nbartlet Posted February 15, 2022 at 08:01 PM Author Posted February 15, 2022 at 08:01 PM The insanity continues. I just got the response from ISP. Apparently they are unaware of their own processes. I'm now being told that I must petition the circuit court in the county that I reside in..which AGAIN... I no longer reside in Illinois and this was the religion that I submitted the appeal directly to the Director of ISP. I've waited 8 months for response from them. @FredNickl@Molly B.
Molly B. Posted February 15, 2022 at 08:05 PM Posted February 15, 2022 at 08:05 PM How frustrating. Hopefully Fred will chime in here with his opinion. In the meantime you can send an email to: ISP.FOID.Appeals@illinois.gov
FredNickl Posted February 15, 2022 at 08:07 PM Posted February 15, 2022 at 08:07 PM Assuming everything you've stated is accurate, then the analyst who sent you that email (behind an anonymous email address of course) REALLY needs to talk to the Chief Legal Counsel who specified the exact process (and thereby clearing up a couple of years of uncertainty) back on 5-3-21.
nbartlet Posted February 15, 2022 at 08:27 PM Author Posted February 15, 2022 at 08:27 PM Thank you both. I have replied to their email asking for clarification on the contradiction. I also found a potential contact for the Chief Legal Counsel, Maureen McCurry, and will try to contact message her directly. Hopefully I will not have to wait months for a response, but fully expect to. @FredNickl @Molly B.
nbartlet Posted February 15, 2022 at 08:29 PM Author Posted February 15, 2022 at 08:29 PM On 2/8/2022 at 10:48 PM, JTHunter said: nbartlet - this thread has made interesting reading as it helps to illustrate Illinois convoluted systems. You seem to be doing everything within your abilities and Mr. Nickl help has been instructive as well. Good luck in your efforts and don't lose heart. Thank you. I will certainly press on until I find a satisfactory resolution. Will keep everyone posted as this progresses.
nbartlet Posted February 15, 2022 at 09:45 PM Author Posted February 15, 2022 at 09:45 PM On 2/15/2022 at 3:07 PM, FredNickl said: Assuming everything you've stated is accurate, then the analyst who sent you that email (behind an anonymous email address of course) REALLY needs to talk to the Chief Legal Counsel who specified the exact process (and thereby clearing up a couple of years of uncertainty) back on 5-3-21. They responded rather quickly. According to this (see attached)... I still have to petition the court and I can do so in writing in the county where the conviction occurred. @FredNicklI may need your assistance from here. I have done most of this work over the years on my own, but I would not know what paper work to file with the courts. Especially since I do have a conviction in both Will and Cook Counties. @Molly B.
FredNickl Posted February 15, 2022 at 11:00 PM Posted February 15, 2022 at 11:00 PM That rule was amended late December 2021. I have to pull it to see when the language changed. But I monitor the Illinois Register via the Flinn Report on a weekly basis and don't remember seeing ISP give notice of this rule change (unless it was a while ago and I missed it). Molly - do you recall seeing notice of the rule change?
Molly B. Posted February 16, 2022 at 03:11 AM Posted February 16, 2022 at 03:11 AM On 2/15/2022 at 5:00 PM, FredNickl said: That rule was amended late December 2021. I have to pull it to see when the language changed. But I monitor the Illinois Register via the Flinn Report on a weekly basis and don't remember seeing ISP give notice of this rule change (unless it was a while ago and I missed it). Molly - do you recall seeing notice of the rule change? No, I do not!
FredNickl Posted February 16, 2022 at 01:55 PM Posted February 16, 2022 at 01:55 PM Well, here's the source for the rule change, which sucks and I'm surprised I missed this since we check the Flinn each week: https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/index/register/volume45/register_volume45_issue_37.pdf The rule change can be found in Volume 45 Issue 37 pg 10959 (9-10-21 issue) It created a whole new subsection of an existing rule governing out of state residents, and eliminates the ease with which we could usually restore firearm civil rights for some out-of-state residents. Prohibitors that would have required a formal appeal for in-state residents now also require formal appeals (with a twist on where you can file) for out-of-state residents.
