IL CC Permit applications approved - it's starting

Status
Not open for further replies.
The state waited until they had taken $5-6 million from law abiding citizens who just wanted their rights before pulling this.

That's it! Protesting in the streets! Eating donuts in FRONT of cops, public drinking of coffee from paper bag wrapped carafes, we are going to make a real show of civil "disobedience" if our permits are late!!!!! :D
 
Stargeezer;

Well, this is entirely internet speculation and completely unfounded rumor, but I heard through the social media grapevine that there is another working theory as to the hold-up of the licenses. It's been mentioned that our old Gov. Blagoyavich is not working as fast as they expected him to, out there in that Colorado Federal Prison, getting these licenses cranked out.
 
I knew there would be a problem when they ordered a new XT for him to use. Like Peoria county, they're still waiting for antique tech., but it's as smart a machine as he can handle without being "taxed". :D
 
So, the word is, the State Police put everyone back on Review until all of the state Law Enforcement officers can be trained on how to interact with concealed carry holders.

They can just print out the Illinois Carry FAQ. What more do they need?

As I understand it, training material is subject to FOI requests. It might be interesting to request a copy just to see what actual lawyers for the lead police agency involved in administering the FCCA thinks some of this stuff means.

I would be willing to bet they are going to train their officers that the law means what it actually says and that they should enforce what it actually says.
 
Last edited:
The thing about transporting on the CTA or anywhere else in IL for that matter, in a zip-lock bag, even if you beat any other charges, they might very well convict you on public disturbance since you had the option of carrying it in a opaque case.

I think a better challenge would be to carry in a Glock or S&W gun case - containers that are obviously made to transport the firearm, which would make it more difficult for a public disturbance charge to stick.
 
Stargeezer;

Well, this is entirely internet speculation and completely unfounded rumor, but I heard through the social media grapevine that there is another working theory as to the hold-up of the licenses. It's been mentioned that our old Gov. Blagoyavich is not working as fast as they expected him to, out there in that Colorado Federal Prison, getting these licenses cranked out.

Well sure - Rod knows that those licenses are "(expletive deleted) golden". Someone will have to pay (some more) before he gets them finished.
 
The thing about transporting on the CTA or anywhere else in IL for that matter, in a zip-lock bag, even if you beat any other charges, they might very well convict you on public disturbance since you had the option of carrying it in a opaque case.

I think a better challenge would be to carry in a Glock or S&W gun case - containers that are obviously made to transport the firearm, which would make it more difficult for a public disturbance charge to stick.
He won't be doing it either way. He is willing to tell others to follow his advice but unwilling to follow it himself. That by itself should tell you what his legal advice is actually worth.
 
There are some other problems with your challenge.

You're just as likely to have someone put a gun to your head and tell you to hand over your ziplock bag, or your case, as you are likely to get arrested.
 
There are some other problems with your challenge.

You're just as likely to have someone put a gun to your head and tell you to hand over your ziplock bag, or your case, as you are likely to get arrested.
I suggested he could take the challenge in Winnebago County if he thinks a Chicago EL is too dangerous. He did not agree to that either.

I don't see any reason that we can't arrange for the police to be there when he arrives to protect him from any attempted armed robbery if that is his concern.

He is 100% certain to be arrested but an armed robbery is far less certain.
 
Last edited:
I talked to my police chief today. For about 15 minutes. He says that he didn't know about 21-6. He looked at it. He said he doesn't know who the "chief security officer" is. He has never heard of that. He noticed that it mentions not only guns, but axes and other things that could be weapons as described in Section 33A-1. He said that he would have to arrest just about every motorist for carrying a tire iron or baseball bat in the trunk if this law were enforceable. Even fishermen with a knife, while fishing at the city pond even if they have a fishing permit.
I asked him if he has given his officers written permission to carry firearms on the proterty of government buildings. Answer: No. I asked if the Sherrif has given his officers permission to carry on county property. Same answer. I asked if they have written permission from the head of the ISP to address state property. Again, No.
Then he volunteered that even if the last person that was in the office gave the permission, when they left it would be null and void anyway.He says that if someone has a FOID and they comply with the UUW law by putting the gun in a case, glovebox, console, whatever, as long as it is unloaded there is no violation of the law.
I then asked about how he would handle someone who is found to be carrying a handgun that has a FCCL. He says that he would not take the firearm unless he absolutely had to. He used an example of a traffic stop where he was informed. He said there are plenty of people with guns that shouldn't have them, so he isn't worried about someone with a permit.
Then I summarized the conversation. He thinks that charging someone with this would be a waste of time since the prosecutor would never go forward with it anyway, the charge can't be proven. He pointed out the state must prove that I don't have the permission, not the other way around. All in all, he says this is a non-issue.
 
Last edited:
Then there should be no problem for you to take the challenge.

I will even pay for the gas for you to go to Chicago to get to an EL station.
 
It is really sad to know that there is someone here that is afraid to take their firearm off of their property and venture onto the public street for fear that they will be arrested.
 
