The "Wait Time" on renewal

[Lovemycolt1911]

All criteria were met/this is a simple renewal and I have an clean background.  Does anyone know why when I physically got through and spoke with an actual human being at the ISP I was informed "yes, we have all of your documents but we have 109 days left to review it" I mentioned since all documents were in and all requirements met that it didn't make sense to me that there was still such a long period of wait time.  The representative just restated that "We have 109 days left" I simply ended the call.  My question to you fine folks is this happening just due to fact I live in Illinois and that is the way they do things here or is there some valid reason that I am unaware of?
 

[soundguy]

On 12/3/2025 at 2:59 PM, Lovemycolt1911 said:

"We have 109 days left"

 

It would be nice if they processed everything right away and just got it done. They seem to work like folks that wait until the last day before a bill is due to write a check. It doesn't always take the full amount of time allowed.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Molly B.]

They have that many days according to statute. It does not always take that long but they cite the allowed number days to cover their posterior.

 

[ragsbo]

And there is no penalty if they go past the time mentioned in the law. 

[SiliconSorcerer]

The longer they take the more free time added until next renewal but we can hope there will be no renewal required by then  

[John Q Public]

I'm probably going to get slammed for it, but I do support re/qualifying. I have had people who were, most definitely, a danger to self or others, and while I will defend their right in the home, I don't want them on the same street with me and they grand kids. When they are bouncing rounds off the floor and ceiling at 15ft, I have to say no. 

 

Bring on the tar and feathers!

 

JQ

[ragsbo]

On 12/4/2025 at 1:02 PM, John Q Public said:

I'm probably going to get slammed for it, but I do support re/qualifying. I have had people who were, most definitely, a danger to self or others, and while I will defend their right in the home, I don't want them on the same street with me and they grand kids. When they are bouncing rounds off the floor and ceiling at 15ft, I have to say no. 

 

Bring on the tar and feathers!

 

JQ

I understand your thinking , BUT I would add that the so called "qualification" is so easy that it meas NOTHING as to whether the person can shoot or has the mindset needed. 

[John Q Public]

Rags, I think you made my point, the ones that can't hit the paper at 15ft, which for sure is easy for most anyone with any training, or practice. How can you say it doesn't matter whether they can shoot? They are shooting and not hitting anything, but with no/limited stress. This is not to say that people that keep them in center mass will perform the same under pressure, most can not, but what I can say is if they can't do it on the range with, unlimited time, then they sure as heck aren't going to do better elsewhere. Nothing, is going to prove what someone will do under pressure, freeze, run, comply, etc... These will only be proven in a gunfight, and nobody can say what they will do until after it happens. 

 

I am very skilled with a firearm, but I still can not say I will do X when Y happens, I hope I can,  and have trained for it, but until it happens, nobody can say with certainty how they will react. It's really that simple, and any good instructor knows all of this, and it is, without question, a fact. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2025 at 08:31 PM by John Q Public

[ragsbo]

On 12/5/2025 at 2:24 PM, John Q Public said:

Rags, I think you made my point, the ones that can't hit the paper at 15ft, which for sure is easy for most anyone with any training, or practice. How can you say it doesn't matter whether they can shoot? They are shooting and not hitting anything, but with no/limited stress. This is not to say that people that keep them in center mass will perform the same under pressure, most can not, but what I can say is if they can't do it on the range with, unlimited time, then they sure as heck aren't going to do better elsewhere. Nothing, is going to prove what someone will do under pressure, freeze, run, comply, etc... These will only be proven in a gunfight, and nobody can say what they will do until after it happens. 

 

I am very skilled with a firearm, but I still can not say I will do X when Y happens, I hope I can,  and have trained for it, but until it happens, nobody can say with certainty how they will react. It's really that simple, and any good instructor knows all of this, and it is, without question, a fact. 

 

 

 

 

It DOES NOT MATTER if they can shoot or not, they still have the Constitutionally protected right to own and carry firearms. Now I AGREE that EVERYONE who does carry has the RESPONSIBILITY to know how/when to shoot and have the skills to do it. BUT what I am saying is that the government has no business telling anyone what they have to do about it. 

