Dr. Rat Posted April 22, 2014 at 11:35 PM Posted April 22, 2014 at 11:35 PM · Hidden by mauserme, April 22, 2014 at 11:47 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, April 22, 2014 at 11:47 PM - No reason given Why would you say he would be in eligible? His record only includes arrests, no convictions and they were all longer than five years ago. This really is a good example of denials being handed out on a whim and not based on facts. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI agree. But he does have convictions (from what he said)There is a set time frame and I don't believe the review board is following it.Criminal damage to property can be anything as example slamming a car door.Same with resisting arrest example talking back at cop. It's great how we are supposed to be on the same side but we are judging people who we know nothing about.Do any of you know his criminal record, seen the police reports ect. ? I hope he wins I hope everyone denied unjustly wins. The real bad guys are the thugs , dealers, felons, and ones killing innocent people in the city every day. Stop forgetting that. Resisting needs to involve a physical act and the fact that he was convicted twice of it says a lot about his mindset. Depending on the circumstances, I can see this easily being the foundation for a finding of danger to others. The multiple convictions for criminal damage to property just provide additional evidence of his inability to follow the law. I don't know if all that should add up to a denial and I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make the decision. I hope everyone unjustly denied wins their appeals too. I'm just a little more skeptical about how many really were unjustly denied.
mauserme Posted April 22, 2014 at 11:49 PM Posted April 22, 2014 at 11:49 PM Off topic opinion has been removed. I'm sure many will find Mr. Obenberger's point of view more informative.
RockerXX Posted April 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM Posted April 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM · Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 01:25 AM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 01:25 AM - No reason given Resisting needs to involve a physical act Incorrect, the IL resisting arrest statute is VERY vague on what resisting arrest covers or doesn't cover in fact it doesn't even give an example, but one thing is clear there is absolutely no mention in the IL law of a 'physical act' being required for a conviction let alone a arrest/charge for resisting arrest... Although, generally if there is no physical act it's easier to get it knocked down from the initial 'resisting' charge to and 'obstruction' charge but to suggest that a physical altercation must happen to be arrested/charged or even convicted is flat out false! And at that end of the day I don't care how many 'misdemeanors' anyone has it's not grounds for denial of protected rights IMO and I am also against life long denials for felons once they have served their time...
Dr. Rat Posted April 23, 2014 at 12:06 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 12:06 AM · Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 01:25 AM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 01:25 AM - No reason given Resisting needs to involve a physical act Incorrect, the IL resisting arrest statute is VERY vague on what resisting arrest covers or doesn't cover in fact it doesn't even give an example, but one thing is clear there is absolutely no mention in the IL law of a 'physical act' being required for a conviction let alone a arrest/charge for resisting arrest... Although, generally if there is no physical act it's easier to get it knocked down from the initial 'resisting' charge to and 'obstruction' charge but to suggest that a physical altercation must happen to be arrested/charged or even convicted is flat out false! And at that end of the day I don't care how many 'misdemeanors' anyone has it's not grounds for denial of protected rights IMO and I am also against life long denials for felons once they have served their time... Partially correct. Normally the charge requires an active physical act, but passive resistance can be charged as well. The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that simply being belligerent or refusing to answer questions is not resistance. We differ on what we believe are grounds for denial, but that's not really a surprise, is it?
RockerXX Posted April 23, 2014 at 01:02 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 01:02 AM · Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 01:25 AM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 01:25 AM - No reason given Partially correct. Normally the charge requires an active physical act, but passive resistance can be charged as well. The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that simply being belligerent or refusing to answer questions is not resistance. Partially correct? You just did a 180 on your previous statement and agreed with me...
skinnyb82 Posted April 23, 2014 at 01:12 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 01:12 AM Back in....oh a long long time ago, I had a friend who was charged with obstruction because he was in an apartment and a fight between some random person and his roommate broke out in the parking lot, the Macomb PD showed up after he had left to go to another apartment in a different building and the police hunted him down (and everyone else who had left because of the fight) by threatening witnesses (they charged them with the same thing they threatened to charge them with had they not told the police where everyone had gone) and arrested him for obstruction. I don't even know if it was misdemeanor. I think it may have been an ordinance since everything is a city ordinance violation there...more $$$ for the city. He ate it and paid up just to avoid having to deal with it. I don't really understand how an obstruction charge would even stick under those circumstances. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
RockerXX Posted April 23, 2014 at 01:25 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 01:25 AM We differ on what we believe are grounds for denial, but that's not really a surprise, is it? It's a right not a privilege and thus it doesn't matter what you or I think, only a court of law and due process of law has the right to deny that person their rights...
