hgmeyer Posted October 11, 2013 at 07:25 PM Posted October 11, 2013 at 07:25 PM Okay, the ISP appears to have decided to rewrite the law concerning us (Former LEO) since their website now says any who "IS" an LEO is exempt when the law says anyone who "HAS" qualified is exempt. I have decided to explore the options available to us in the courthouse. My attorney says we can now file a lawsuit against the ISP for a "Declaration of our Rights" on this issue (seeking a declaratory judgment. He does not want to undertake this as a "Class Action:, but rather as one or more individual plaintiffs (as many as want to join). So, here goes., send me a PM and I will add you to a list of interested persons, send contact info, name and email is fine for now. Beginning next week I will send preliminary information. I truly wish this wasn't the only option, but apparently it is,,, He believes (at this time, subject to some further research) that any "reasonable" (not prejudiced judge) will grant us the relief we want.
Kouz Posted October 11, 2013 at 08:34 PM Posted October 11, 2013 at 08:34 PM I actually called the ISP about this yesterday. The nice lady took my info and said her boss would call me back concerning their interpretation versus what the law actually states.. I'll be sure to relay their reasoning if they ever get back to me.
hgmeyer Posted October 11, 2013 at 08:36 PM Author Posted October 11, 2013 at 08:36 PM I actually called the ISP about this yesterday. The nice lady took my info and said her boss would call me back concerning their interpretation versus what the law actually states.. I'll be sure to relay their reasoning if they ever get back to me. Caller: The law states "has" as in "ever has".... ISP: "So, that is not what we want it to say, so it doesn't....got that, bye!"
Len S Posted October 11, 2013 at 09:43 PM Posted October 11, 2013 at 09:43 PM Don't hold your breath waiting. I have been waiting for a week
borgranta Posted October 11, 2013 at 10:35 PM Posted October 11, 2013 at 10:35 PM I recommend contacting their FOIA office for information regarding this new policy.
hgmeyer Posted October 11, 2013 at 10:58 PM Author Posted October 11, 2013 at 10:58 PM I recommend contacting their FOIA office for information regarding this new policy. I wish this were not a challenge and a waste of time... They are stonewalling on this issue. Basically they dared my attorney to do something.... Reminds me of the oln SNL..... "We're the phone company....we don't have to care". Promised return calls never happen... A discovery request in a lawsuit gets a better response that a FOIA request. Besides, we have their answer..... "IS" That is their "interpretation. They need a "buttwhoopin" to change their position and they are going to get it...
kevinmcc Posted October 11, 2013 at 10:58 PM Posted October 11, 2013 at 10:58 PM Additionally call your representative. They are discussing this topic and the ISP trying to back out of giving you an exemption. The more pressure the better.
hgmeyer Posted October 11, 2013 at 11:01 PM Author Posted October 11, 2013 at 11:01 PM My REP voted "present".....Not a pressure tactic. Just file and win is the policy. I give respect and consideration when it is given. Tried that route... The ISP are behaving like ten year old kids.... Thy don't like the law so they will pretend they can rewrite. They need to pull up their big boy pants and move on...
Frank Posted October 11, 2013 at 11:16 PM Posted October 11, 2013 at 11:16 PM So that means that this certificate I have is worth exactly ZERO hours of credit? That's nice... http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn25/frankwhitmore/IllinoisCarry/FrankW43840-HourMandatoryFirearms_zps63f62af2.jpg
Double-J Posted October 11, 2013 at 11:28 PM Posted October 11, 2013 at 11:28 PM If this latest response indicates that I cannot get my license without training or even use the cert for 8 hours of training than I am more than willing to join the party. Just because I was a human shield between the felons and the victims, was spit on, name called, disliked, threatened, went 2 rounds on multiple occassions, had my personal car damaged and refused to take free coffee.. I'm no better than a person with Utah and Hunter Safety? Only in this state can one's head be so far up thier *** that they like the view! PM comin
hgmeyer Posted October 12, 2013 at 02:48 AM Author Posted October 12, 2013 at 02:48 AM From the ISP website..... "Is Anyone exempt from the training requirements in the Act?Yes, a person who is (i) qualified to carry a firearm as an active law enforcement officer.""The law says "has" qualified... Pretty clear to me they have rewritten the law and have decided to deny the exemption to former LEOs. Forget that their interpretation makes no sense. An active LEO doesn't need a CCW License.
