CONCEALED CARRY BOARD REVERSED OUTRIGHT IN WAUKEGAN

[xxxlaw]

The Law Offices of J. D. Obenberger and Associates are pleased to announce the complete victory they obtained today (December 9, 2015) at the Waukegan Courthouse for Dr. Seth Ghantous, whose application for a CCL had been denied by the Illinois Concealed Carry License Review Board by a 4-2 vote on April 14, 2014. Judge Margaret Mullen determined that the Board's denial had been "against the manifest weight of the evidence", she reversed the Board's denial, and she ordered the defendants to issued Dr. Ghantous a firearm concealed carry license. Those defendants are the ICCLRB [the Board), its members, the Illinois State Police, its Director, Jessica Trame as Bureau Chef of Firearm Services, and some John Does who were never specified. We extend our most hearty congratulations to Dr. Ghantous - and to all of the Illinois appicants on behalf of whom he has been fighting. We especially thank him for his confidence and trust during the long battles of the past 18 months.

 

We brought suit on May 19, 2014 in case 14 MR 0802 filed in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit and the case was heard in the Lake County Courthouse. He prevailed in an Illinois state law proceeding under the Illinois Administrative Review Law on the merits, that is, on a determination of the facts of his application, and the court's necessary inference that the Board had reached a conclusion against him without a basis in law and fact.

 

The Lake County lawsuit contained an "England Reservation" by which we reserved the resoultion of all of his federal constitutional issues to the United States District Court, and pressed only the factual, state administrative law issues in state court.

 

On May 14, 2014, we also filed a complaint in federal court - in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - on behalf of Dr. Ghantous, under case number 14-cv-03544, which was assigned to Judge Leinenwebber, a case based on the Civil Rights Act, and alleging numerous violations of his civil rights in the denial. Ultimately Judge Leinenwebber dismissed that suit for reasons that we disagree with, and so we filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, case number 15-2931, on September 9, 2015. The 7th Circuit was advised that there was a pending state lawsuit that could possibly resolve the issues by granting Dr. Ghantous an order directing the issuance of his CCL, and so the 7th Circuit stayed procedings to await word from Waukegan that could make their work unnecessary.

 

The defendants have 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Should they do so, we will seek an order providing Dr. Ghantous with CCL privileges pending appeal, and we will urge the 7th Circuit to lift its stay so that we can proceed to challenge anew the many abuses inflicted upon applicants in violation of their constitutional rights, including not only the vague standard permitted for denials, the denial of a fundamental right on a mere preponderance of evidence, and an Illinois statute that appears to prevent any applicant from inspecting the evidence against him while his application and objection are pending before the Board.

 

We do not have any information suggesting that any other Illinois Circuit Judge has outright reversed the Concealed Carry Board's decision on the merits before today's decision, though we know of many decisions to remand denials to the Board for reconsideration, and we have prevailed for several of our clients in that manner before. In one prior case, the Board decided to reverse itself without a remand, and without our request, at precisely the time a federal judge denied our client a motion to reconsider. Thus, he got the license without an order of court, without a remand, simply because we had convinced them that they had made an outrageous mistake. He apparently had been arrested of an incident in which he was released after arrest without charges because the prosecutor had concluded that he committed no crime. We secured a CCL for another client because, as age 18 he had been arrested for a notorious crime, but had been released hours later without charges because the actual perpetator had been identified by the victim. We would be delighted to learn whether other Illinois judges have previously ordered outright reversals of the ILLRB that had the effect of ordering the Board to grant a license to an applicant without any remand.

 

Our office continues to fight for the civil rights of CCL applicants in several cases now pending in federal court in Chicago and in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Every case in unique to its facts. Nothing contained in this release should be taken to advertise or to offer legal representation, and surely should not be taken as any kind of guarantee or solicitation. It is offered for the exclusive purpose of informing a portion of the Illinois firearms community as to important news.

[spec5]

Great news for you and your clients and for all of us.

[ming]

congrats sir!

[singlecoilpickup]

So, the TL;DR version is: man got denied, man sued, man won?

[wtr100]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/63912354.jpg

[xxxlaw]

Yup, Man won.

 

The judge gave it to him outright. No remand, no nothing. She ordered ISP and the Board to give the man - a Vet - his CCL.

 

The judge said they made a huge mistake. A decison against the "manifest weight of the evidence". In other words, no real basis.

