Hundreds sue Illinois over denied CCL permits

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trent

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
25,151
Location
Illinois
http://www.guns.com/2014/07/09/illinois-sued-by-nearly-200-who-have-been-denied-carry-permits/

Following rejection of more than 800 applications for the state’s new concealed carry permits, many in Illinois are turning to the courts for relief.

According to a report from the Chicago Tribune, the state police has received 79,207 applications and issued 62,258 licenses since the Land of Lincoln became the last state in the Union to adopt a concealed carry permitting system.

Of these, some 809 have been denied, following objections from local law enforcement, by the state Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board. Nearly 200 of these would-be permit holders are appealing their denials in court, often with the backing of gun rights groups.

Illinois "sort of may issue" is finally going to cost the state some money.

Hopefully some of these folks get their rights restored.
 
What do they say is the reason for denial?

Ahh I forgot not everyone here will be familiar with Illinois' concealed carry act. The truth is, an applicant would NEVER know why they are denied, because the review board meets in secret behind closed doors. Their meetings are exempt from the public meetings act and FOIA requests effectively sealing any and all discussions away from the public eye.

Some of the denials that I *know* some of the backstory on are cases of sharing the same name with a felon in the same town; minor infractions such as getting in a fight (misdemeanor charges from 20 years ago), etc.

But - most people NEVER know.

The backstory....

When HB183 went through a few of the concessions made, granted the ability for any law enforcement officer in the state to "object" to a concealed carry application. When an application is filed, the state police have 10 days to enter it in to a special database for law enforcement review. Then, for 30 days, every agency in the state has access to go through and review applicants that have lived in their jurisdiction within the last 10 years. (E.g. if you lived in Chicago 9 years ago, good old Tom Dart's cronies would be scrutinizing you - he has a special task force built just to review CCL apps.)

Now, the state police ALSO must object under specific circumstances - a certain number of arrests within recent years, a felony conviction or ongoing proceedings, domestic battery, mental health reporting issues, etc. Those applications are simply denied, though.

But the OTHER law enforcement objections trigger a "board review" status on the app. At that point the person is put in to a queue and the "shall issue 90 day window" is extended indefinitely. (It can be extended in 30 day intervals by the board with no upper limit on how long.)

That review board is composed of strictly governor appointed members.

There have been *very* few people go under board review and come back out approved. Remember, the board is composed by people appointed by staunchly anti-gun Governor Quinn (who vetoes pro-gun bills regularly, amending them to include assault weapons bans, and sends them back to the house/senate.)

The board proceedings, as mentioned above, is COMPLETELY secret. Not even a court order can bring out the minutes as they are exempt from the public meetings act and freedom of information act requests. It operates more like a military tribunal in Guantanamo, than a civil proceeding.

Applications which are denied receive a universal form letter indicating they have been deemed unfit to carry a concealed weapon as the board decided they presented a "clear and present danger" to the community. No other details are available, nor do phone calls, letters from attorneys, etc ever bring out further details.

There have been people denied by the board who have NEVER had an arrest, at any point in their life. There have been many more who have been denied with a single arrest for a city ordinance or misdemeanor, but no conviction.

And on.. and on..

It's a horrible system. The problem is since it's a "civil proceeding" and not a "criminal proceeding" the person doesn't have bill of rights protection (e.g. 5th & 6th amendment) for due process, speedy trial, right to confront their accuser, and so on.

... And if you think that is bad.. you should hear about our new "Clear and Present Danger" reporting. It's worse than Jersey, here. People are literally having their guns seized by armed police task forces after the police receive an anonymous tip that the person represents a threat to the community. Guilty until proven innocent, FOID card revoked, loss of 2-A rights indefinitely, and no ability to confront who filed the report in court (the law protects the identity of the accuser.)
 
(Also, keep in mind I was effectively banned from contributing on the IL Carry bulletin board because I expressed such strong concern over this VERY THING when the bill was being passed. To any of you reading this - you can now go eat crow. I told you this would happen.)
 
What do they say is the reason for denial?

Bo,
They don't need to give a reason. That's why, even as a non-Illinois resident, this is troubling.

I posted a few days ago referencing in a more detailed article by the Chicago Newspaper. see http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=756351

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...hael-thomas-application-illinois-state-police

The Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, a panel with law enforcement backgrounds, considers the objections in private and is not required to explain the reasons behind its decisions except under order from a court, according to the state police's interpretation of the statute.

Officials won't say why Thomas' application was flagged for denial, or by whom. Thomas insists that he has a clean record. A search of Cook County court records turned up no charges. An Air Force spokesman told the Tribune that Thomas was honorably discharged in 2012 and that his military record does not contain any unfavorable information.

...