nbartlet Posted February 16, 2022 at 02:15 PM Author Posted February 16, 2022 at 02:15 PM On 2/16/2022 at 8:55 AM, FredNickl said: Well, here's the source for the rule change, which sucks and I'm surprised I missed this since we check the Flinn each week: https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/index/register/volume45/register_volume45_issue_37.pdf The rule change can be found in Volume 45 Issue 37 pg 10959 (9-10-21 issue) It created a whole new subsection of an existing rule governing out of state residents, and eliminates the ease with which we could usually restore firearm civil rights for some out-of-state residents. Prohibitors that would have required a formal appeal for in-state residents now also require formal appeals (with a twist on where you can file) for out-of-state residents. Thank you Mr. Nickl. I'm wondering now since I have to petition the courts if I'm going to need to have attempted a pardon first. Will you be able to assist me with filing a petition? If we need to discuss more over the phone, I would be happy to call you when you have some availability. @FredNickl
FredNickl Posted February 16, 2022 at 02:41 PM Posted February 16, 2022 at 02:41 PM Re: pardon,. that is a separate beast and not a requirement to file a formal appeal (unless they passed another damn rule!) I cannot discuss potential representation on a public forum, but you are welcome to email or call my direct line anytime. I will talk to anyone for up to half an hour no-charge to discuss their background and how/whether we can help.
Molly B. Posted February 16, 2022 at 05:27 PM Posted February 16, 2022 at 05:27 PM On 2/16/2022 at 8:41 AM, FredNickl said: Re: pardon,. that is a separate beast and not a requirement to file a formal appeal (unless they passed another damn rule!) I cannot discuss potential representation on a public forum, but you are welcome to email or call my direct line anytime. I will talk to anyone for up to half an hour no-charge to discuss their background and how/whether we can help. The reason I suggest applying for pardons (do not need to wait on results) - In the past the ISP/Att. Gen. office has made it a practice to motion to dismiss court appeals on the basis that people who have not requested a pardon have not exhausted all their options prior to petitioning the court . . . and the courts have been dismissing the petitions.
FredNickl Posted February 16, 2022 at 05:43 PM Posted February 16, 2022 at 05:43 PM On 2/16/2022 at 11:27 AM, Molly B. said: The reason I suggest applying for pardons (do not need to wait on results) - In the past the ISP/Att. Gen. office has made it a practice to motion to dismiss court appeals on the basis that people who have not requested a pardon have not exhausted all their options prior to petitioning the court . . . and the courts have been dismissing the petitions. Interesting. I've never encountered that. I wonder if it is just pro se folks that are getting pushback from the judges who don't want to deal with this? I have had AAG / ASA make basic arguments that I didn't bother to exhaust all remedies, but no one has ever argued the lack of a pardon request. If one does get a pardon, then we default to an informal appeal, which would make sense if you don't want the hassle of appearing before a judge in your county. I have never done a pardon so I don't know how long those have been taking.
Euler Posted February 16, 2022 at 08:38 PM Posted February 16, 2022 at 08:38 PM On 2/16/2022 at 12:27 PM, Molly B. said: ... In the past the ISP/Att. Gen. office has made it a practice to motion to dismiss court appeals on the basis that people who have not requested a pardon have not exhausted all their options prior to petitioning the court . . . and the courts have been dismissing the petitions. I'd expect that to lead to a Catch-22, where pardons (an executive option) would be denied routinely unless someone had exhausted all their judicial options. (Can Kafkaesque be rendered into an adverb?)
Molly B. Posted February 16, 2022 at 11:03 PM Posted February 16, 2022 at 11:03 PM A person does not have to receive a pardon or even have the results back - from my experience Att.Gen. attorneys will accept on the basis that a person has applied.
JTHunter Posted February 18, 2022 at 08:06 PM Posted February 18, 2022 at 08:06 PM An interesting thread. Mr.Nickl and Molly, keep up the good work. This may make for a captivating outcome.
nbartlet Posted November 2, 2022 at 05:15 PM Author Posted November 2, 2022 at 05:15 PM I wanted to give an update to my situation. My application to have my firearm rights restored in GA was denied without reason. They granted me other civil rights, but specifically stated that firearms were not included. I was told that I may reapply in 2024. I will do that, but in the meantime I will be reaching out to Mr. Nickl to proceed with petitioning the courts in Illinois. Will continue to keep this topic updated.
Molly B. Posted November 2, 2022 at 07:23 PM Posted November 2, 2022 at 07:23 PM On 11/2/2022 at 12:15 PM, nbartlet said: I wanted to give an update to my situation. My application to have my firearm rights restored in GA was denied without reason. They granted me other civil rights, but specifically stated that firearms were not included. I was told that I may reapply in 2024. I will do that, but in the meantime I will be reaching out to Mr. Nickl to proceed with petitioning the courts in Illinois. Will continue to keep this topic updated. Thank you for the update - wish it had been more in your favor but they did leave the window open for restoration of rights in the future .
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.