Leslie Stahl in May 2017. Half of his 7500 inmates are not criminals or a danger to anyone ! Yet us members or anyone who just walked past the Police and have not been to his Hotel in the last 20 years, he objects to a CCL..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I filed my lawsuit they failed to answer so the Board and its members are in default. Tomorrow I am filing a motion and naming Sheriff Dart as A subject of NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION.

 

This is when a LEO does what is wrong but believes the end justifies the means..His objections based on the % of being overturned fits him perfectly. Up before Judge John Lee next Wednesday, hopefully I will get a court order to stop this Moron..

 

Check his 60 minute interview with Leslie Stahl in May 2017. Half of his 7500 inmates are not criminals or a danger to anyone ! Yet us members or anyone who just walked past the Police and have not been to his Hotel in the last 20 years, he objects to a CCL..

 

 

Goodluck! Let us know what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I filed my lawsuit they failed to answer so the Board and its members are in default. Tomorrow I am filing a motion and naming Sheriff Dart as A subject of NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION.

 

This is when a LEO does what is wrong but believes the end justifies the means..His objections based on the % of being overturned fits him perfectly. Up before Judge John Lee next Wednesday, hopefully I will get a court order to stop this Moron..

 

Check his 60 minute interview with Leslie Stahl in May 2017. Half of his 7500 inmates are not criminals or a danger to anyone ! Yet us members or anyone who just walked past the Police and have not been to his Hotel in the last 20 years, he objects to a CCL..

 

Who is your 2nd Amendment attorney for the case? I am currently looking for a new one myself, in possible preparation for a suit against the state and the CTA in regards to the prohibition of CCL on public transportation, which severely impedes my right to keep and bear arms since I am a disabled veteran who does not drive and relies upon public transportation for most of my mobility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

 

I filed my lawsuit they failed to answer so the Board and its members are in default. Tomorrow I am filing a motion and naming Sheriff Dart as A subject of NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION.

 

This is when a LEO does what is wrong but believes the end justifies the means..His objections based on the % of being overturned fits him perfectly. Up before Judge John Lee next Wednesday, hopefully I will get a court order to stop this Moron..

 

Check his 60 minute interview with Leslie Stahl in May 2017. Half of his 7500 inmates are not criminals or a danger to anyone ! Yet us members or anyone who just walked past the Police and have not been to his Hotel in the last 20 years, he objects to a CCL..

 

 

Goodluck! Let us know what happens.

 

Sorry for the delay in answering.. The State answered and the judge refused the default. The answer is I have no rights under the 11th Amendment to file a suit. The board and the member's are like a judge and state atty { suit-proof }.

 

I then answered and Judge Lee is supposed to send a decision by mail before the 26th, to let us know if we go to trial or not.Also we have a hearing on the 26th Oct. at 9 am.

 

The law is clear the the board is suit-proof, unless their actions are Willful and Wanton.

 

 

Because of my job I have a PERC card.My employer applied for a FCC card for me to be armed while working..The ISP approved my right to carry while working and the Dept.Of Pro.Reg.issued my FCC ! This has been over a year, So.. I am no danger working in Shitcagos West and South sides { armed } per the ISP and DPR, yet the CCB must believe I am a danger since they have done NOTHING since I applied 10/01/15.

 

By the way I filed this Pro-Se, a lawyer would never take a case like this on a contingency. My arguments are they are violating my 5th 6th & 14th amendments. What could be more Willful and Wanton than the ISP giving me the right to carry while working but the arm of the ISP denying my right to carry for 25 months !? Any ideas would be appreciated because if the judge rules in favor of the state, I will be headed to the Appellate court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 8 months later...

Posts 1 and 2 have been updated to reflect CCLRB outcomes through July 2018.

 

I added this note to post 2:

 

Please note that the data provided in the reports (post #1) reflects applications reviewed. In some cases, an application may be denied and later resubmitted by the same applicant. These would be considered again by a subsequent board. Cumulative totals should therefore be viewed as "applications" reviewed/denied by each board and not as "applicants" reviewed or denied.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. unpinned this topic

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

×
×
  • Create New...