Molly B. Posted October 12, 2013 at 03:17 AM Posted October 12, 2013 at 03:17 AM Keep in mind these are PROPOSED permanent rules and have not been approved by JCAR yet. That might effect your standing in a lawsuit.
hgmeyer Posted October 12, 2013 at 03:40 AM Author Posted October 12, 2013 at 03:40 AM Keep in mind these are PROPOSED permanent rules and have not been approved by JCAR yet. That might effect your standing in a lawsuit. This is not from the proposed rules...... 1) Despite numerous inquiries and requests for a position the issue was stonewalled; 2) No statement is contained in the proposed rules (that I have found) covering the training exemptions; 3) The above quoted ISP website indicates the ISP position is only current LEOs. If the proposed rules are in fact changed to indicate a position that former LEOs are exempt, I would gladly dismiss any pending litigation as "moot". On the other hand, if the proposed rules are amended to include a statement that former LEOs are not exempt...that won't change the basic posture, just add more verbiage to the complaint. As a former LEO, I have standing.... If you know something that "we" don't you can communicate in total confidence to my attorney... Otherwise, I hope to get your support.
Molly B. Posted October 12, 2013 at 04:10 AM Posted October 12, 2013 at 04:10 AM No, I just know these are proposed rules and a court of law may say you would have to wait until they are permanent, is all.
Bushy223 Posted October 12, 2013 at 04:33 AM Posted October 12, 2013 at 04:33 AM "Is Anyone exempt from the training requirements in the Act?Yes, a person who is (i) qualified to carry a firearm as an active law enforcement officer."____________________________ FWIW, I have personally been told by a representative of the Police Training Board staff that a LEO's certification as an LEO does not lapse due to retirement, which was the question I asked. One can go back to work at any time as an LEO without any further action by the Board. Their response did include the admonition that some retraining may be required by the employing agency to cover statutory changes since retirement, but no action was required by the Board. This response suggests that a "former" LEO is qualified to carry as an active LEO I did not ask any questions regarding any other type of separation. Bushy
hgmeyer Posted October 12, 2013 at 02:06 PM Author Posted October 12, 2013 at 02:06 PM All of this discussion is good for the soul....gives hope. But, the reality is that the ISP has interpretted this (according to their website) as "active"....They know people are asking and then stonewall in response. All of this discussion would end if they acknowledged the real intent of the law. I imagine they hope a last minute offer of 8 hours to us and former tan card trainees will suffice and we will all slink back into the dark corners of their imaginary castle and mumble our gratitude. Not gonna happen.
Double-J Posted October 12, 2013 at 03:55 PM Posted October 12, 2013 at 03:55 PM Here is an exerpt of an email I sent to my Rep: " Needless to say I am upset as to how the ISP can overlook the training that I and hundreds if not thousands of other prior Police Officers in Illinois have attained. If this experience doesn't count as relevant training by the ISP then I just can't figure out what does. This is the same training that Hiram Grau, the Director of the ISP went through! If it's good for him it should be good for the rest of us. If "Joe" the citizen, who has zero firearms experience, attends 2 days of classroom instruction can get his concealed carry license from the ISP than one would think that I and many others who have been through the police academy, worked on the street as a Police Officer, qualified multiple times at the range to show competency with our firearm; you would think that it would account for something toward the training requirement by the ISP if not the "Exemption" as in the law." I'm going to continue with my 8 hours scheduled next week and keep it in my pocket as a "Life Jacket" should I need it come January. I have no faith that the ISP will accommodate the same people that they trained as Police Officers, retired or otherwise. I have a very nice framed certificate of NRA Basic Pistol Course that relieves me of the burden of the first 8. I hope the Signed certificate is good enough as evidence of training? Doesn't a few months in the Police academy, Certified Fire-Arson Investigator and RSO account for anything other than time served? Edited to increase the font size when pasting from Word
