Federal Suit Against CCLRB - John Berron v. ISP

[Elmer Fudd]

The case that the attorney filed in Federal District on behalf of Mr. John Berron of Skokie, IL against the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board is cited as 1:14-cv-02839. The complete complaint in the case is attached to this email. A copy of his denial letter from ISP is also attached. My intention is to continue to monitor the case and update as appropriate.

1-main.pdf

1-1.pdf

[Patriots & Tyrants]

I am just curious, considering that as far as I know there has yet to be a single change to get "discovery" as to why an applicant was denied by the review board, how does anyone know exactly why they are being objected to?

[Elmer Fudd]

I am just curious, considering that as far as I know there has yet to be a single change to get "discovery" as to why an applicant was denied by the review board, how does the defendant know his rejection is liked to a prior arrest?

Unfortunately, due to work related time commitments, I am not going to have time to respond in depth to many comments, you can get an understanding of this situation by reading the entire complaint. There hasn't been any substantive discovery yet in this case, though it will certainly proceed on a quicker track than the other matters in Illinois Circuit Court. This case was essentially filed due to the attorney's view that the rules of evidence and hearing procedure in Circuit Court aren't going to provide his client with a meaningful forum to have his grievance heard.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

 

I am just curious, considering that as far as I know there has yet to be a single change to get "discovery" as to why an applicant was denied by the review board, how does the defendant know his rejection is liked to a prior arrest?

Unfortunately, due to work related time commitments, I am not going to have time to respond in depth to many comments, you can get an understanding of this situation by reading the entire complaint. There hasn't been any substantive discovery yet in this case, though it will certainly proceed on a quicker track than the other matters in Illinois Circuit Court. This case was essentially filed due to the attorney's view that the rules of evidence and hearing procedure in Circuit Court aren't going to provide his client with a meaningful forum to have his grievance heard.

 

Gotcha that is what I thought that there had not been discovery yet; I will be watching closely and hoping i don't get lawn darted because my father and I have the same name and shared the same address at one point and he has a couple of DUI's.

[Drylok]

So this is to resolve the wrongfully denied folks, the ones who are a danger to themselvew? Lol

[Elmer Fudd]

So this is to resolve the wrongfully denied folks, the ones who are a danger to themselvew? Lol

Its a bit more than that...the attorney has concluded that due to the rules of evidence and procedure in Circuit Court he doesn't think that his client is going to get a fair shake in that forum.

[McCroskey]

Should be interesting to see how it pans out. Even so, people shouldn't be damaging property or resisting police. The resisting thing always gets me... who thinks that's ever a good idea and who has ever resisted police and had the police say "oh well, this is too much work so nevermind"? Dumb.

[lockman]

Not cooperating and resisting are two different things. The police routinely charge resisting when they don't get cooperation. Not saying that occured with the plaintiff, but it is commonplace.

[bob]

 

So this is to resolve the wrongfully denied folks, the ones who are a danger to themselvew? Lol

Its a bit more than that...the attorney has concluded that due to the rules of evidence and procedure in Circuit Court he doesn't think that his client is going to get a fair shake in that forum.

 

i have also come to that conclusion. I think it is important to pursue a few cases under the normal appeals route for an administrative decision, but I think the chances of a circuit court judge giving anyone a favorable decision is pretty low, especially in Cook County. What Cook County judge is going to thumb his nose at Mike Madigan. And i can't imagine any circuit court judge wanting to jump into this mess where there just is not any guidance from the appeals courts.

 

it appears like 4 months out one will get whatever transcript the review board provides the court and another day 4 or 6 months down the road when one can put on an actual case before the judge. My guess is sometime early next year we will hear the results of the first state case. Who knows how long it will take a federal court to get around to looking at it. Might be faster, might not.

[xxxlaw]

Thanks for the good wishes.

 

The center focus of this lawsuit is that a secret hearing on the basis of a secret objection that you may never see, all without any notice to you or any opportunity to provide your side of the story or introduce your own evidence, determined by a board biased toward the side of prosecutors, simply falls very short of the fairness required by Due Process of Law in the Fourteenth Amendment. That, unfortunately, describes the law. A denial letter after this abuse still provides no detail, not even the identity of the objector. We argue further that the administrative review law does not correct the situation or make up for the denial of rights because review under the ARL is limited to a judicial examination of the record below. It does not provide for a new hearing at which the applicant can present his own evidence and arguments. Perhaps that was necessary to get the votes in Springfield, but what they enacted just can't stand consistent with American ideas of fairness as set out in the Constitution.

