CCL Totals - Nonresident and Resident - 1 May 2016

[kwc]

Due to other time commitments related to "a big lawsuit," the ISP delayed providing a response to my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for FCCL and FOID data for the past two months. They have finally caught up.

As of the end of the day on April 30, 2016, there were 169,778 active FCCLs (169,755 resident + 23 nonresident) and 2,004,933 active FOID cards.

The first table below captures the current cumulative totals, as of April 30, 2016, for Illinois Concealed Carry Licenses (CCLs) issued to nonresidents and residents since the program began. Note that these totals represent the total number ISSUED, and are not adjusted for those that have since been revoked or cancelled. This table also includes totals for CCLs that have been denied, revoked, or currently awaiting action from the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board (CCLRB). The paragraph below the table shows the number of CCLs and FOID cards currently active, accounting for those that have since been inactivated.

The second table provides a trend analysis based on prior FOIA requests on CCL totals since June 2015. Earlier trend data is available via prior threads (for example, see Mar 1, 2016 report here).

Some additional observations:

* The backlog of CCLs pending CCLRB review has climbed significantly and has now reached 2,032. By comparison, as of March 1, the CCLRB backlog was 1,698. (Note: In March I requested a full summary of CCLRB appeals but haven't received it yet.)

* A whopping 13,590 FCCL applications were submitted during April. Assuming this number is accurate (acknowledging that ISP is sometimes sloppy with their numbers), that is the HIGHEST number I've recorded in the past year, and represents an average of 453 applications per day. Instructors and grass-root activists, keep up the good work!

* The total number of active FCCL licensees has risen by 10,232 during April (from 159,546 to 169,778). This is also a significant increase over prior months.







.

[singlecoilpickup]

Awesome, glad to see the numbers growing meaningfully rather than tapering off.

[DD123]

Wow! That's a tremendous increase!

 

Hopefully it continues to grow like it has.

 

It would be great if we could somehow understand what has convinced people to get their CCL. I know that some people were on the fence because they continually heard that the only places you can basically carry are your car and your home due to all the posted and no carry by law locations, but most of them went ahead and got theirs. I'm wondering if this year being the "hottest" as far as shooting and murders in Chicago has anything to do with the increase in people applying. Or maybe the political climate. Maybe a combination of both.

 

Only reason I wonder about the above is that whatever it is that is finally convincing people to go through with the process, we need to continue to do more of that.

 

I know that more than likely, CCL will not impact the shootings or murders happening in Chicago in any sort of meaningful way because it's mostly degenerates shooting and killing other degenerates with the occasional innocent person getting caught up in the crossfire. Most people who legally carry don't put themselves in the environment where that stuff is happening so the impact will be negligible. Where we will see an impact is on muggers, rapists, and other general evil doers having the playing field leveled against them since people who previously were unable to defend themselves against those scumbags, are now able to.

 

I am very happy to see those CCL totals climbing though. It's great to see.

[kwc]

In case anyone wishes to see the April 1 FOIA response, which arrived at about the same time as the May 1 response above, it is attached below.

 

 

 

.

[OrlandInstructor]

Thank you!

[gangrel]

Wow! That's a tremendous increase!

 

Hopefully it continues to grow like it has.

 

It would be great if we could somehow understand what has convinced people to get their CCL. I know that some people were on the fence because they continually heard that the only places you can basically carry are your car and your home due to all the posted and no carry by law locations, but most of them went ahead and got theirs. I'm wondering if this year being the "hottest" as far as shooting and murders in Chicago has anything to do with the increase in people applying. Or maybe the political climate. Maybe a combination of both.

 

Only reason I wonder about the above is that whatever it is that is finally convincing people to go through with the process, we need to continue to do more of that.