It is really sad to know that there is someone here that is afraid to take their firearm off of their property and venture onto the public street for fear that they will be arrested.

Wildbill;

I've been taking my firearm out of my house to work most every single day for the better part of 15 years.

But I'm not about to carry an unloaded gun in to a School, or courthouse, or for a walk though a local or state park (unless I'm legitimately hunting in that state park and have the ability to be there with a firearm, legally).

Having sat down with the Sheriff and State's Attorney of Tazewell county, in the past, prior to me giving a speech about gun rights on the courthouse steps; I was told in no uncertain terms "If you bring an unloaded, even non-functional firearm, as a demonstration piece, you will be arrested and charged."

The State's attorney specifically brought up the statute in question (about government property), and the Sheriff (who is chief of security of the Tazewell County Courthouse), made absolutely clear "I did not have his permission."

Period.

If you go to court, the question will not be "prove I didn't have permission." The question will be "prove you DID have permission." As soon as the Sheriff takes the stand and says you did NOT have permission, the case is done, you are going to be convicted. (At least for the Courthouse example.)

If your Sheriff gives you permission, man, all the more power to you.

But get it in writing. :)
 
I never said you were afraid to go off your property with your gun. We know who that was pointed at.

It's not an affirmative defense statute. You do not have to put on a defense. They must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. They won't be able to prove who the chief security officer is that would obviously have to testify that they did not ever give you the permission. Even if they tried to put someone on the stand the objection would be that they can't prove that person meets the definition according to any statute. It's an objection that precludes the testimony based on lack of qualification. "yes, I'm the chief security officer". "We say you are not. Prove you are".
And keep in mind that for all of their efforts, in the end it is a first time offender for a Class A Misdemeanor.

I think that you are thinking like I do. I am not worrying about it.

But thanks for not displaying juvenile traits like "daring".
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm still being moderated at IL carry and they don't approve much of anything I write. They didn't approve of what I wrote so I'll post it here, instead.

Like many instructors, I felt a little gut-kicked when I logged on and saw the status of my concealed carry application transition from that really nifty "Approved" status, back to that foreboding (and far less cool) "Under Review" status.

I felt like the kid at Christmas who saved that biggest present under the tree with his name on it to open last, only to find out it was meant for the younger brother, or the kid next door.

Much like a disappointed kid on Christmas, some instructors have been quick to lash out about this unfortunate and unexpected turn of events. (Myself, included, at first).

But, let's put it in to a logical context.

First - we were allowed to apply early (to everyone's collective amazement and satisfaction), on December 18th, more than two full weeks before early enrollment opened to the general population. We were guinea pigs, of course, to help shake down the system. Having already passed our background checks to get approved as instructors, submitted digital fingerprints, signed our names on notarized documents, they already had all of the material on hand to run us through and debug their systems before everyone else could get in.

I certainly don't mind that - beta testing is a good thing. I expected hiccups, and overall the process went remarkably smooth, considering it was a new IT project (after I ironed out my browser issues..)

Second - we are all eagerly anticipating carrying. I'll admit - it feels strikingly odd teaching concealed carry to people when you, yourself, aren't yet allowed to carry. But this alone isn't an excuse to act irrationally about being delayed, or give us grounds to demand more responsiveness; there should not now, or ever be, "first class citizens". (The fact that we finally have carry coming means that the existing walls of "first class citizen" attributed to off duty and retired LEO are finally being torn down).

Third - this is an incredibly large undertaking for any organization. We all know the Illinois State Police does not have a stellar history in the eyes of gun owners; with the constant FOID renewal/app delays, the years it took to get their background check process brought up to speed with modern tools (E-Mailing FTIP approval numbers for FFL's?!! They didn't have such a thing in 2009 when I closed my gun shop.)

However, every "sign post" along the way so far with the Illinois State Police indicates they have learned from their past mistakes, and are determined to "do right" to gun owners with the new system. They didn't wait until the very last minute and unleash a broken electronic web system on citizens, like certain other government organizations (AHEM.. healthcare.gov). They have been *incredibly* proactive in pushing out information on their website in the form of FAQ's, and status updates. And it appears as though (with this first hiccup, or delay) that they are making absolutely sure that all Law Enforcement officers in the State of Illinois are well-educated and know how to respect people's right to carry, in a UNIFORM fashion, and not taking the easy way out; relying solely on top LEO's of each organization to train their troops on their particular, personal interpretation of the law.

With the Tom Dart's of the world out there in positions of power, that's not a bad thing, folks.

On a personal note, I've gone a couple of decades as an adult, with no right to carry. Assuming I don't get assaulted and killed in an act of random violence in the next few weeks, I don't really think that waiting just a little bit longer is going to hurt me.

As the president of a well established technology company, with 20 years of professional success in large project management behind me, I have to say that the State Police and their IT vendors, have so far impressed me with the timeliness of putting together such a complicated system. It's not a trivial task, or a minor undertaking. They've had to invent the wheel for a large scale project in a short period of time; everything from management, creating and implementing workflow processes, screening/hiring/training staff, payment processing, and hosting and security (although there was a bit of a hiccup with the security aspect, which leaves me somewhat uneasy, having all of my critical information floating out there somewhere.)