===================================================
As Trent stated below, they wrote this into the law. Effectively they have a permit system that can arbitrarily deny applicants w/o much recourse.

(Also, keep in mind I was effectively banned from contributing on the IL Carry bulletin board because I expressed such strong concern over this VERY THING when the bill was being passed. To any of you reading this - you can now go eat crow. I told you this would happen.)

chuck
 
So when are they coming for you, Trent? You clearly by their standards represent "a clear and present danger" to Illinois politics as it now stands.

Good luck, and be very careful. You're angering people in power who look at the law as merely a convenience to be exercised by those in political ascendancy.
 
So when are they coming for you, Trent? You clearly by their standards represent "a clear and present danger" to Illinois politics as it now stands.

Good luck, and be very careful. You're angering people in power who look at the law as merely a convenience to be exercised by those in political ascendancy.

Public servants are there to serve us. Not the other way around. As long as we have a 1st amendment, and a corrupt government in this state, I'll use it.

Anyone doubting the level of corruption in this state, needs to remove the blinders; with the last two governors having gone to Federal prison, there should be absolutely no doubt about it to anyone.

Not that anything will ever be done about it, as long as the AG's office is "in the family". Madigan (dad) rules the IL house with an iron fist, Madigan (daughter) rules the IL Attorney General's office.... One only lets laws through he wants to go through, the other gets to selectively enforce those laws on normal civilians and not the powers that be. (Evidence of this can be seen by the IL Senator that tried to take a gun on a plane last year and got busted by TSA; nothing ever happened to him...)

A partial solution would be term limits, to kick out the current power base; but chances are good they'll hand pick their successors anyway. Bow down to the new boss, same as the old boss.
 
Last edited:
Leave it to the crooked bureaucrats in Illinois to fudge things up and cost the taxpayers even more money.

SO glad I left that hellhole known as Chicago years ago. My deepest sympathy to those who remain.
 
The courts I am afraid will only help you so much. Our country was set up with the concept of balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. By 1828 that was blown out of the water when Andrew Jackson attempted to goad the Cherokee people into a war with the United States government. They didn't go to war. They went to court. They took their case all of the way to the Supreme Court and won. President Jackson ignored the Supreme Court and forced the Cherokee people to a reservation in Oklahoma. His answer to the Supreme Court, "How many troops does Justice Marshall have?" Since then courts have been reluctant to challenge the executive branch. In the '30's the Supreme Court tried to stand up for the Constitution in defiance of FDR, but ultimately he backed them down.

The courts lack the power to fully protect a citizen from a corrupt government. Too often Judges are political hacks appointed because the party in power believes that they will "dance with the one what brung them." The one bright spot: a judicial appointment is lifelong in the higher courts and sometimes a Judge's deepest loyalty is to the Constitution he or she studied as a young man or woman.

Naturally, I would love to have one of the legal scholars on this forum explain that I am wrong and that the country is in much better shape than I see it. I would much rather be optimistic.
 
Ahh I forgot not everyone here will be familiar with Illinois' concealed carry act. The truth is, an applicant would NEVER know why they are denied, because the review board meets in secret behind closed doors. Their meetings are exempt from the public meetings act and FOIA requests effectively sealing any and all discussions away from the public eye.

Some of the denials that I *know* some of the backstory on are cases of sharing the same name with a felon in the same town; minor infractions such as getting in a fight (misdemeanor charges from 20 years ago), etc.

But - most people NEVER know.

The backstory....

When HB183 went through a few of the concessions made, granted the ability for any law enforcement officer in the state to "object" to a concealed carry application. When an application is filed, the state police have 10 days to enter it in to a special database for law enforcement review. Then, for 30 days, every agency in the state has access to go through and review applicants that have lived in their jurisdiction within the last 10 years. (E.g. if you lived in Chicago 9 years ago, good old Tom Dart's cronies would be scrutinizing you - he has a special task force built just to review CCL apps.)

Now, the state police ALSO must object under specific circumstances - a certain number of arrests within recent years, a felony conviction or ongoing proceedings, domestic battery, mental health reporting issues, etc. Those applications are simply denied, though.

But the OTHER law enforcement objections trigger a "board review" status on the app. At that point the person is put in to a queue and the "shall issue 90 day window" is extended indefinitely. (It can be extended in 30 day intervals by the board with no upper limit on how long.)

That review board is composed of strictly governor appointed members.

There have been *very* few people go under board review and come back out approved. Remember, the board is composed by people appointed by staunchly anti-gun Governor Quinn (who vetoes pro-gun bills regularly, amending them to include assault weapons bans, and sends them back to the house/senate.)

The board proceedings, as mentioned above, is COMPLETELY secret. Not even a court order can bring out the minutes as they are exempt from the public meetings act and freedom of information act requests. It operates more like a military tribunal in Guantanamo, than a civil proceeding.