 

I know that more than likely, CCL will not impact the shootings or murders happening in Chicago in any sort of meaningful way because it's mostly degenerates shooting and killing other degenerates with the occasional innocent person getting caught up in the crossfire. Most people who legally carry don't put themselves in the environment where that stuff is happening so the impact will be negligible. Where we will see an impact is on muggers, rapists, and other general evil doers having the playing field leveled against them since people who previously were unable to defend themselves against those scumbags, are now able to.

 

I am very happy to see those CCL totals climbing though. It's great to see.

From the conversations I have had with prospective students, it seems that Paris convinced a lot of the gun owners who were on the fence, and San Barnardino convinced a lot of the newbies. I know I have a relative who was a solid anti until he saw what happened in Ferguson. He asked me about classes the next time I saw him, took it first opportunity he had, and has now been carrying every day for over a year.

[TyGuy]

Not nearly enough, and definitely not enough women.

[lockman]

Why don't they just publish all the public accessible data and statistics on the ISP website. It would save everyone a lot of time and trouble.

[DoverGunner]

Not nearly enough, and definitely not enough women.

IF I recall correctly did the State figure there would be 400K + ???

3 years into it and we have 170+- K

Seems Madigan got his way as the baby always does

While I think the #'s are decent there should be a whole lot more

[gLockedandLoaded]

When you have to drop a significant amount of cash to get a "license" with a ton of restrictions (mostly places you would want protection)....yeah it's hard to sell that to people.

 

We need to get the cost down to bring more people into the fight.

[84Hawk]

Not nearly enough, and definitely not enough women.

 

I'm trying to get the wife to get hers but she smiles and says "That's what I have you for."

[DD123]

When you have to drop a significant amount of cash to get a "license" with a ton of restrictions (mostly places you would want protection)....yeah it's hard to sell that to people.

 

We need to get the cost down to bring more people into the fight.

+1

 

16 hours of training - around $250

Ammo for range part of the class - depending on caliber anywhere from $15-30

Gas to/from classes - $10-20

A firearm - $400-$1000

Holster - $30-$100

Application fee - $150

 

On average, the average person is looking at almost a grand.

 

If they have a gun, deduct about $500 from that. That's a lot of money to fork over all in one shot.

 

Now if a person were to shop around for a class and find something close to where they live, they could potentially reduce the overall costs by another 50-100, but it's still too high IMO.

 

I think with the 16 hours, ammo, gas, and application fee, I would out of pocket about 400-450. Where's a person struggling to pay the bills going to come up with that? The training is one thing, but the application fee being what it is is ridiculously high.

 

It's getting very tiresome seeing this state do everything possible to infringe on people's rights. It's not bad enough that we have to do 16 hours, but we also have to pay more just to apply to get our rights. Lump the ammo tax in from Crook along with the firearm purchase tax and you've basically just put into place the very same types of policies that the democrats from back in the day were doing with the poll taxes. They can try to use that old "the parties switched sides" excuse all they want but the end results speak for themselves. Nothing has changed in the democratic party. They're exactly the same party as they were during segregation.....they're just better at hiding it now.

[Mayonaise]

Cost is definitely a factor but in my circle of friends and family, most just don't want to conceal carry. They own guns and shoot guns but feel they either don't want to conceal carry, don't need it or don't want the responsibility. Even in gun friendly states like AZ where the fees and training are minimal, the number of CCL is quite low. For most people carrying around a loaded gun is too much responsibility for them. They'd rather spend that $1,000 on a brand new iPhone or shoes.

[fxdpntc]

Maybe this is the "wait awhile and see how it shakes out" surge that some mentioned here when CCL's first started hitting the mail boxes.

 

Not everyone makes it a number 1 priority over all else, and there are time and money constraints that take time to work out.

 

For whatever reason, it's good news...

 

.

[gangrel]

 

When you have to drop a significant amount of cash to get a "license" with a ton of restrictions (mostly places you would want protection)....yeah it's hard to sell that to people.

 

We need to get the cost down to bring more people into the fight.