And they've had to do it for a system which will take on an undetermined workload, which has to have the capability of scaling to meet demand; while also preparing for the downsizing when that initial peak demand tapers off to the consistent level they'll see year after year. That's not particularly easy to do, either.

So take a step back, take a deep breath, relax, and wait.

If and when the time comes to get angry, by all means, get angry. But until then, retain your composure and dignity.

Yes, we're all frustrated; but we've been frustrated for decades, and the end is near!
 
Keep in mind the governor giving the orders tried to stop even this bad legislation from passing. He is still over the police agency which has already been reprimanded for trying to re-write the rules. Do not be surprised when it takes longer than allowed to get a license issued, or when it takes longer than allowed to see changes in the application process.
 
ilbob, post#24,

Your mention of it costing $65 to get fingerprinted electronically, here in Colo. it cost me $153.00 when I submitted my app. This $153.00 included fingerprinting, mug shot and the background check, not broken down as to how much fingerprinting charge was. I submitted everything on Tue, Oct 15, 2013, the next Wed, Oct 23,2013, I had my permit in hand.

I am glad to hear Ill. is finally getting you folks your CCW permits, a looooong time coming! Hope everyone get theirs soon, last week would be too soon right? Congrats !!
 
ilbob, post#24,

Your mention of it costing $65 to get fingerprinted electronically, here in Colo. it cost me $153.00 when I submitted my app. This $153.00 included fingerprinting, mug shot and the background check, not broken down as to how much fingerprinting charge was. I submitted everything on Tue, Oct 15, 2013, the next Wed, Oct 23,2013, I had my permit in hand.

I am glad to hear Ill. is finally getting you folks your CCW permits, a looooong time coming! Hope everyone get theirs soon, last week would be too soon right? Congrats !!
fingerprints are not required so there is no reason to submit them and pay the extra cost.
 
I am guessing WB won't be accepting the ziplok bag challenge in Tazewell county either.

Of course he won't be following his own legal advice anywhere because he knows what would happen were he to be caught. But, he seems perfectly happy to have others follow his advice and suffer the consequences that he is unwilling to endure for himself.

One has to wonder why someone would be that way.
 
In the state of Colo. fingerprints are most certainly required ! I know nothing of other states, but this is the first stage of the process, you don't want prints taken? Then the process stops right there, no permit.
 
I wasn't worried about prints, the FBI has mine, the Army has mine, THREE TIMES! the Air force has mine, the State has gotten mine three times for various jobs (not for arrests) so the only deal was the $57 it cost, $35 of which the state gets. The person taking my prints got to keep perhaps $10 of that $57 - I used to work for a living, I don't question anyone's making a honest living - don't get me started of all the people we support who don't want to work for a living - THEY will get more than $10 by the time it's done.

Add in the possibility that without prints some no goodnick with the same name (there are two in the state I know of) might be on a local PD hit list and I don't want to be mistaken for one of those. Prints were insurance for my permit.

As I see it.

.
 
It's the cost of the prints vs the time saved. Already waited about 30 years for the permits to become real. $55 or so for another 30 days just doesn't make much sense. Actually it's more that that because I have to figure in the cost of driving to a place that does it and back. I can wait the extra 30 days. And I'm not sure that it will really be an extra 30 days. They already have the background check basically done since I have the FOID card. They already know who I am. They testified that they do a background check on all FOID holders every day, so that part is pretty much automated. They could end up taking more time to get the job done if the timeframe for getting the print results done takes any significant time.
We know that there are instructors that are really all set to go, it's just that the ISP got worried at the last minute and decided to test everything again to make sure everything turns out right. ISRA put out a email today about it.
I suspect that the instructor applicants that took advantage of early applications will get the permits in the next 30 days, 60 total.
 
I am guessing WB won't be accepting the ziplok bag challenge in Tazewell county either.

Of course he won't be following his own legal advice anywhere because he knows what would happen were he to be caught. But, he seems perfectly happy to have others follow his advice and suffer the consequences that he is unwilling to endure for himself.

One has to wonder why someone would be that way.
Good to see you are finally staring to realize that the dare BS is childish and you are starting to elevate yourself above that level. Too bad that even after you get a FCCL, you will still be subject to arrest for a violation of 21-6 when you go the park.
 
There's a lot in the CC law that will be changed as time goes on. Every state has gone through those growing pains. The goal for us law abiding citizens is to stay out of trouble with the law until it does get changed.

That rule about parks or public gatherings are prime examples of the low hanging fruit that we need to advocate being changed. These are areas where one might need to protect themselves and they are rules that Chicago lobbied for. We sure don't need these here.

My application was opened on 12/18 and completed ten minutes after the ISP opened their portal for payment on 1/2/14.

If my status has not changed by 2/15 I will be very disappointed. If we get close and the status changes like happened to all the instructors, I'll not be disappointed, I'll be downright mad. Mad enough to get more active than I am in politics, a lot more active. These politicians don't want that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top