Applications which are denied receive a universal form letter indicating they have been deemed unfit to carry a concealed weapon as the board decided they presented a "clear and present danger" to the community. No other details are available, nor do phone calls, letters from attorneys, etc ever bring out further details.

There have been people denied by the board who have NEVER had an arrest, at any point in their life. There have been many more who have been denied with a single arrest for a city ordinance or misdemeanor, but no conviction.

And on.. and on..

It's a horrible system. The problem is since it's a "civil proceeding" and not a "criminal proceeding" the person doesn't have bill of rights protection (e.g. 5th & 6th amendment) for due process, speedy trial, right to confront their accuser, and so on.

... And if you think that is bad.. you should hear about our new "Clear and Present Danger" reporting. It's worse than Jersey, here. People are literally having their guns seized by armed police task forces after the police receive an anonymous tip that the person represents a threat to the community. Guilty until proven innocent, FOID card revoked, loss of 2-A rights indefinitely, and no ability to confront who filed the report in court (the law protects the identity of the accuser.)


That's filled with inaccuracies. The largest being that VERY FEW go under board review and get approved. Many people have and continue to. If you weren't banned from IL carry you would know this. It seems you have an awful big axe to grind and you enjoy doing it here.
 
That's filled with inaccuracies. The largest being that VERY FEW go under board review and get approved. Many people have and continue to. If you weren't banned from IL carry you would know this. It seems you have an awful big axe to grind and you enjoy doing it here.

Sure, there is an ax to grind. Getting put on permanent moderation for expressing my opinion about a bill that I felt would get abused by the powers that be (which it was/is/and will continue to be) was pretty childish. You simply can NOT have a logical, rational discussion on that board with the current staff in charge. They have their viewpoint, and refuse to engage in any dialog which would cast that viewpoint in anything other than a positive light.

I admit that I might have exaggerated that 'very few' get approved - but the numbers are still startling high. By the end of march 282 objections had been sustained by the board, which was over 21% of the objections submitted by that point in time. 21% is not a statistically insignificant number by any measure.

A few months later, and we're at nearly a thousand denied by the board - again, not a statistically insignificant figure. Those are ALL people who have passed the FOID background checks and been "approved" by the state and granted "permission" to keep and bear arms.

You want to know where my "ax to grind" is, certainly isn't with YOU. It's with the backbone-less reps that couldn't stand up to Madigan and Cullterton's brow beating to get something reasonable which complies with the 7th circuit decision passed in to law.

The word "public" is mentioned 95 times in Moore Vs. Madigan.

The word "right" is mentioned 116 times in Moore Vs. Madigan.

Yet we have a bill where a secretive board decides people's fate; any LEO can object for any reason whatsoever, and we have no right to carry in public, with a VERY high price tag for both the license AND training.

No public transportation.

No public gatherings.

No public events or gatherings.

No public parks.

No public libraries.

No public housing.

What we got was private businesses, residences, and your car, and that's about it.

And expressing THAT opinion, is what I got moderated for.

(reference to objections stats below)

The board, tasked with either sustaining or overturning the objections, has sustained a total of 282 objections as of Friday, according to Illinois State Police spokeswoman Monique Bond. She said a total of 1,331 objections have been made so far.

Read more:
http://www.sjr.com/article/20140330/News/140339993#ixzz377SJts92
 
I agree with much of what you said Trent I agree that it was watered down but at least we have a place to start. I can carry in 99% of my daily life.

Regarding IL Carry it is ran in a childish manner in many cases. Some of the "senior" big shots there like to belittle people and feel as though they are royalty now. I went to every IGOLD, ran a Facebook page(we have talked there in pretty sure) called legislators, even cold called voters to drum up support. I had a three letter named member belittle me and call me names because he was "better than me because of what he had done." Never mind the fact that I have done more than 99% if the members of that forum for the cause.

I don't spend much time there anymore either.
 
Fellas, fellas, please; let's not squabble over bread crumbs like some sans culottes, here ;)

The important thing is that people are making an issue of this; makes it much harder for the authorities to gradually increase abuse of this questionable review process when everybody is looking. We all know it'd be quickly abused by these people if they were given the opportunity, so whether they are is kinda beside the point.

BTW, I don't suppose all those 1300 objections have been ruled on, yet? Trent said they had infinite time to do so, right? So we won't even know how many's delayed justice is de facto denied for months. (500 more in two days? That can't be right :confused:)

TCB
 
Thank you for helping tone the mood down a little in here. I was starting to wonder if we were going to get infractions for getting off topic. :)

I was wrong about the % of statistics, it's higher than I remember seeing in March. (Details are sketchy and there's no regular release of information from the ISP on that... usually only when a reporter goes digging).