A firearm - $400-$1000

Holster - $30-$100

I'm sorry, were you planning to get a license from a state that provides a firearm and a holster?

 

I understand the issue with the costs. 16 hours of training ain't cheap. $153 to apply for the license ain't cheap. But if you are planning to carry, a firearm and a holster are sunk costs, no matter where you live or who's license you are applying for.

[gangrel]

Cost is definitely a factor but in my circle of friends and family, most just don't want to conceal carry. They own guns and shoot guns but feel they either don't want to conceal carry, don't need it or don't want the responsibility. Even in gun friendly states like AZ where the fees and training are minimal, the number of CCL is quite low. For most people carrying around a loaded gun is too much responsibility for them. They'd rather spend that $1,000 on a brand new iPhone or shoes.

In AZ, the number of CCL licenses is low largely because AZ is a constitutional carry state. The only reasons an AZ resident needs to get a license is if they are planning to travel and want their rights recognized in other states, or to carry in school zones or bars/restaurants that serve liquor.

[DD123]

 

 

When you have to drop a significant amount of cash to get a "license" with a ton of restrictions (mostly places you would want protection)....yeah it's hard to sell that to people.

 

We need to get the cost down to bring more people into the fight.

A firearm - $400-$1000

Holster - $30-$100

I'm sorry, were you planning to get a license from a state that provides a firearm and a holster?

 

I understand the issue with the costs. 16 hours of training ain't cheap. $153 to apply for the license ain't cheap. But if you are planning to carry, a firearm and a holster are sunk costs, no matter where you live or who's license you are applying for.

 

I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

If someone who has never owned a gun suddenly takes an interest in protecting themselves due to whatever, they're going to need to purchase a firearm which technically will be added to the costs.

 

I didn't even own a firearm that I could conceal up until the law got passed and I went out and bought one. Would I have purchased one if the law didn't pass? Not likely because I wouldn't have had a need for a small frame gun. They're not very pleasant to shoot and take quite a bit of time to get good with them. I could all but promise you that I'd never have bought one if that need wasn't met. I don't like shooting my XDS or LCP, but they serve a purpose since they're carried by me. I'd never have bought either of those two guns because I wouldn't have had an interest in owning them if it weren't for CCW.

 

I also didn't own a holster. Never needed one. Probably wouldn't have ever thought of buying one either.

 

This is why I wouldn't consider them sunk costs. If you wouldn't have bought it before carry, it's an added cost after carry. I own guns that I have no use for aside from just enjoying owning them and shooting them. That's a sunk cost. My carry pistols don't fall into that category because they have a purpose other than recreation.

 

I'm guessing this is a matter of semantics. Just thought I'd add my rationale to it for clarification.

[gangrel]

 

 

A firearm - $400-$1000

Holster - $30-$100

I'm sorry, were you planning to get a license from a state that provides a firearm and a holster?

 

I understand the issue with the costs. 16 hours of training ain't cheap. $153 to apply for the license ain't cheap. But if you are planning to carry, a firearm and a holster are sunk costs, no matter where you live or who's license you are applying for.

 

I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

If someone who has never owned a gun suddenly takes an interest in protecting themselves due to whatever, they're going to need to purchase a firearm which technically will be added to the costs.

 

I didn't even own a firearm that I could conceal up until the law got passed and I went out and bought one. Would I have purchased one if the law didn't pass? Not likely because I wouldn't have had a need for a small frame gun. They're not very pleasant to shoot and take quite a bit of time to get good with them. I could all but promise you that I'd never have bought one if that need wasn't met. I don't like shooting my XDS or LCP, but they serve a purpose since they're carried by me. I'd never have bought either of those two guns because I wouldn't have had an interest in owning them if it weren't for CCW.

 

I also didn't own a holster. Never needed one. Probably wouldn't have ever thought of buying one either.