 

Usually judges are way too polite - they "remand" it back to the Board to give the Board a second chance to correct its mistakes.

 

Not this judge. Not today. She said, "reversed."

[xxxlaw]

Great news for you and your clients and for all of us.

I see your logo. Pershing. 1979-1980 I was the defense JAG guy for the Pershing troopers at Hardt Kaserne and Bismarck Kaserne in Gmuend, and ptiched in when necessary with the troopers in Neu Ulm and out in the Cas Sites. The 56th and 41st in that era, which later was reorganized before they took the Pershings out of USAREUR. My home base in that era was Cook Barracks, Goeppingen, 1st IDF. Then later, I was at VII Corps in Wallace Barracks and then later Ludendorf Kaserne in Kornwesteim.

 

I used to do an Article 15 Call at 0730 every Tuesday up on a 4th floor building on top of the hill, and did many court martials in the same place on Hardt Kaserne, some of which went past midnight. It was the Cold War. Got intimately acquainted with the misconduct of 18 year olds in near vicinity to Special Weapons. From one veteran of the Pershing experience to another, all best wishes.

[Tango7]

Excellent!

[spec5]

 

Great news for you and your clients and for all of us.

 

I see your logo. Pershing. 1979-1980 I was the defense JAG guy for the Pershing troopers at Hardt Kaserne and Bismarck Kaserne in Gmuend, and ptiched in when necessary with the troopers in Neu Ulm and out in the Cas Sites. The 56th and 41st in that era, which later was reorganized before they took the Pershings out of USAREUR. My home base in that era was Cook Barracks, Goeppingen, 1st IDF. Then later, I was at VII Corps in Wallace Barracks and then later Ludendorf Kaserne in Kornwesteim.

 

I used to do an Article 15 Call at 0730 every Tuesday up on a 4th floor building on top of the hill, and did many court martials in the same place on Hardt Kaserne, some of which went past midnight. It was the Cold War. Got intimately acquainted with the misconduct of 18 year olds in near vicinity to Special Weapons. From one veteran of the Pershing experience to another, all best wishes.

Thanks for noticing. Nice to hear from someone who knows Pershing and our Cold War efforts. I was on Hardt from 1971-1973 and with the BSMP repairing the Guidance Sections. My wife and I lived in Lindach. Since you went off topic with your post I felt a reply wouldn't hijack the thread. I also went back to Green River and was there in support of firing 9 Pershiing 1a's. Carry on Sir.

[morgantron]

Awesome!!! Thanks to you and Dr Ghantous for having the means and courage to stay in the fight.

[BobPistol]

Rock on!

[McCroskey]

Is this Dr. Seth Ghantous the veterinarian? He's an excellent vet and was a central figure in saving my girlfriend's cat.

[spec5]

Is this Dr. Seth Ghantous the veterinarian? He's an excellent vet and was a central figure in saving my girlfriend's cat.

And we have a Ghantous in Peoria who is a lawyer.

[xxxlaw]

Is this Dr. Seth Ghantous the veterinarian? He's an excellent vet and was a central figure in saving my girlfriend's cat.

Yes, this is Dr. Seth Ghantous, the premiere vetinary oncologist in the Midwest. It has been a very special honor and privilege to represent him.

[xxxlaw]

 

 

Great news for you and your clients and for all of us.

I see your logo. Pershing. 1979-1980 I was the defense JAG guy for the Pershing troopers at Hardt Kaserne and Bismarck Kaserne in Gmuend, and ptiched in when necessary with the troopers in Neu Ulm and out in the Cas Sites. The 56th and 41st in that era, which later was reorganized before they took the Pershings out of USAREUR. My home base in that era was Cook Barracks, Goeppingen, 1st IDF. Then later, I was at VII Corps in Wallace Barracks and then later Ludendorf Kaserne in Kornwesteim.

 

I used to do an Article 15 Call at 0730 every Tuesday up on a 4th floor building on top of the hill, and did many court martials in the same place on Hardt Kaserne, some of which went past midnight. It was the Cold War. Got intimately acquainted with the misconduct of 18 year olds in near vicinity to Special Weapons. From one veteran of the Pershing experience to another, all best wishes.

