Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Mo’ money
Next Post: Rothenberg moves CD10 to “Pure Toss-Up” partly because of Quinn
Posted in:
* The attorney general’s office has been spending an enormous amount of time and money defending the state in this deluge of cases. So, the Illinois State Police’s new rules appear to have been essentially designed to get these cases out of the courts and back to the review board…
There are about 200 concealed carry denials before Illinois courts, brought by people who say they shouldn’t have been deemed dangerous or a threat to public safety by Illinois’ Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board.
Until recently, applicants didn’t actually know why they were rejected.
In response to the swarm of lawsuits, the State Police just issued new rules. From here on out, the review board must tell applicants why they were denied; those applicants also have a ten-day window to write a written objection.
Rather than continue fight it out in court, Illinois’ Attorney General is going to ask that all of the ongoing lawsuits be tossed back to the licensing board.
“The reasoning for that is based on the concerns that the applicants have raised, one of those being an opportunity to respond to the board’s reasoning for objecting, or questioning, an applicant for concealed carry license,” says the Attorney General’s spokeswoman, Natalie Bauer.
As I’ve pointed out before, these new rules are hardly adequate. Ten days to respond? Ludicrous.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 1:18 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Mo’ money
Next Post: Rothenberg moves CD10 to “Pure Toss-Up” partly because of Quinn
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Well sad day for you if you have an objection. The new rules were effective immediately on July 10, 2014. Then the ISP waits eleven days to make a full announcement with ALL the details.
Comment by oz Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 1:32 pm
Who’s in charge here? Who thought it was acceptable to not tell citizens why they were denied? Or that 10 days was adequate?
This strikes me as an area where the chief executive needs to take the bull by the horns and straighten things out. He might not like the law, but it is the law.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 1:35 pm
CORRECTION:
Oh wait. I’m sorry. The new rules effective immediately on July 10, announced to the public on July 14 will not be fully published until July 25!!
Comment by oz Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 1:35 pm
We are suppose to be a “shall issue” state. If you meet certain conditions then the state shall issue. It is fine to run a name by local law informant to make sure their system does not have a disqualifying event that the state police system would not have, but the idea that the local police just might not be comfortable with a person because they suspect them of something is ludicrous. If you meet the objective requirements you should be issued your permit.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 1:45 pm
correct rules designed to head off the lawsuits.
I know of one denied person that was objected to and finally won (after getting a lawyer and going direct to his sheriff who had guessed objected (because no one would tell him) and found out that it was a case of mistaken identity… Same (short) first name and a common last name. Of course prints dont match, soc sec. number didnt match, etc. But it took him being denied, getting a lawyer and proving that he WASNT someone.
10 days is a joke. And more than likely they will say it is 10 days from when you are sent notification. I really want to see these final rules.
Comment by RonOglesby - Now in TX Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 1:47 pm
@facts:
The law allows for challenges and included a process to adjudicate those challenges. It’s not a simple matter of checking a record and then giving somebody a permit.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 1:48 pm
It seems backwards. If you are denied, shouldn’t it be required to explain why without someone having to demand it?
Comment by Brass Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 1:49 pm
great job can`t wait for you to enforce medical marijuana too
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 2:03 pm
This is a symptom of a government going out of business - if it was a business.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 2:23 pm
Brilliant move…the rules moot the lawsuits, which will inevitably be refiled after this “revised” administrative procedure. The manuever simply bought time for two woefully understaffed offices, but both ISP and AG be better prepared next time.
Comment by Reformed Public Servant Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 2:50 pm
Given 62000 plus CC permit approvals, more than likely these 200 baffling rejections are in fact problems with mistaken identity. There should be a clear process to ask for re-review and quickly find out if that’s the case.
The new rules do go part way to solve the transparency problems of who and why for the applicant. It just needs a longer time frame for the applicant to respond.
Most who are rejected by local law enforcement know full well the likely reason. That can be adjudicated. These 200 are likely the exceptions, and should be fixed quickly in a review process.
Standing back a looking, this is going pretty well overall.
Comment by walker Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 2:57 pm
The Review Board created a lot of this problem themselves. they read the statute in a conflicting way. How they could not provide any real information on why someone was denied is beyond me.
And Dart using any excuse they can drum up to file an objection becuase they didn’t get their own permit process or may issue is just reason they should be on the hook for these types of appeals and the fees incurred.
People alwasy want to know why gun guys oppose lots and lots of bills when people tell us, we only want to do this or this is so reasonable.
welll here you have what should be a shall issue permit, with limited execptions for Law Enforcement to object, and we have a Board that can’t evenget the name of an individual to match up witht he criminal record despite having fingerprints that say HE IS NOT the guy being objected to.
In this case the benefit of the doubt was given to the state to get it right and they blew it. not only that but you have at least two cop shops making a mockery of some of this.
CPD actually filed an object that based in part on the guy having been cited for violating the registration ordiance about 10 years ago. an ordiance that no longer exists due to the supreme court, the 7th CA and our state preemtpion.
And some of you wonder why gun guy oppose all these anti-gun bills or new regulations.
Comment by Todd Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 3:46 pm
@ Demoralized - Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 1:48 pm:
= The law allows for challenges and included a process to adjudicate those challenges. It’s not a simple matter of checking a record and then giving somebody a permit.=
Exactly my point, I believe it should be.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Monday, Jul 21, 14 @ 9:02 pm
What’s amazing to me with the way this is set up that mistaken identity can be an issue. This isn’t like a credit card application where forge a signature and steal a social and bob’s your uncle.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Jul 22, 14 @ 7:48 am
Those suits have each been initiated at great expense by individuals who have no criminal records and few, if any arrests.
It’s not cheap to hire a competent attorney to file a circuit court action to seek simple due process that should have been granted in the first place. Further, the law said if people object to the review board’s decision that they take it to the courts. And that’s where they are, at roughly $3k-7k in legal expenses later (and counting) - and the attorneys involved project those cases to take a year or two to resolve. All because the State wouldn’t give them the basic due process that the Constitution demands.
For Lisa to now ask all of those cases to go back to the review board, I think she’s asking a lot more than she’s entitled to.
I know of several folks who have one or more carry permits from states like Florida. They have no prior arrests or indicators of violence, but who do wish to exercise their right to carry a means to protect themselves outside of their homes. They have FOID cards and are law-abiding citizens. A few are even quite competent firearm instructors - including at least one or two formerly ISP-approved CCW instructors).
In one case, the only objection was a temporary restraining order filed by the man’s wife to strengthen her negotiating position during a bitter child custody fight as part of divorce proceedings. The temporary OP was dismissed and his FOID card immediately restored two weeks later.
Another case was a guy who got into a peeing match with Bloomington PD who have been especially objection happy. A FOIA request revealed the current chief advocated for an objection for another guy who injured some man he was fighting with in a bar twenty or thirty years ago. If that had been a criminal act, surely the applicant would have netted a felony conviction and lost the ability to have a FOID card. Instead, I suspect it was self-defense and here comes the Bloomington PD to the rescue to save us from a man who was simply defending himself.
If Lisa Madigan wants to reduce the numbers of cases in the courts, she should seek out due process and a genuinely unbiased arbitration panel that offers the benefit of the doubt to applicants who have been objected to by local police.
John
Comment by John Boch Tuesday, Jul 22, 14 @ 8:53 am