Tango7 Posted October 12, 2013 at 03:59 PM Posted October 12, 2013 at 03:59 PM Brb ETA - as I posted in another thread kind of dealing with this issue: "Has" is past tense. Therefore it means anyone who ever "has"..... cshiply:I got this from The ISP Website yesterday which seems to have dropped the "has" and inserted "is" instead. Tango & Ship I'm not arguing. I agree with you 100% but the following on the ISP website seems to contradict the Law.(I have to retype this as it won't allow me to copy and paste) Is anone exempt from the training requirements of this act? Yes, a person who is (i) qualified to carry a firearm as an active law inforcement officer, (ii) certified as a firearms instructor by the act or by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, or (iii) has completed the required training and has been issued a firearm control card (FCC or Tan Card) by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation shall be exempt from the training requirements of this Act. Not mad at you, Double-J, just seeing an abusive trait that I thought we might have been rid of. I refer you - and more importantly them - to Page 32 of Public Act 098-0063 (AKA the LAW) which reads (as I posted above): Section 75. Applicant firearm training. (h) A person who has qualified to carry a firearm as an active law enforcement officer, a person certified as a firearms instructor by this Act or by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, or a person who has completed the required training and has been issued a firearm control card by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation shall be exempt from the requirements of this Section. Emphasis added for the Intermittent Site Purveyors who might happen to "accidentally" find this page while at work. This sounds a lot like their longstanding past practice of quoting the UUW statute, and then creatively adding "However, a "case" as defined under the Wildlife Code..." only to muddle the discussion. You know... the same past practice of intentional misinformation we all condemned and vilified. I have a copy of the flyer with that language at home, I'll be happy to include it as a reminder of some of the past practices the agency was known for. Somebody needs to (administratively) stomp the people doing this out of their cushy assignements all the way back to foot patrols on unimproved county roads well south of I80 I72 with signboards reading "I SAY YOU DON'T DESERVE A GUN"
Palatine Chris Posted October 14, 2013 at 07:02 AM Posted October 14, 2013 at 07:02 AM If the proposed rules are in fact changed to indicate a position that former LEOs are exempt, I would gladly dismiss any pending litigation as "moot". On the other hand, if the proposed rules are amended to include a statement that former LEOs are not exempt...that won't change the basic posture, just add more verbiage to the complaint. All I can say is.. I have seen on more occasions than I can count the NRA rep here posting that anyone with Iliinois LEO service and academy was exempted from training under this law. This was never a "maybe" or a "possibly" in the promises made to us here, this was a absolute in many posts from him. Now, I see a seperate recent post here from the NRA rep talking about exempting Correctional Officers from training, even though they were never mentioned in the original bill that was passed. I support their exemption if they passed a state recognized firearms training course, however they were never at any time promised such a exemption nor did the NRA bill ever seek this for them. In the case of former LE officers we were specifically promised that the NRA bill exempted us from training, and we were specifically mentioned in the bill's text, confirming that we had a exemption if we "had" passed such a course. What I would like a answer to is, why is the NRA investing time in organizing a correctional officer exemption that never existed in the first place, while they are completely silent on this site concerning the fact that the ISP has reneged on the 'memorandum of understanding' as it pertains to former LE officers? When any private trainer here even heard a rumor that someone was working to disallow their qualifications, the NRA rep was in meetings the next day, yet for our constituency that sided with the bill and helped get it passed, we are almost invisible now, it seems. This totally backs out of the promises made as well as the letter of the law that was passed, and the NRA rep has not posted one word that I have seen, let alone mentioned what is going on here. I think we need to send in our permit app, and when refused, file a lawsuit. If the NRA wont side with us, so be it. How much money do we need to put up-front to this attorney to begin the suit process?
PMac Posted October 14, 2013 at 02:44 PM Posted October 14, 2013 at 02:44 PM Well stated Palatine Chris. I was trained by ISP and it counts for nothing, a word was changed from "Has" to "is" was all it took.
bob Posted October 14, 2013 at 02:56 PM Posted October 14, 2013 at 02:56 PM If this latest response indicates that I cannot get my license without training or even use the cert for 8 hours of training than I am more than willing to join the party. Just because I was a human shield between the felons and the victims, was spit on, name called, disliked, threatened, went 2 rounds on multiple occassions, had my personal car damaged and refused to take free coffee.. I'm no better than a person with Utah and Hunter Safety? Only in this state can one's head be so far up thier *** that they like the view! PM cominI suspect that if someone submitted the course the ISP would accept it as 8 hours. The thing is I don't see anything in the law that would allow any existing course to be accepted for the full 16 hours.