IronSam Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:16 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:16 AM Lawsuits such as this that move the CCL criteria closer to that of the FOID make sense. It should also keep the reverse from becoming a trend.
marathonrunner Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:37 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:37 AM · Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given Last time I checked we were a shall issue state. From reading all the comments, why would anybody who got denied want to support a state that violates their rights? The state wants your money, they want your taxes, they charge you to drive on their tolls, everything. If they think you are too dangerous to have a CCW, then I say they don't need your tax dollars either. I can think of at least 4 other states that could better serve me. 1. Florida. 2. Texas. 3. Nashville. 4. Wisconsin
pdpsc Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:41 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:41 AM · Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given Did Nashville secede from Tennessee?
Elmer Fudd Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:51 AM Author Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:51 AM · Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given Did Nashville secede from Tennessee?Yea....they left with your aunt's balls.
pdpsc Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:53 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:53 AM · Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given Did Nashville secede from Tennessee? Yea....they left with your aunt's balls. Boy is she going to be angry.
marathonrunner Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:53 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:53 AM · Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given PDPSC nah,,,but Texas sure would
Dr. Rat Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:54 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:54 AM · Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, April 23, 2014 at 03:00 AM - No reason given Last time I checked we were a shall issue state. From reading all the comments, why would anybody who got denied want to support a state that violates their rights? The state wants your money, they want your taxes, they charge you to drive on their tolls, everything. If they think you are too dangerous to have a CCW, then I say they don't need your tax dollars either. I can think of at least 4 other states that could better serve me. 1. Florida. 2. Texas. 3. Nashville. 4. Wisconsin I agree completely with getting the heck out of Illinois as soon as possible. It's not in the cards for me for a few more years, but after that New Mexico is looking awfully nice.
Japonte Posted April 23, 2014 at 03:30 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 03:30 AM I Just logged on to check my status that was Under Board Review for the past 26 days (Not sure why) and hoped that it would have gone back to "Under Review or Approved" soon - but it changed this evening to DENIED - I also live in Skokie - Is there something going on in Skokie - Not sure of my next step and how much it will cost to fight the process.
lockman Posted April 23, 2014 at 11:55 AM Posted April 23, 2014 at 11:55 AM The Nazi's march may have fizzled, but it sounds like they are in control of the police department there.
cnwfan3 Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:56 PM Posted April 23, 2014 at 02:56 PM Japonte, we are all kind of in a holding patter as to what to next. But the first thing I would do is file you appeal. You only have 35 days to do that. There is topic on the board about those that have been denied that I believe Molly B posted. Find that topic as it has the forms you need to file an appeal. I live in Cook County so I had to go down to the Daley Center and file down there. It cost me just under $300. As far as getting a lawyer, that another story. Most seem to be $2500+ for a retainer. Once we see how some of these lawsuits and appeals have gone, we will probably have a better idea what we need to do. Good luck!!
Japonte Posted April 23, 2014 at 03:57 PM Posted April 23, 2014 at 03:57 PM cnwfan3 - When did you file your appeal (How long ago) and are you working with a lawyer at this time - what where you told by them as to the next step after filing
hgmeyer Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:33 PM Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:33 PM I hope this guy's ;awyer gets informed about the posted FOIA response on here.... No standards, no procedures, no training, etc.
xxxlaw Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:57 PM Posted April 23, 2014 at 04:57 PM @hgmeyer - I am following the posts here. I have not seen any FOIA results posted. The CCA specifically exempts the CCB from FOIA and the Open Meetings Act. That's part of our case alleging that it's an un-American Star Chamber right out of the middle ages. And we talk about the stacked deck - a majority on the Board must be experienced federal agents from FBI and Homeland Security, etc., and DOJ attorneys. Please remember that a Civil Rights lawsuit is not limited to 35 days. I am not giving legal advice here,and this does not create an attorney-client relationship. But for my client, I filed within 35 days in state court under administrative review so as not to blow the time limit, as well as filing in Federal Court. And that part is not limited to such a short time.