Thanks for noticing. Nice to hear from someone who knows Pershing and our Cold War efforts. I was on Hardt from 1971-1973 and with the BSMP repairing the Guidance Sections. My wife and I lived in Lindach. Since you went off topic with your post I felt a reply wouldn't hijack the thread. I also went back to Green River and was there in support of firing 9 Pershiing 1a's. Carry on Sir.

 

Thank you, Specialist, for your patriotic service on Freedom's Frontier. It was a ball-busting job - tensions always ran high - but you were there at a most tense time. Nobody outside Pershing knows about the "Surety" program and all the sacrifices the missile men had to make to be so far above any kind of suspicion as to be nearly perfect - or what hard ***** those Battery Commander majors were - to this day, Major Waters comes to mind - I had so many battles with him about my clients who were in his Battery on Hardt. Nobody knows. I wish it were different - I'd love to see a movie about life in USAREUR, concentrating on going to the field, living at the CAS sites, and all that - it's like popular culture never knew about it and has forgotten the little they heard. OK, now we'll go back on topic.

[GTX63]

Thanks for the post. Very uplifting to hear some good news coming from a judge these days.

[gregivq]

Fantastic work!

[04 Cobra]

Nice, to hear that his Second Amendment rights are restored....My question to you, is at what cost? Upon researching the "Good Doctor" social media would suggest he wasn't a" Good Doctor" at all! Lots of complaints which maybe the reason he felt he needed a CCL in the first place, I don't know for certain, but with multiple pages of less than favorable reviews.... It would be the last place I took my pet. I would go on to say that are Constitution affords us all the Right to keep and bear arms, unfortunately it's just NOT for everyone. Again, not casting a dark cloud over your accomplishment or you client.

 

http://www.yelp.com/not_recommended_reviews/chicago-veterinary-emergency-and-specialty-center-chicago?not_recommended_start=10

[McCroskey]

Nice, to hear that his Second Amendment rights are restored....My question to you, is at what cost? Upon researching the "Good Doctor" social media would suggest he wasn't a" Good Doctor" at all! Lots of complaints which maybe the reason he felt he needed a CCL in the first place, I don't know for certain, but with multiple pages of less than favorable reviews.... It would be the last place I took my pet. I would go on to say that are Constitution affords us all the Right to keep and bear arms, unfortunately it's just NOT for everyone. Again, not casting a dark cloud over your accomplishment or you client.

 

http://www.yelp.com/not_recommended_reviews/chicago-veterinary-emergency-and-specialty-center-chicago?not_recommended_start=10

 

My experience with him was excellent. Nobody can save every animal and it sounds like someone got mad when their dog couldn't be saved, so they started a smear campaign against him. Also, apparently he was short with someone once and they decided to smear him over that, too. LOL Don't believe everything you read online, particularly all the fake single-review accounts someone created on Yelp because they're mad (by the way, the reviews are for the clinic, not Ghantous himself).

 

It's kind of odd that you say Constitutional rights aren't for everyone. What exactly is a constitutional right to you?

[tchostler]

nice to hear good news, at least once a year with the climate we find ourselves in now days.

[Bitter Clinger]

This list the CCLRB is working from sounds a lot like the "No Fly" list.

You don't know how you get on it, don't know why and can't appeal it.

 

Great job on the win. Can he now sue to get his legal fees reimbursed?

[xxxlaw]

This list the CCLRB is working from sounds a lot like the "No Fly" list.

You don't know how you get on it, don't know why and can't appeal it.

 

Great job on the win. Can he now sue to get his legal fees reimbursed?

No. The only way to recover attorney fees is under a federal civil rights claim. We did file that in federal court, but proceedings there were stayed to give the state of Illinois to resolve it on the factual/non-constitutional rights issues. And that's exactly what happened. If the State does not appeal this decision in Waukegan, Dr. Ghantous will have his license and his federal case will probably be dismissed as moot.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

This list the CCLRB is working from sounds a lot like the "No Fly" list.

You don't know how you get on it, don't know why and can't appeal it.

 

Great job on the win. Can he now sue to get his legal fees reimbursed?

No. The only way to recover attorney fees is under a federal civil rights claim. We did file that in federal court, but proceedings there were stayed to give the state of Illinois to resolve it on the factual/non-constitutional rights issues. And that's exactly what happened. If the State does not appeal this decision in Waukegan, Dr. Ghantous will have his license and his federal case will probably be dismissed as moot.