 

This is why I wouldn't consider them sunk costs. If you wouldn't have bought it before carry, it's an added cost after carry. I own guns that I have no use for aside from just enjoying owning them and shooting them. That's a sunk cost. My carry pistols don't fall into that category because they have a purpose other than recreation.

 

I'm guessing this is a matter of semantics. Just thought I'd add my rationale to it for clarification.

 

If you assume that you want to get a CCW license and to carry, they are in fact sunk costs. You will need to spend that money no matter what sate you reside in or who's license you apply for. You mention that a person is looking at a minimum of a grand to get their license and carry, but at a minimum, half of that is the firearm and the holster, which they would need to spend regardless. The outrageous costs to get a license in this state are the 16 hours of training (don't blame the trainer, $250 is a fair price for 16 hours of his time), the application fee ($150 for 5 years is completely out of control), and the fingerprints (optional, so at least there's that). I can understand someone not being able to cough up $400-500 for the training and the application fee, and deciding not to get a license as a result, but if they can't afford $500 for a firearm and a holster, then why are we even having this conversation.

[kwc]

Should you include the cost of the firearm and holster?

 

IMHO it's simply a matter of semantics and your basis for comparison. If comparing the licensing cost in one state to the cost in another, don't include it. If assessing the overall cost to achieve an adequate self-defense posture, then include it. It's that simple.

 

If the anti-rights zealots get their way and force a dramatic increase in firearm ownership (e.g. through charges passed on as a result of the proposed "dealer licensing act," a tax, or mandated "carry" insurance) then those costs would be appropriately considered in both of the above.

 

Regardless, I believe we all agree the cost to exercise a fundamental right in Illinois is far too high. Period. And it is clearly a disincentive that limits the number of people willing to pursue getting a license.

[DD123]

 

 

 

I'm sorry, were you planning to get a license from a state that provides a firearm and a holster?

 

I understand the issue with the costs. 16 hours of training ain't cheap. $153 to apply for the license ain't cheap. But if you are planning to carry, a firearm and a holster are sunk costs, no matter where you live or who's license you are applying for.

 

I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

If someone who has never owned a gun suddenly takes an interest in protecting themselves due to whatever, they're going to need to purchase a firearm which technically will be added to the costs.

 

I didn't even own a firearm that I could conceal up until the law got passed and I went out and bought one. Would I have purchased one if the law didn't pass? Not likely because I wouldn't have had a need for a small frame gun. They're not very pleasant to shoot and take quite a bit of time to get good with them. I could all but promise you that I'd never have bought one if that need wasn't met. I don't like shooting my XDS or LCP, but they serve a purpose since they're carried by me. I'd never have bought either of those two guns because I wouldn't have had an interest in owning them if it weren't for CCW.

 

I also didn't own a holster. Never needed one. Probably wouldn't have ever thought of buying one either.

 

This is why I wouldn't consider them sunk costs. If you wouldn't have bought it before carry, it's an added cost after carry. I own guns that I have no use for aside from just enjoying owning them and shooting them. That's a sunk cost. My carry pistols don't fall into that category because they have a purpose other than recreation.

 

I'm guessing this is a matter of semantics. Just thought I'd add my rationale to it for clarification.

 

If you assume that you want to get a CCW license and to carry, they are in fact sunk costs. You will need to spend that money no matter what sate you reside in or who's license you apply for. You mention that a person is looking at a minimum of a grand to get their license and carry, but at a minimum, half of that is the firearm and the holster, which they would need to spend regardless. The outrageous costs to get a license in this state are the 16 hours of training (don't blame the trainer, $250 is a fair price for 16 hours of his time), the application fee ($150 for 5 years is completely out of control), and the fingerprints (optional, so at least there's that). I can understand someone not being able to cough up $400-500 for the training and the application fee, and deciding not to get a license as a result, but if they can't afford $500 for a firearm and a holster, then why are we even having this conversation.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I think I may not be explaining myself correctly or clearly enough.