 

It would do well to compare the concealed carry process with that provided for FOID Cards. If you are denied a FOID Card, you have a right to a trial "de novo" in the circuit court, in other words, a reall and full hearing, at which you can present your own evidence and argue why you possess a right to own a firearm. All of that is denied when applying for a concealed carry card.

 

Watch for more news as we start our own campaign to fight for the rights of gun owners. I am delighted that this client came forward and gave me a chance to fight for him. It takes courage. We expect to to fight for the rights of other clients as they come to us, and we will keep you posted.

[pdpsc]

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...

[Elmer Fudd]

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...

Whoa!!!......last time I looked each and every one of us that is a US citizen is entitled to go to court and seek to protect our rights.....it isn't written anywhere that one individual is better than any other individual. This guy is just as much entitled to seek relief in the courts as you, me or any one of the plaintiffs that NRA puts forward. We had better not start down the path of suggesting that certain people are entitled to better access to justice. Whatever the guy's background is the courts will deal with it.

[Dr. Rat]

 

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...

Whoa!!!......last time I looked each and every one of us that is a US citizen is entitled to go to court and seek to protect our rights.....it isn't written anywhere that one individual is better than any other individual. This guy is just as much entitled to seek relief in the courts as you, me or any one of the plaintiffs that NRA puts forward. We had better not start down the path of suggesting that certain people are entitled to better access to justice. Whatever the guy's background is the courts will deal with it.

 

 

Yeah, but from a PR perspective it would be nice if at the end of the suit, in addition to the law being changed, the plaintiff could say he actually got his CCL. Doesn't seem likely in this case.

[bob]

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...

I don't see how it messes anything up for the rest of us. The suit is asking for a fair hearing mostly.

[Elmer Fudd]

 

 

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...

Whoa!!!......last time I looked each and every one of us that is a US citizen is entitled to go to court and seek to protect our rights.....it isn't written anywhere that one individual is better than any other individual. This guy is just as much entitled to seek relief in the courts as you, me or any one of the plaintiffs that NRA puts forward. We had better not start down the path of suggesting that certain people are entitled to better access to justice. Whatever the guy's background is the courts will deal with it.

 

 

Yeah, but from a PR perspective it would be nice if at the end of the suit, in addition to the law being changed, the plaintiff could say he actually got his CCL. Doesn't seem likely in this case.

 

We are talking about a person's constitutional rights.......the PR isn't what this is about......its more important that he has his day in court.

[skinnyb82]

This action doesn't screw with any future civil actions against the same entity/entities. Any new action will actually bolster this one.

 

@xxxlaw

 

Excellent complaint, great read. Blanketed the CCLRB and Skokie Chief. Individual capacity claims against all members of the Board as well as Grau and Trame? That's bold but I like it.

[ChadN.]

Thanks for the thread, I'll be following this as well.

[RockerXX]

Not cooperating and resisting are two different things. The police routinely charge resisting when they don't get cooperation. Not saying that occured with the plaintiff, but it is commonplace.

 

Exactly, resisting arrest is many times just an add on charge for any lack of cooperating or not listening, we can argue all day about right or wrong but police are not Gods and you don't have to obey everything they tell you to do even though many police believe the contrary...

[Gamma]

 

I only hope your suit doesn't screw up anything in regards to the suit coming from the NRA with much better plaintiffs in regards to their criminal history...

I don't see how it messes anything up for the rest of us. The suit is asking for a fair hearing mostly.

Right, this suit is focused on the process for the most part, the current license scheme doesn't hardly even allow for a hearing on the merits of the denial.

 

There will likely end up being several cases going to the appeals court, some of which may well be combined.

[JSharp]

 

 

 

Whoa!!!......last time I looked each and every one of us that is a US citizen is entitled to go to court and seek to protect our rights.....it isn't written anywhere that one individual is better than any other individual. This guy is just as much entitled to seek relief in the courts as you, me or any one of the plaintiffs that NRA puts forward. We had better not start down the path of suggesting that certain people are entitled to better access to justice. Whatever the guy's background is the courts will deal with it.

 

 

Yeah, but from a PR perspective it would be nice if at the end of the suit, in addition to the law being changed, the plaintiff could say he actually got his CCL. Doesn't seem likely in this case.