 

 

So, the harm from having his Constitutional rights delayed doesn't apply in an instance such as this one? Thus, anyone who cannot afford to take the permanent hit of the attorney's fees would be SOL in a case like this? That seems punitive towards the harmed party, in that he ends up getting bled heavily out of pocket in order to secure an intrinsic right, with no real chance of redress.

[matkinson]

Congratulations and thank you for fighting the good fight.

[xxxlaw]

 

 

This list the CCLRB is working from sounds a lot like the "No Fly" list.

You don't know how you get on it, don't know why and can't appeal it.

 

Great job on the win. Can he now sue to get his legal fees reimbursed?

No. The only way to recover attorney fees is under a federal civil rights claim. We did file that in federal court, but proceedings there were stayed to give the state of Illinois to resolve it on the factual/non-constitutional rights issues. And that's exactly what happened. If the State does not appeal this decision in Waukegan, Dr. Ghantous will have his license and his federal case will probably be dismissed as moot.

 

 

So, the harm from having his Constitutional rights delayed doesn't apply in an instance such as this one? Thus, anyone who cannot afford to take the permanent hit of the attorney's fees would be SOL in a case like this? That seems punitive towards the harmed party, in that he ends up getting bled heavily out of pocket in order to secure an intrinsic right, with no real chance of redress.

 

The general rule is that each party must pay his or her own attorney's fees. Some statutes provide for a prevailing party to get an award of attorney's fees, but they are exceptions to that general rule. Registered copyright holders can get lawyer's fees if the copyright holder prevails, most consumer fraud statutes permit them to a winning party, and the Civil Rights Act is one of the oldest, going back to the Civil War era. Attorney's fees are NOT provided to winning parties in an Illinois Administrative Review Law action, which is the normal, default way of appealing a denial by the ICCLRB. That's why we always try to file a Civil Rights Complaint. Those can be filed in federal or state court, but we prefer to file in federal court for a Civil Rights matter, especially to avoid Cook County judges, and to file the Admin Law action in state court. The trouble is that, if we win in state court on the basic injustice of a particular denial based on the facts, objection, and background, we get no attorney's fees. Federal judges all prefer that the state clean up its own messes in its own courts and so the system is a bit tiled against getting a ruling on the constitutionality of the application process. We will probably get a determination of those issues only with a client who has the weakest case against an objection claiming that he's dangerous. These issues are all hard to explain in a brief post. Enough to say that we still have live cases in federal court, we are still trying to get the procedure declared unconstitutional, and we still hope to recover attorney fees for all that. None of my clients are wealthy, and most are simply retired guys trying to improve things for everyone. My office does not do these cases as a revenue stream, quite the contrary. If there are denied applicants who can afford ongoing fees on an hourly rate, none of them have come here. We get not a penny from NRA or ISRA or anyone else and we have not asked.

 

Unless the decision itself comes down in a civil rights lawsuit, with a declaration that someone's fundamental rights were violated, there is no vehicle to recover attorney's fees in challenging a CCL denial. That's why we file civil rights actions.

 

If someone gets a CCL simply because the Board was wrong to deny them, based on the evidence in front of them, in an administrative appeal, there are no attorney's fees recoverable. No matter how loud you claim that your rights were violated, if the court doesn't expressly say that, in the context of a lawsuit based on the federal civil rights act, there are no attorney's fees.

 

It was only after we filed FOUR of these in early 2014 that the Board stopped issuing summary denials and enacted rules to give people some notice of an objection and some chance to respond. The law is still seriously messed up because it denies anyone an opportunity to inspect the evidence before the Board, because the denial decision is based on "preponderance of the evidence", a very LOW STANDARD, instead of "clear and convincing evidence" and finally because the standard expressed in the law for denial - dangerous to ones self or others or presenting a danger to the public safety - is far too vague for anyone to intelligently understand it well enough to make reliable decisions in issues affecting life and death, and involving a fundamental right.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

 

 

No. The only way to recover attorney fees is under a federal civil rights claim. We did file that in federal court, but proceedings there were stayed to give the state of Illinois to resolve it on the factual/non-constitutional rights issues. And that's exactly what happened. If the State does not appeal this decision in Waukegan, Dr. Ghantous will have his license and his federal case will probably be dismissed as moot.