 

Let's say that Joe owns a 4" 357 magnum. Joe decides that he's going to get his CCW. Joe doesn't have to buy another firearm and can carry that if he is able to. The costs for Joe are the classes, and the app fee, regardless of which state he's in.

 

If Joe decides that he doesn't think that his 357 is what he needs for CCW, so now he has to spend money on a new holster and a new gun. Joe didn't need it, but feels that he does. It's not a necessity and winds up being an additional cost to him. Technically Joe can carry that 357 and not have to spend a dime more than for the classes and app fee.

 

I still am not understanding how you're defining "sunk costs". Costs are costs regardless of what you call them. State has absolutely nothing to do with it either.

 

I get a drivers license, buy a car, then drive it for a long time, but then decide I need a race-car. But I don't want any old car, I want a 1986 trans am. I'm going to get it all kitted up to race on the track. Is that race-car a sunk cost? I didn't need it, but since I'm going to race, I figure I'll need it for that reason.

 

I'm merely trying to show what the total costs are for someone with little to no experience with gun ownership and carrying. Someone who doesn't own a gun, but wants to be able to defend themselves by getting a CCW. I know people who've gotten their CCW and have never owned a firearm and probably never would have.

 

ETA: I think for most of us who have experience with gun ownership, the cost of getting a gun specifically for concealed carry doesn't factor into the equation. It didn't for me because I already own them, and don't really care about buying another one. For someone who doesn't own a gun, or perhaps is living paycheck to paycheck, that gun, holster, ammo, etc. is going to factor into it. They can get away with a less expensive firearm, but even so, it's going to add to their expenditures. People should have a good idea of what they're going to need to shell out when all is said and done. I used to live paycheck to paycheck, so I know how it feels to want to do something, but not know how I'm going to be able to without putting it on a credit card.

[Mayonaise]

 

Cost is definitely a factor but in my circle of friends and family, most just don't want to conceal carry. They own guns and shoot guns but feel they either don't want to conceal carry, don't need it or don't want the responsibility. Even in gun friendly states like AZ where the fees and training are minimal, the number of CCL is quite low. For most people carrying around a loaded gun is too much responsibility for them. They'd rather spend that $1,000 on a brand new iPhone or shoes.

In AZ, the number of CCL licenses is low largely because AZ is a constitutional carry state. The only reasons an AZ resident needs to get a license is if they are planning to travel and want their rights recognized in other states, or to carry in school zones or bars/restaurants that serve liquor.

 

 

My point still stands. So the people in AZ never travel anywhere or they don't care to carry in states outside their own? Florida has the most licenses and even they are a small percentage of the population. Most people don't want to invest into something they may never use. It's hard enough for some people to buy car insurance or health insurance.

[Hipshot Percussion]

How about we look at it this way... If you want a CCL, figure $250 for the classes, $30.00 for ammo, $25.00 for gas and lunch, $150.00 for your application = $455.00 for your CCL. Throw in a gun and holster and the total cost is around $1000.00

 

Semantics. Wording. We all understand :) :)

[84Hawk]

How about we look at it this way... If you want a CCL, figure $250 for the classes, $30.00 for ammo, $25.00 for gas and lunch, $150.00 for your application = $455.00 for your CCL. Throw in a gun and holster and the total cost is around $1000.00

 

Semantics. Wording. We all understand :) :)

 

LOL, my instructor provided lunch!