hgmeyer Posted April 23, 2014 at 05:30 PM Posted April 23, 2014 at 05:30 PM @hgmeyer - I am following the posts here. I have not seen any FOIA results posted. The CCA specifically exempts the CCB from FOIA and the Open Meetings Act. That's part of our case alleging that it's an un-American Star Chamber right out of the middle ages. And we talk about the stacked deck - a majority on the Board must be experienced federal agents from FBI and Homeland Security, etc., and DOJ attorneys. Please remember that a Civil Rights lawsuit is not limited to 35 days. I am not giving legal advice here,and this does not create an attorney-client relationship. But for my client, I filed within 35 days in state court under administrative review so as not to blow the time limit, as well as filing in Federal Court. And that part is not limited to such a short time.@hgmeyer - I am following the posts here. I have not seen any FOIA results posted. The CCA specifically exempts the CCB from FOIA and the Open Meetings Act. That's part of our case alleging that it's an un-American Star Chamber right out of the middle ages. And we talk about the stacked deck - a majority on the Board must be experienced federal agents from FBI and Homeland Security, etc., and DOJ attorneys. Please remember that a Civil Rights lawsuit is not limited to 35 days. I am not giving legal advice here,and this does not create an attorney-client relationship. But for my client, I filed within 35 days in state court under administrative review so as not to blow the time limit, as well as filing in Federal Court. And that part is not limited to such a short time. Here is the link to the FOIA request by a member here http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=48244&hl=foia Good luck, I was impressed with your complaint and the analysis that was behind it.
Elmer Fudd Posted April 23, 2014 at 05:32 PM Author Posted April 23, 2014 at 05:32 PM @hgmeyer - I am following the posts here. I have not seen any FOIA results posted. The CCA specifically exempts the CCB from FOIA and the Open Meetings Act. That's part of our case alleging that it's an un-American Star Chamber right out of the middle ages. And we talk about the stacked deck - a majority on the Board must be experienced federal agents from FBI and Homeland Security, etc., and DOJ attorneys. Please remember that a Civil Rights lawsuit is not limited to 35 days. I am not giving legal advice here,and this does not create an attorney-client relationship. But for my client, I filed within 35 days in state court under administrative review so as not to blow the time limit, as well as filing in Federal Court. And that part is not limited to such a short time.I am the one that got the FOIA responded to....and if you want to discuss feel free to contact me....I am not going to post it in a public forum
67vtx1800 Posted April 24, 2014 at 12:25 AM Posted April 24, 2014 at 12:25 AM Hopefully this results in the Fed's beating down some of the stupidity in this law. This whole process should be no more involved than filling out simple application, and running a quick check like the gun shop does on a purchase. Foid Carry would be a good first step if we need to take it slow.
xxxlaw Posted April 24, 2014 at 12:56 AM Posted April 24, 2014 at 12:56 AM We filed in state court today, too. A copy of our pleading is attached.Berron v. ICCLRB State Complaint Admin. Rev. 20140423171525428.pdf
hgmeyer Posted April 24, 2014 at 01:25 AM Posted April 24, 2014 at 01:25 AM We filed in state court today, too. A copy of our pleading is attached.Berron v. ICCLRB State Complaint Admin. Rev. 20140423171525428.pdf I am having trouble opening this PDF....
transplant Posted April 24, 2014 at 01:36 AM Posted April 24, 2014 at 01:36 AM We filed in state court today, too. A copy of our pleading is attached.Berron v. ICCLRB State Complaint Admin. Rev. 20140423171525428.pdfI am having trouble opening this PDF.... I'm having trouble also, though the trouble seems to be with several downloads. The first 32K or 64K comes down, then the download terminates, and the file is incomplete. It seems to coincide with the forum site upgrade.
marathonrunner Posted April 24, 2014 at 01:40 AM Posted April 24, 2014 at 01:40 AM Kudos to everybody that filed! We all need to fight back and seek whatever remedy to deter and force the courts to make changes! Thanks for not giving up guys! Please donate to Valinda Rowe site here. she needs all your help
III Posted April 24, 2014 at 01:48 AM Posted April 24, 2014 at 01:48 AM I am glad the there are patriots here standing up to the injustice that is the CCLRB. God Speed y'all.
cnwfan3 Posted April 24, 2014 at 02:00 AM Posted April 24, 2014 at 02:00 AM Japonte, I have spoke with a few lawyers, but have not hired one yet (they are quite expensive so I am trying to do as much research on my own as I can to limit the amount of work a lawyer would need to do). I would say the next step is to find out what the objection was. Unfortunately, I don't the process for doing that yet. I have submitted a "uniform conviction information act inquiry" with the ISP to get any criminal history (Which should be clean). I already went to the Cook County Clerks office and checked my history there (Which was clean). I went to the Rolling Meadows (district 3) court house to do that. My plan is to get as much information on my history as possible as proof of my clean history, then hire a lawyer to help with the rest. I still think the key is to find out why you have been objected to, but I don't know how to do that. If anyone else knows how to go about doing that, please post what the process is.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.