Response To FOIA From ISP Regarding CCL Issuance, Review and Processing Procedures

[Elmer Fudd]

I received an official response from the Illinois State Police today to a Freedom of Information Act request which I had filed close to a month ago. There are a number of issues associated with the filing that are relevant to a matter I am pursuing an appeal of, so I won't publish the actual letter I received from ISP. However, what follows is very different from much of what you read here.....rather than being the opinion of one of us, it is a verbatim response from the ISP. I will refrain from offering any editorial, at least initially.

 

The specific request which I made of ISP was for:

 

"Copies of internal manuals, procedures, memoranda, field

guidelines, training materials and any similar documents which

provide statements of policies, procedures or guidelines [both

substantive with respect to application of the statute and

procedural with regard to timelines, approvals, and

administrative directives] which relate to the processing by ISP

of applications for a Concealed Carry License pursuant to 430

ILCS 466"

Their response was:

"The Illinois State Police does not have any manuals. memoranda or field guidelines or any other documents

such as you have requested, and has no documents responsive to those portions of your request."

If I was to state it another way....ISP has officially in writing responded by saying that there are NO written procedures or guidance for the rank and file personnel whom are processing ANY judgmental aspect of the CCL license program with regard to how to evaluate an application, review background, etc. Not to worry, I have filed an appeal of their response with the Attorney General, and if necessary will take this to Court. Once again.....this is an official reply from ISP, not my speculation. There are several people here in leadership roles that have received copies of the actual response letter from ISP.

[spec5]

So if you were hired today to work on applications they would say here is your desk and computer and go for it. You are on your own. Sounds like Obamcare.

So if you were hired today to work on applications they would say here is your desk and computer and go for it. You are on your own. Sounds like Obamcare.

 

BTW Good Luck Mr Fudd.

[Elmer Fudd]

So if you were hired today to work on applications they would say here is your desk and computer and go for it. You are on your own.

I can't answer that question....time will tell what we ferret out with an appeal to the Illinois AG and then through discovery in the courts....however, what we do know now is that their official position is that they have "nothing relevant". In my view, the lack of standardized procedures, timelines, etc screams "lack of due process" if they can't point to something that explains how their processing and decision process works.

[lilguy]

UNFING BELIEVABLE! Makes those who blew through the system seem VERY lucky.

[Trevis]

Why am I not surprised?

[tkroenlein]

Makes perfect sense as to why there seems to be some inconsistencies in the process.

[azone5]

Oh my goodness...I bet they just didn't have enough time to plan.

[Elmer Fudd]

Makes perfect sense as to why there seems to be some inconsistencies in the process.

Again...I reiterate....this is NOT me guessing....this is an ISP Lieutenant their FOIA Officer responding on official ISP letterhead...in writing....with a response that I can and WILL proceed to rely upon in prosecuting a lawsuit....and again ....it is going to cost five...maybe six digits....which is ok....I am committed and WILL pay the freight to get this done.

[tkroenlein]

Yes, I understood that.

 

And thanks for sharing your experiences.

[Elmer Fudd]

Yes, I understood that. And thanks for sharing your experiences.

Thank you...the feedback is appreciated....and I intend to continue hammering at ISP...

[Tango7]

Dig that hole, Hiram...

[Elmer Fudd]

Dig that hole, Hiram...

Thanks for the smile sir!!!

[RockerXX]

I'm not surprised in the least, did anyone that wasn't an ISP sympathizer really think otherwise, and think they were not going to exploit the wide open gaping (dare I say intentional) holes in the carry law that was authored and delivered to them?

[Elmer Fudd]

I'm not surprised in the least, did anyone that wasn't an ISP sympathizer really think otherwise, and think they were not going to exploit the wide open gaping (dare I say intentional) holes in the carry law that was authored and delivered to them?

Well....pinning them down is a starting point.

[wtr100]

I'd kick that up the chain

 

I thought the I got told to pack sand with my request.

 

There is an appeal to the Lisa Madigans office - I'd go down that road with copy to state Rep and Senator

[Elmer Fudd]

The appeal is to AG Public Access Coordinator...already filed

[bob]

What is there to appeal? If there are no documents to release what can the ag do for you?

[Tango7]

 

Dig that hole, Hiram...

Thanks for the smile sir!!!