[Hipshot Percussion]

How about we look at it this way... If you want a CCL, figure $250 for the classes, $30.00 for ammo, $25.00 for gas and lunch, $150.00 for your application = $455.00 for your CCL. Throw in a gun and holster and the total cost is around $1000.00

 

Semantics. Wording. We all understand :) :)

Utah - Class $50.00 (only 8 instead of 16 hrs) + $20.00 gas and lunch + $39.00 application fee = $109.00 plus gun and holster. Naw... we ain't getting ripped off. Naw the State of Illinois ain't trying to make it difficult to get an Illinois CCL

[junglebob]

Cost is definitely a factor but in my circle of friends and family, most just don't want to conceal carry. They own guns and shoot guns but feel they either don't want to conceal carry, don't need it or don't want the responsibility. Even in gun friendly states like AZ where the fees and training are minimal, the number of CCL is quite low. For most people carrying around a loaded gun is too much responsibility for them. They'd rather spend that $1,000 on a brand new iPhone or shoes.

 

Cost is a factor but if you look at the state of New Hampshire that charges only $10 for a 4 year resident LTC, and no training, you'd think a big percentage of residents would have a LTC, but only about 1 percent of adults, last time I checked, have one. So as Mayonaise says maybe it is that carrying around a loaded gun is too much responsibility for most folks.

 

Maybe the state of Illinois should offer the LTC on an installment plan, say $6.50 a month for 24 months automatically drafted from your checking account. Maybe this would be a way for our bankrupt state to get a little more money in. Well maybe most people wouldn't feel comfortable allowing the state of Illinois to get money drafted from their checking account, they might not want to stop.

 

Talking about costs for training reminds me of the Illinois LTC class I took with some folks from my church. A woman wanted to take the class but couldn't afford it. The instructor cut the cost in half for her and our church deacons fund paid the rest.

[kwc]

 

Talking about costs for training reminds me of the Illinois LTC class I took with some folks from my church. A woman wanted to take the class but couldn't afford it. The instructor cut the cost in half for her and our church deacons fund paid the rest.

 

 

Wow--it's heartwarming to hear stories like this.

[Rmac702]

My class cost $50 (veteran), and I already had a couple of small autos to carry, so $50+$153+$40 holster,ammo and gas = $243 total.

[WARFACE]

 

 

Talking about costs for training reminds me of the Illinois LTC class I took with some folks from my church. A woman wanted to take the class but couldn't afford it. The instructor cut the cost in half for her and our church deacons fund paid the rest.

 

 

Wow--it's heartwarming to hear stories like this.

 

Lawyers have to do some pro bono work every year. And most of them are...nevermind...I think instructors should do some freebies for the truly needy. I drag my tools out to help out Habitat for Humanity and HOTH for the Patriot Guard. What say you instructors?

[sirflyguy]

 

Cost is definitely a factor but in my circle of friends and family, most just don't want to conceal carry. They own guns and shoot guns but feel they either don't want to conceal carry, don't need it or don't want the responsibility. Even in gun friendly states like AZ where the fees and training are minimal, the number of CCL is quite low. For most people carrying around a loaded gun is too much responsibility for them. They'd rather spend that $1,000 on a brand new iPhone or shoes.

 

 

Talking about costs for training reminds me of the Illinois LTC class I took with some folks from my church. A woman wanted to take the class but couldn't afford it. The instructor cut the cost in half for her and our church deacons fund paid the rest.

 

Many would be surprised at the number of instructors who help folks out who do not have enough money.

[sirflyguy]

 

 

 

Talking about costs for training reminds me of the Illinois LTC class I took with some folks from my church. A woman wanted to take the class but couldn't afford it. The instructor cut the cost in half for her and our church deacons fund paid the rest.

 

 

Wow--it's heartwarming to hear stories like this.

 

Lawyers have to do some pro bono work every year. And most of them are...nevermind...I think instructors should do some freebies for the truly needy. I drag my tools out to help out Habitat for Humanity and HOTH for the Patriot Guard. What say you instructors?

 

I know that I do, either through a very reduced fee (for 16 hours, it leaves them with just about enough money to get their license), or for free. Typically, for me, I help single mothers without much money. They are usually folks I know from church. Charging a bit helps them keep some dignity, as most folks do not want stuff for free. The ones that do want free stuff, well, you know how they are.

I am not the only one that does this.