 

 

So, the harm from having his Constitutional rights delayed doesn't apply in an instance such as this one? Thus, anyone who cannot afford to take the permanent hit of the attorney's fees would be SOL in a case like this? That seems punitive towards the harmed party, in that he ends up getting bled heavily out of pocket in order to secure an intrinsic right, with no real chance of redress.

 

The general rule is that each party must pay his or her own attorney's fees. Some statutes provide for a prevailing party to get an award of attorney's fees, but they are exceptions to that general rule. Registered copyright holders can get lawyer's fees if the copyright holder prevails, most consumer fraud statutes permit them to a winning party, and the Civil Rights Act is one of the oldest, going back to the Civil War era. Attorney's fees are NOT provided to winning parties in an Illinois Administrative Review Law action, which is the normal, default way of appealing a denial by the ICCLRB. That's why we always try to file a Civil Rights Complaint. Those can be filed in federal or state court, but we prefer to file in federal court for a Civil Rights matter, especially to avoid Cook County judges, and to file the Admin Law action in state court. The trouble is that, if we win in state court on the basic injustice of a particular denial based on the facts, objection, and background, we get no attorney's fees. Federal judges all prefer that the state clean up its own messes in its own courts and so the system is a bit tiled against getting a ruling on the constitutionality of the application process. We will probably get a determination of those issues only with a client who has the weakest case against an objection claiming that he's dangerous. These issues are all hard to explain in a brief post. Enough to say that we still have live cases in federal court, we are still trying to get the procedure declared unconstitutional, and we still hope to recover attorney fees for all that. None of my clients are wealthy, and most are simply retired guys trying to improve things for everyone. My office does not do these cases as a revenue stream, quite the contrary. If there are denied applicants who can afford ongoing fees on an hourly rate, none of them have come here. We get not a penny from NRA or ISRA or anyone else and we have not asked.

 

Unless the decision itself comes down in a civil rights lawsuit, with a declaration that someone's fundamental rights were violated, there is no vehicle to recover attorney's fees in challenging a CCL denial. That's why we file civil rights actions.

 

If someone gets a CCL simply because the Board was wrong to deny them, based on the evidence in front of them, in an administrative appeal, there are no attorney's fees recoverable. No matter how loud you claim that your rights were violated, if the court doesn't expressly say that, in the context of a lawsuit based on the federal civil rights act, there are no attorney's fees.

 

It was only after we filed FOUR of these in early 2014 that the Board stopped issuing summary denials and enacted rules to give people some notice of an objection and some chance to respond. The law is still seriously messed up because it denies anyone an opportunity to inspect the evidence before the Board, because the denial decision is based on "preponderance of the evidence", a very LOW STANDARD, instead of "clear and convincing evidence" and finally because the standard expressed in the law for denial - dangerous to ones self or others or presenting a danger to the public safety - is far too vague for anyone to intelligently understand it well enough to make reliable decisions in issues affecting life and death, and involving a fundamental right.

 

 

That's definitely unfortunate that's the case. You and I talked on the phone when I was looking to have an on-call attorney for potential Second Amendment cases if I needed one, and you mentioned something about that, but didn't elaborate as much as you did here. Much appreciated.

 

If I ever do need a 2A attorney, especially if my financial situation works out the way I am hoping it does, you will definitely be getting another call from me.

[McCroskey]

The summary denials have sure seemed like a violation of due process to me. This is a good win.

[BradS]

Congrats!

 

Has anybody who has been denied initially through whatever appeals or review process...have they seen whatever "evidence" against them?

 

I would imagine there is some sort of "discovery phase".

[xxxlaw]

Congrats!

 

Has anybody who has been denied initially through whatever appeals or review process...have they seen whatever "evidence" against them?

 

I would imagine there is some sort of "discovery phase".