hgmeyer Posted October 14, 2013 at 03:36 PM Author Posted October 14, 2013 at 03:36 PM If this latest response indicates that I cannot get my license without training or even use the cert for 8 hours of training than I am more than willing to join the party. Just because I was a human shield between the felons and the victims, was spit on, name called, disliked, threatened, went 2 rounds on multiple occassions, had my personal car damaged and refused to take free coffee.. I'm no better than a person with Utah and Hunter Safety? Only in this state can one's head be so far up thier *** that they like the view! PM cominI suspect that if someone submitted the course the ISP would accept it as 8 hours. The thing is I don't see anything in the law that would allow any existing course to be accepted for the full 16 hours. Well Bob, Read the Act concerning exemptions... It is a complete exemption for anyone who "has" qualified as a full time LEO..... Not a special privilege, just a recognition of having completed firearms raining at a police academy.
Frank Posted October 14, 2013 at 04:48 PM Posted October 14, 2013 at 04:48 PM If this latest response indicates that I cannot get my license without training or even use the cert for 8 hours of training than I am more than willing to join the party. Just because I was a human shield between the felons and the victims, was spit on, name called, disliked, threatened, went 2 rounds on multiple occassions, had my personal car damaged and refused to take free coffee.. I'm no better than a person with Utah and Hunter Safety? Only in this state can one's head be so far up thier *** that they like the view! PM cominI suspect that if someone submitted the course the ISP would accept it as 8 hours. The thing is I don't see anything in the law that would allow any existing course to be accepted for the full 16 hours. Well Bob, Read the Act concerning exemptions... It is a complete exemption for anyone who "has" qualified as a full time LEO..... Not a special privilege, just a recognition of having completed firearms raining at a police academy. Minor correction, it is a complete exemption of the training requirements for anyone who "has qualified to carry a firearm as an active law enforcement officer." There is nothing that stipulates full time status. -- Frank
hgmeyer Posted October 14, 2013 at 04:59 PM Author Posted October 14, 2013 at 04:59 PM Frank is right...no mention of full time....
hgmeyer Posted October 14, 2013 at 05:00 PM Author Posted October 14, 2013 at 05:00 PM Of course the ISP requires that the training to have been completed on days not ending in "Y"....
Molly B. Posted October 14, 2013 at 07:59 PM Posted October 14, 2013 at 07:59 PM What I would like a answer to is, why is the NRA investing time in organizing a correctional officer exemption that never existed in the first place, while they are completely silent on this site concerning the fact that the ISP has reneged on the 'memorandum of understanding' as it pertains to former LE officers? When any private trainer here even heard a rumor that someone was working to disallow their qualifications, the NRA rep was in meetings the next day, yet for our constituency that sided with the bill and helped get it passed, we are almost invisible now, it seems. This totally backs out of the promises made as well as the letter of the law that was passed, and the NRA rep has not posted one word that I have seen, let alone mentioned what is going on here. I am NOT the NRA rep but I do know he has at this very moment about 10 zillion irons in the fire, meetings across the whole danged U.S.A looking for judicial answers for the stuff we can't fix legislatively, and is fighting along side us on ALL these issues and your comments are not appropriate. We cannot be online replying back to every post and every situation when we're on the front line fighting every single stupid thing the ISP comes out with - we're VERY busy trying to fix the problem. How about let's just calm down and wait for a cotton picking minute until this can be sorted out. All this must go through JCAR before it is approved and becomes permanent. We have options on how to remedy this. PLUS bringing more people into the fight builds our numbers and our power. I think bringing the correctional officers into the fray is brilliant. Until and unless you have a complete understanding of all the ins and outs of this humongous mess, let's keep the negative comments to ourselves. Sorry, been up to many long nights for too long to have much patient with folks who jump off the bandwagon at the first sign of "has" changing to "is" and the ink isn't even cold yet. Come on.
hgmeyer Posted October 14, 2013 at 09:01 PM Author Posted October 14, 2013 at 09:01 PM Molly, I am terribly sorry for having a negative reaction to a situation that affects me and tries your patience.. But, this affects a lot of other people as well. We have been asking the same question since July and have not gotten any definite answer from anyone until the ISP changed the wording on their website from "has" to "is", so it is for us, a big deal. At this point, I am not asking anyone else to carry the water for me. I was, however, trying to formulate a plan that is in our best interest as a group of former LEOs. and wanted to stay inside the big tent, or bandwagon as you call it You have made it clear that you and Todd have plenty on your plate and I appreciate that, and all that you do and have done, so far. Obviously, you need to focus your efforts elsewhere and apply your efforts to the greater good. I am a big boy so I will pull up my big boy pants and deal with this away from here and let you husband your patience for others. Rather than try to work in concert I feel we do need to examine or choices elsewhere.