 

Always glad to be of service <tips hat>

 

Again...I reiterate....this is NOT me guessing....this is an ISP Lieutenant their FOIA Officer responding on official ISP letterhead...in writing

His initials aren't DC, are they?

 

ETA - probably SL. Nevermind, it would have been too ironic.

[Elmer Fudd]

What is there to appeal? If there are no documents to release what can the ag do for you?

It depends on how they define documents.

[Toolmaker8185]

Thank You, Elmer Fudd. Someone has to be the one to challenge some of this ISP B.S. and not everone has the resources to do so...I've read Your story and You got a raw deal, and that's putting it mildly. Good luck and Godspeed with this case.

[Elmer Fudd]

A very simple thought...I need to clear up my own mess...anything I can share along the way is a bonus...ty for the thought.

[GT1]

I'm not shocked, I guess.

[Googe1227]

Best of luck to u Mr. Fudd!

[transplant]

Give em heck, and good luck!

[RockerXX]

What is there to appeal? If there are no documents to release what can the ag do for you?

 

If it was me that was preparing to take the State on, I would file the request with the AG as well as a double confirmation (consider it as putting them between a rock and a hard place) because then when the court date comes if they magically produce said paperwork or claim to have it all the sudden to weasel out of claim they are going to have dirty hands since you can show that not once but twice did they proclaim it didn't exist previously...

 

Plus when in said court case you asked "Was my denial properly handled by the proper chain of command and authority, and can you provide supporting documents to back up your claims?" how are they going to hold face and answer that when they have admitted to not having any established criteria or documents they have to follow?

 

Sometimes you can invoke change and win by simply showing the other side to be utter idiots who are winging it when playing with your rights...

[domin8]

Hmm....

 

I guess they just randomly picked Hawaii and South Carolina too, huh?

[Elmer Fudd]

Hmm....

 

I guess they just randomly picked Hawaii and South Carolina too, huh?

No they didn't both the SC and HI CCL statutes have specific provisions that provide for permit revocation in the case of a voluntary mental health admit which are akin to 430 ILCS 65/8(e).....that is the provision they are looking for to be "substantially similar" to Illinois statute for them to grant reciprocity.

[domin8]

But they said they had nothing. How can you be sure? Furthermore, there is no reciprocity.

[Elmer Fudd]

But they said they had nothing. How can you be sure? Furthermore, there is no reciprocity.

An appeal has been filed, I have been filing FOIA requests with Federal agencies for thirty years, I am well aware of how one goes about seeking out documents when a denial is made. There is a procedure, and ultimately, if necessary it will get flushed out through discovery in court. As for the notion of substantially equivilent, I am not going to engage on this one.....I trust you are aware of what I am focused on...as I said there are other issues that have much greater interest to me.

[Prairie Pucker]

 

So if you were hired today to work on applications they would say here is your desk and computer and go for it. You are on your own.

I can't answer that question....time will tell what we ferret out with an appeal to the Illinois AG and then through discovery in the courts....however, what we do know now is that their official position is that they have "nothing relevant". In my view, the lack of standardized procedures, timelines, etc screams "lack of due process" if they can't point to something that explains how their processing and decision process works.

 

 

A requirement of many companies that take quality seriously is that procedures and processes for every job MUST be documented in detail. This is part of the whole ISO 9001 certification thing in pursuit of a consistent, high quality output, whether manufacturing a product or providing a service. The idea being that anybody anywhere can do any job, all they need to do is read the book. (In reality it doesn't quite work out that way, because it assumes that people are equal with respect to experience, attitude and abilities.) But the goal at least is to achieve consistent results.

 

The lack of documentation in this case, and the inconsistent results we're observing certainly seem to be cause and effect.

 

If the ISP was a typical manufacturing or service provider, most customers would look elsewhere due to this glaring oversight. With the ISP as a state agency, we, as citizens and taxpayers, don't have that choice.

 

The lack of anything in writing boggles the mind when one considers the possible darker implications.

 

Thanks, Mr. Fudd. I believe you've uncovered something major. One wonders how other state agencies function and whether ISO practices are followed elsewhere? If not, why not? If it's good for industry, why wouldn't it be good for the state?

 

Run the state like a business. What a concept. Didn't someone else suggest that?