No. Nobody gets to see it while his or her application is pending before the Board. The opposite. The statute prohibits the inspection of the evidence unless by judicial order. Meaning a judge. Meaning in practical reality, only after an applicant has been denied, and only then if he files a lawsuit, and only then if the court orders the disclosure of the evidence to him. Unconstitutional as heck. There is no discovery. Most judges will release it to the applicant once he's appealing the denial in court. Technically, the administrative record is supposed to be the Board's answer to the complaint in administrative review - but the Asst. Atty. Generals usually fight to prevent it from being filed and sometimes to prevent the applicant from getting to see it. I've seen that happen in at least one case where a Board-denied applicant filed his own administrative appeal lawsuit without a lawyer. We had to go in and untangle it after he'd been sold a bill of goods by the Asst. Atty General in that courtroom and he finally did get to see the evidence, even thought the judge had already sent it back for a remand without initially letting him see the evidence at all. A mess. A Cook County case with a pro se plaintiff who copied some document from a post here and filed it in his own case. Once he was in the courtroom facing a smart lawyer from the State, he had no clue that he was being railroaded and had no idea about how to deal with that. But that's what happens without someone who knows what he's doing in court.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

The Law Offices of J. D. Obenberger and Associates are pleased to announce the complete victory they obtained today (December 9, 2015) at the Waukegan Courthouse for Dr. Seth Ghantous, whose application for a CCL had been denied by the Illinois Concealed Carry License Review Board by a 4-2 vote on April 14, 2014. Judge Margaret Mullen determined that the Board's denial had been "against the manifest weight of the evidence", she reversed the Board's denial, and she ordered the defendants to issued Dr. Ghantous a firearm concealed carry license. Those defendants are the ICCLRB [the Board), its members, the Illinois State Police, its Director, Jessica Trame as Bureau Chef of Firearm Services, and some John Does who were never specified. We extend our most hearty congratulations to Dr. Ghantous - and to all of the Illinois appicants on behalf of whom he has been fighting. We especially thank him for his confidence and trust during the long battles of the past 18 months.

 

We brought suit on May 19, 2014 in case 14 MR 0802 filed in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit and the case was heard in the Lake County Courthouse. He prevailed in an Illinois state law proceeding under the Illinois Administrative Review Law on the merits, that is, on a determination of the facts of his application, and the court's necessary inference that the Board had reached a conclusion against him without a basis in law and fact.

 

The Lake County lawsuit contained an "England Reservation" by which we reserved the resoultion of all of his federal constitutional issues to the United States District Court, and pressed only the factual, state administrative law issues in state court.

 

On May 14, 2014, we also filed a complaint in federal court - in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - on behalf of Dr. Ghantous, under case number 14-cv-03544, which was assigned to Judge Leinenwebber, a case based on the Civil Rights Act, and alleging numerous violations of his civil rights in the denial. Ultimately Judge Leinenwebber dismissed that suit for reasons that we disagree with, and so we filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, case number 15-2931, on September 9, 2015. The 7th Circuit was advised that there was a pending state lawsuit that could possibly resolve the issues by granting Dr. Ghantous an order directing the issuance of his CCL, and so the 7th Circuit stayed procedings to await word from Waukegan that could make their work unnecessary.

 

The defendants have 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Should they do so, we will seek an order providing Dr. Ghantous with CCL privileges pending appeal, and we will urge the 7th Circuit to lift its stay so that we can proceed to challenge anew the many abuses inflicted upon applicants in violation of their constitutional rights, including not only the vague standard permitted for denials, the denial of a fundamental right on a mere preponderance of evidence, and an Illinois statute that appears to prevent any applicant from inspecting the evidence against him while his application and objection are pending before the Board.

 

We do not have any information suggesting that any other Illinois Circuit Judge has outright reversed the Concealed Carry Board's decision on the merits before today's decision, though we know of many decisions to remand denials to the Board for reconsideration, and we have prevailed for several of our clients in that manner before. In one prior case, the Board decided to reverse itself without a remand, and without our request, at precisely the time a federal judge denied our client a motion to reconsider. Thus, he got the license without an order of court, without a remand, simply because we had convinced them that they had made an outrageous mistake. He apparently had been arrested of an incident in which he was released after arrest without charges because the prosecutor had concluded that he committed no crime. We secured a CCL for another client because, as age 18 he had been arrested for a notorious crime, but had been released hours later without charges because the actual perpetator had been identified by the victim. We would be delighted to learn whether other Illinois judges have previously ordered outright reversals of the ILLRB that had the effect of ordering the Board to grant a license to an applicant without any remand.

 

Our office continues to fight for the civil rights of CCL applicants in several cases now pending in federal court in Chicago and in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Every case in unique to its facts. Nothing contained in this release should be taken to advertise or to offer legal representation, and surely should not be taken as any kind of guarantee or solicitation. It is offered for the exclusive purpose of informing a portion of the Illinois firearms community as to important news.

May I repost?