Tango7 Posted October 14, 2013 at 09:04 PM Posted October 14, 2013 at 09:04 PM I am NOT the NRA rep but I do know he has at this very moment about 10 zillion irons in the fire, meetings across the whole danged U.S.A looking for judicial answers for the stuff we can't fix legislatively, and is fighting along side us on ALL these issues and your comments are not appropriate. While I may be shining a paranoid incredibly suspicious spotlight on the activities of certain agencies (or more appropriately certain appointees), I know the folks walking the halls have been needing new soles with all the back and forth, and they generally have the interest of the IL RKBA community at heart. Until and unless you have a complete understanding of all the ins and outs of this humongous mess, let's keep the negative comments to ourselves. As someone who has followed a variety of legislative measures from concept to enrollment as Statute... and then through the actual application period through Rules and court challenges, I have to wonder if the ISP as an entire entity even knows what is going on. Sorry, been up to many long nights for too long to have much patient with folks who jump off the bandwagon at the first sign of "has" changing to "is" and the ink isn't even cold yet. Come on. I appreciate your efforts Molly... but you have to admit, especially with the history of certain agencies of this state, especially in regards to RKBA, even if this was a completely innocent transcription error it could be easily mistaken as something more sinister. And with that same history and knowledge of administrative Arcana (as someone I know once said, "the devil's not in the details, but in the Admin rules), this would be a prime place to obtain some payback for daring to challenge their "wisdom" by filing Moore v Madigan in the first place.
Palatine Chris Posted October 14, 2013 at 10:32 PM Posted October 14, 2013 at 10:32 PM <p>I am NOT the NRA rep but I do know he has at this very moment about 10 zillion irons in the fire, meetings across the whole danged U.S.A We cannot be online replying back to every post and every situationHow about let's just calm down and wait for a cotton picking minute until this can be sorted out. All this must go through JCAR before it is approved PLUS bringing more people into the fight builds our numbers and our power I think bringing the correctional officers into the fray is brilliant.Respectfully- if you place yourself in my shoes, would you wait until things go through JCAR if the issue at hand was prohibiting all private trainers from being able to get certified unless they were LE trainers, as was the recent major issue on this site?No, you would not, because it affects the personal as well as economic interests of people who are personally invested in this topic.Asking prior LE to sit and wait until this becomes permanent is no different than asking private trainers to accept being written out of being allowed to conduct the training unless they are certified by a LE agency.By the time this has gone through JCAR, its too late. This is not a issue we can wait on. I saw threads started immed and answered immed when they concerned any facet of the private trainer issue, and in our case, proir LE are really the ONLY group that had a exemption from training under this law. We are IT. They are stripping the only group who had a full exemption, which is a serious and major issue to us, mam.We either need leadership and direction now from the people who lobbied and passed this bill, or we need to take matters into our own hands as a special group that is functionally on our own now. I dont expect you to do anything special for us, but please I do ask dont take it as a insult that we must now act for our own interests that have been written off. Its a little late to suggest correctional officers and former LE be 'brought in', simply because it appears that the LE portion are now 'out', and the correctional officers lost all their possible leverage due to the fact that this bill was only passed into law due to the court mandate.Lobbying as prior LE or as Correctional Unions is not going to be effective now because if it was not included in the original bill when leverage still existed to get a bill passed, its not going to get added in this point once all leverage is gone.
Molly B. Posted October 14, 2013 at 10:39 PM Posted October 14, 2013 at 10:39 PM I haven't read your entire reply yet but one thing has to be said right up front. NO ONE IS WAITING FOR ANYTHING TO GO THROUGH JCAR. We are fighting everything on the ground as it happens. Just because we cannot do minute by minute replays and posts doesn't mean nothing is getting done. I think what frustrates me the most is everyone WANTING immediate replies, responses, and action when that is just not humanly possible and when they don't get it - we've somehow up and bailed on you, reneged on promises, or turned a deaf ear. How about starting with questions and letting someone have time to answer rather than assume the worst? When did the crazy proposed rules become public??? I think it was just days ago. I don't think you understand what you are asking of people who are giving this every second of their lives, every minute of their day.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.