 

We are talking about a person's constitutional rights.......the PR isn't what this is about......its more important that he has his day in court.

 

 

So far waiting and hoping for good PR got us exactly ZERO. What got us this far is a Federal Court. No one should need to wait or accept that their rights have been abrogated just because they aren't quite a 'good enough' case.

[RockerXX]

 

So far waiting and hoping for good PR got us exactly ZERO. What got us this far is a Federal Court. No one should need to wait or accept that their rights have been abrogated just because they aren't quite a 'good enough' case.

 

 

Personally I'm of the opinion that as far as gun rights are concerned politically correct PR isn't even holding as zero but has netted us a lose...

[GarandFan]

The case that the attorney filed in Federal District on behalf of Mr. John Berron of Skokie, IL against the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board is cited as 1:14-cv-02839. The complete complaint in the case is attached to this email. A copy of his denial letter from ISP is also attached. My intention is to continue to monitor the case and update as appropriate.

 

Good luck with your case. Each one of these that is successful will move the ball forward. I have little hope in quick fixes by the legislature. Maybe I am wrong in having little hope in that.

[Chiburbian]

I think the argument is that bad plaintiffs make bad lawsuits that make bad law. Good plaintiffs like Mary Shepherd and Otis McDonald who are exceptionally sympathetic in their story and/or demeanor are more likely to get favorable rulings... Or are they?

 

I understand the argument but I don't think it matters in this case. Has this guy kept his nose completely clean? No. But his charges are very minor and if he had, he wouldn't have had his rights denied and thus he wouldn't have had standing.

 

Good luck to the law team and the plaintiff.

[Federal Farmer]

I had a favorable ruling from a Cook County court judge...it is possible.

[Dr. Rat]

 

 

Yeah, but from a PR perspective it would be nice if at the end of the suit, in addition to the law being changed, the plaintiff could say he actually got his CCL. Doesn't seem likely in this case.

 

We are talking about a person's constitutional rights.......the PR isn't what this is about......its more important that he has his day in court.

 

 

Nobody said he doesn't have a right to file suit, just that it's unfortunate the first suit to be filed is by someone who, if we can believe the reports of his record, seems unlikely to be found eligible for a CCL. It's always about PR when you're trying to win people over and I'm not sure they are going to find a guy with at least four convictions very sympathetic. Nothing to be done about it, just an unfortunate situation.

[xd9subcompact]

I don't see how the board is able to cause the state to not issue a permit because of the objections of a law enforcement agency.

430 ILCS 66/25
Sec. 25. Qualifications for a license.
The Department shall issue a license to an applicant completing an application in accordance with Section 30 of this Act if the person:
(1) is at least 21 years of age; Check!
(2) has a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and at the time of application meets the requirements for the issuance of a Firearm Owner's Identification Card and is not prohibited under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or federal law from possessing or receiving a firearm; Check!
(3) has not been convicted or found guilty in this State or in any other state of:
(A) a misdemeanor involving the use or threat of physical force or violence to any person within the 5 years preceding the date of the license application;

Check! or

(B 2 or more violations related to driving while under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof, within the 5 years preceding the date of the license application

Check! ; and

(4) is not the subject of a pending arrest warrant, prosecution, or proceeding for an offense or action that could lead to disqualification to own or possess a firearm; Check!
(5) has not been in residential or court-ordered treatment for alcoholism, alcohol detoxification, or drug treatment within the 5 years immediately preceding the date of the license application

Check! ; and

(6) has completed firearms training and any education component required under Section 75 of this Act. Check!
(Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13.)

This seems pretty much cut and dried. I think there should have been another line added that says something like "and the board has not voted to deny based on a LEO objection" (or something like that).
Otherwise, it isn't really "shall issue". The "Star Chamber" review board, on paper, appears to be an accessory function that provides information and decisions that have no legal weight to the qualifications to have the license.

[JSharp]

There's been little payback from this winning hearts and minds campaign. For many years we were stalled 6 votes short, 10 votes short, 2 votes short, endlessly. Fact is we'd still be sitting at 'just a few more votes next year!' and we still wouldn't have *any* ccw law if it weren't for the courts.

 

Taking cases to court and convincing judges got us here. The rest is wishful thinking that's as silly as listening to the NRA tell me I can't call a pistol a weapon because of potential bad connotations.

[Windchaser]

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 Tapatalk

[remchance]

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 Tapatalk

I 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.

[mauserme]

Philby v ISP can be found here.