Lawsuits Filed As Chicago Denies Black People Concealed Carry Licenses

So,,,

So where are Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton?

One would think they would dive on this.

Aarond

.

Jesse and Al wont go anywhere near Chicago.Too many landmines there.They know better.

We have all said that gun control is NOT about guns, but about controlling people. This needs stopped now.

Looks like Chicago politicians still have not learned their lesson. Twice now the city has been sued over gun control laws, lost in court, ordered to pay millions in lawyer fees and punitive damages, all with taxpayer money that could otherwise be used for schools, roads, etc. They will lose again, and pay again...

Thanks for the additional links, Frank!

As a resident (life long resident!) of Illinois this offends me to the highest degree. Some folks make a dumb mistake trying to discriminate against certain folks who wanna carry and now the whole Sate will end up paying millions for the upcoming law suit. :banghead:

I suppose it would be too much to hope that we eventually discover exactly who enforced/instigated this denial of rights by name....

VooDoo

This has been discussed before,but this shows what a sham Illinois is. They claim it is a "Shall Issue" system but in reality it is not. Illinois has a May Issue system. If local powers have a beef with you,they can make a phone call and your permit application gets denied.

The so called review board is made up of hand picked cronies of "da machine". In some cases the review board did its job and allowed the permits to be approved, while others were denied due to "I have heavier clout than you".
No clout your out.

"Illinois is a Shall Issue state. The issue is that the ISP is violating the law"

Its actually May Issue as I stated,in reality,they just say its Shall Issue,you fell for their ruse. ISP isnt the problem.

I hope every Illinois citizen takes notice of what is actually happening here. The government is spending millions of its citizens $ to *deny* those same citizens their constitutional rights.

Is there anything more offensive a government can do?

Please remember this come election time

I hate it when the race card is played, so I hope the evidence is really there. If it is, I say all bets are off and wage on with the lawsuits.

But, in the links provided above, I'm not seeing anything that says that a vast majority of the denied applicants (some 800 of them) identified for the articles are black.

The NRA-backed lawsuits are challenging the secrecy of the decision-making process, not any stated act of discrimination. If this challenge succeeds, then discrimination may well be determined to be taking place, and that would be a new issue.

Shall Issue does not mean Shall Issue

Shall Issue does not mean they have to shall issue to the State.

Restated another way is there are obscure escape clauses, tricky conflicting sections in most State laws that their hired guns (lawyers) will use if they don't want to issue you a permit. And you can't make them either so forget about I'll get a lawyer rant.

My case in point. On August 1st of this year I applied for my conceal carry permit as a retired law Enforcement Officer. State law has a specific section defining retired Law Enforcement Officers and excludes them training requirements. I submitted my application, money and documentation and they rejected (not denied. This is important.) my application because according to them I didn't meet the criteria.

No problem. I'm a retired career employee and know how and where to research State statutes. I send them a letter citing the exact statute and wording and then hired gun (lawyer) says nope. I talk to him, he says I know you know what the statutes say but we are using this statute instead. My reply is so you are saying the statute I cited doesn't control the one you are using and isn't legal.

Er, hum, well on the other end of phone.

Score slam dunk for me. NOT! Lawyer essentially says we don't care what that statute says and we are ignoring it.

So I figure I'll appeal their decision as allow in the statute. Their response is well we aren't denying your application we just want you to provide more proof of training.

At this point I know I'm beat. They are using technical language and selective portion of the law to keep me from getting my permit without formally denying it so I can't appeal it.

So I went and got the additional training certification they, resubmit my app., repay the app. fee. Now I get a letter saying thank you for the certification, we'll get around to issuing you your permit maybe (in other words after our hired gun decides it is ok), we drag it out some more and we aren't sorry for the hassel we are putting you though.

I suspect the Illinois and Chicago is using the same tactic. Remember it's not their money they are spending to fight this in court it is yours, the taxpayers.

p.s. I still don't have my permit yet. It'll probably be the end of year before their hired gun gets around to reviewing my documentation and approving the application.

sigh...