 

As far as how one will do under those circumstances is definitely a mystery and I have also seen that just because you respond one way now, next time you might respond differently. 

[SiliconSorcerer]

I've loaned a mk to three people so far who have never shot a firearm and they passed. 

I have them the basics and safety talk and that's it. 

[John Q Public]

SS I find that true too, the quals and the 16hr classes, I have taught thousands, and very few couldn't qualify. Safety on the other hand, is a bit more failure rate. The uneducated are fine, but those that have been, "shooting for years," are the ones with ingrained bad habits that are tough to break in the short period we have with them. 

 

Doing the 3hr renewals is what I was thinking of when I posted about people bouncing them off the floor and ceiling. It's not our job to teach people how to shoot in a renewal class, nor is there time to do so. That said, I do some of that anyway, but without my input, I would probably get 1 fail in 2 3hr class. I mean some can't even load the mags correctly. What the hey!!!? It makes me wonder who taught them the 16hr class, and why they think it would be a good idea to carry when they are more apt to hit anything but what they are trying to hit. I would say aiming at, but that's obviously not what they are doing. Anyway, I knew I'd take some heat on this one, but I stand by my thoughts on accuracy and safety before CCL. 

 

Rags, no worries mate, but people are not doing what is needed even with the mandatory training, so I say I want to do what I can to not only protect them, but everyone else too. For me that is to evaluate their safety and accuracy. I understand you DO NOT agree, but there it is. Even LEOs and retired LEOs are required to do it, on or off the job if they want to carry. Anyway.. flame me, I can take it.

[Smallbore]

I believe education, skill development starting with a humble positive attitude is wise. To renewing and requalify should be easy and enjoyable. That said I do not believe our government has the right to force it. Nor do I believe the government can justify it. I believe American history shows the untrained gun owner is no more dangerous or safer then the government trained. Most shots are close range. Women have saved themselves by pushing a purse gun into a rapist belly.  High skill not needed. Most of our history has not forced training. I lean towards the most valuable training is conflict avoidance. Being that self defense is a God given human right then why shouldn't the government which mandates training be responsible for providing it so all may have equal opportunity. This last thought opens another can of worms.

[ragsbo]

On 12/6/2025 at 11:25 AM, John Q Public said:

 

 

Rags, no worries mate, but people are not doing what is needed even with the mandatory training, so I say I want to do what I can to not only protect them, but everyone else too. For me that is to evaluate their safety and accuracy. I understand you DO NOT agree, but there it is. Even LEOs and retired LEOs are required to do it, on or off the job if they want to carry. Anyway.. flame me, I can take it.

1. I do not agree that government should tell anyone what firearm they can or can not own. 

2. I do not agree that government should tell anyone what they have to do or not do to own a firearm

3. I do not agree that government should tell anyone what they have to do to carry a firearm, either concealed or open.

4. I do agree that the PERSON SHOULD recognize the responsibility owning and carrying a firearm and do what they need to so they are confident and safe with the weapon.

5. Koodoos to you for trying to see folks get what they need.  

 

I spent nearly 20 years trying to train DOE Nuc security folks to shoot and keep them qualified every 6 months. The pay was extremely well and you would have thought folks would take a little initiative to train on their own to keep that paycheck coming. I would say less than 5 percent ever did! We had the same pain the the rumps every 6 months that acted like they had never seen the gun before. AND it was MY fault they had to show up let alone actually shot the 70 percent to keep the pay check. I got to the point that I really didn't care if they lost their jobs. No skin off my back. I still got paid. I still tried but I knew end the end it was their doing, not mine. Now for the ones who actually tried, I went as far as I could to help them train and give them all that I could to see they got it. I thought about becoming a ccl instructor, but I just had my fill of that crap. 

[John Q Public]

I hear you both, and respect your opinions, what's more I agree on the letter of Constitution. I would say, we can affirm, or deny. I know... It's still not pure second. Anyway people thanks for listening. I don't disagree with you. It's nice when we can talk instead of scream. 

Edited December 7, 2025 at 09:38 PM by John Q Public

[Packy]

In the old days fathers taught their children gun safety and how to shoot. These days that for the most part doesn't happen. Other than the few idiots I have had in class, a high percentage of my students simply were ignorant about guns and the training was good for them. They were glad they had it. I have one son that refuses training. He says, “Any one can point a gun and pull the trigger.”

I am an Army Vietnam Veteran. I have had many vets from the Navy and Air Force that didn’t have a clue how to handle a gun.

What I am saying is for the safety of others training should be required, even for vets. Training is required to get a driver’s license.

[Quiet Observer]

On 12/10/2025 at 6:07 AM, Packy said:

In the old days fathers taught their children gun safety and how to shoot. These days that for the most part doesn't happen. Other than the few idiots I have had in class, a high percentage of my students simply were ignorant about guns and the training was good for them. They were glad they had it. I have one son that refuses training. He says, “Any one can point a gun and pull the trigger.”

I am an Army Vietnam Veteran. I have had many vets from the Navy and Air Force that didn’t have a clue how to handle a gun.

What I am saying is for the safety of others training should be required, even for vets. Training is required to get a driver’s license.

I agree with the need for training for driving and gun handling, but driving a car is not protected by the constitution. I learned basic gun safety from my father. We had a basic gun in a class in Navy boot camp in 1966. Before I took the FCCL class in December 2013, I downloaded a copy of the law and studied it before class. The instructor just read an outline. I did the abbreviated course. 

 

The constitution says nothing about accuracy with a gun, but the state requires it. Apparently, we do not have the right to defend ourselves unless we achieved a certain score against a paper sheet. 

 

Why renewal? Has anyone forgotten firearm safety. Various websites and gun publications note changes in gun laws. Indiana has constitutional carry and does issue lifetime permit. 

[ragsbo]

On 12/10/2025 at 12:11 PM, Quiet Observer said:

 

 

Why renewal?  

Simple, the state needs that 150 bucks to buy votes and it discourages folks from getting the license. To this state, it's all about getting more money from the people while enforcing their will 

[TomKoz]

Training / classroom / $$ required for a Constitutional Right should never have passed, and should have immediately been shot down (pun intended) by the Supreme Court!

[mikew]

On 12/10/2025 at 6:07 AM, Packy said:

What I am saying is for the safety of others training should be required, even for vets. Training is required to get a driver’s license.

 

Required training implies testing to prove competence.

 

Testing can not be required for voting since the US Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Previously, testing was used to disqualify black people from voting.

 

And yet, voting remains a far more dangerous activity than shooting or driving.

 

Training is a wonderful thing that should be encouraged and not required for the execution constitutionally protected rights.

 

 

[John Q Public]

One thing to add here, back in the day, most everyone was trained from an early age, to hunt fish and protect/feed. The firearm, both safety, and proficiency was mandated by need. There was no need for outside training. Today, kids are taught to hate/reject firearms and the people who have them. What we have is people, with no training, thinking a firearm is the answer. Though I agree it is our right, this day is not like those past, and a ton of people, are dangers to self and others, without that family history and training.... Should it be required...? No, but it's not the same as little Johnny hitting a rabbit on the farm from 25yrds. These people are hitting the floor at 15ft. Just saying...

 

 

JQ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2025 at 07:58 PM by John Q Public

[Packy]

I should have mentioned, Air Force and Navy vets were ignorant of safe gun handling I got to the point I wouldn't take them in my classes unless they verified their MOS and training. 

[John Q Public]

On 12/14/2025 at 7:41 AM, Packy said:

I should have mentioned, Air Force and Navy vets were ignorant of safe gun handling I got to the point I wouldn't take them in my classes unless they verified their MOS and training. 

 

Other forms of training too. Like 8hrs for a State that does little or no training at all. It's much like the NRA did with the online training, then wanted us to take them to the range, without having taught them ourselves. They were looking to cash in and leave the instructors out. That worked out well for them eh? Most of the good trainers I know refused to do the classes, I was one of those.