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/07/illinois-still-being-jerks-about-gun-car

There have also been more than 2,400 objections lodged by local law enforcement officials and 809 applicants who were denied because objections were sustained by the review board.

We know from the first article in the OP there are over 800 denials at this point. Now we know there were 2400 objections raised.

So the current % of denial to objection ratio is 33% at this point.

THAT is troublesome. So is the story of Jordan Zoot; but that's better left to another topic entirely. :)

I agree with much of what you said Trent I agree that it was watered down but at least we have a place to start. I can carry in 99% of my daily life.

As do I. I own my own company so set the rules there at work. I avoid any commercial business that is posted, except my bank, and I make *them* bring *me* paperwork while I sit out in my mustang chilling to tunes. :)

I have had to disarm exactly *twice* since I started carrying every day in March. The first time was for a school pay my daughter was in. No biggie.

The second time was for the 4th of July fireworks at Pekin Stadium (in Pekin park).

Boy that ****** me off more than a little. Celebrate our independence, my rear end. I *hate* fuddling with my sidearm in the confines of an automobile. That crap just sets us gun owners up for bad publicity when something snags the trigger on a holster reinsertion. Guns are perfectly safe as long as we keep our grubby meat paws off of them until we need to use them.

Regarding IL Carry it is ran in a childish manner in many cases. Some of the "senior" big shots there like to belittle people and feel as though they are royalty now. I went to every IGOLD, ran a Facebook page(we have talked there in pretty sure) called legislators, even cold called voters to drum up support. I had a three letter named member belittle me and call me names because he was "better than me because of what he had done." Never mind the fact that I have done more than 99% if the members of that forum for the cause.

Hah! Look man I was there from *day one* before there was IL Carry, before there was iGold, in the back room of a Chicago bar with John Birch when concealedcarry.org was first started. I wrote the software that did the membership enrollment for his organization and went to every meeting.

February 28, 2002. I'm standing in John Birch's office in the burbs getting ready for the very first ConcealedCarry.org members meeting, and snap a picture of him with my old Olympus D340 digital camera.

wu4fgTbh.png

You want to give credit where credit is due? That man started the entire movement in the state of IL. Other's didn't jump in until much later, when it was far more politically acceptable and convenient to do so.

After that, I remained active in 2nd amendment rights consistently through the years.

I've given speeches on the courthouse steps to the public, at a time when the very THOUGHT of concealed carry was unpopular enough to get a SWAT team from Springfield sent up to Tazewell county to cordon off a 3 block radius around the courthouse.

I've debated anti-gun groups in public (repeatedly, ad naseum).

I become a multi-discipline NRA instructor (Rifle, pistol, shotgun) and certified Chief Range Safety Officer. (Later on I became a State Police approved concealed carry instructor.)

I got on the executive board of Tremont Sportsmans Club, currently serving as secretary of the club.

I run NRA approved High Power and Smallbore rifle tournaments each month, year round, even when it's -24F wind chill outside. :)

I've done guest speaker roles at various venues, including GunsSaveLife meetings. My last guest speaker appearance was in May, where I gave an hour and a half lecture on "how to be an effective 2nd Amendment activist" to nearly 100 attendees.

And now (recently), I've been on television shows. Was the guest star on Adventure Sports Outdoors this month, to give a primer on Illinois concealed carry laws, walk viewers through the qualification process, and give some practical shooting tips.


YET DESPITE ALL OF THAT - YOU WILL *NEVER* SEE ME RELY ON MY SO-CALLED ACCOMPLISHMENTS OR ACHIEVEMENTS OR CHEST THUMP STUFF LIKE "I HAVE DONE THIS LONGER THAN YOU SO I AM *RIGHT*".... BECAUSE I WILL *ALWAYS* RELY ON LOGIC AND REASON TO GET MY POINT ACROSS.

If I cannot do that, I *deserve* to lose the debate or argument, and will learn from it. There is no 'calling on a higher authority' as a tactic in my playbook.


I don't spend much time there anymore either.

Neither do I, for obvious reasons.

You seem like a great guy, very active in the shooting and 2-A rights movement, always posting up knowledge and opinions on handguns / etc. I really hope we didn't get off on the wrong foot here, because ultimately we are on the same side.

Bottom line is if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. And this law we got stuck with, given that the 7th handed the world to us on a silver platter... man, she's a really ugly pig.

Anyway keep up the good fight man. I'm glad to have people like you on "our" side, who is not afraid to speak their mind, have a rational "big boy" discussion, and not get drawn down in to imaginary pretend-power muck cesspool that some boards on the internet have eroded in to. Not naming names or anything {COUGH}ARFCOM{COUGH}INFOWARS{COUGH} ... yeah I'll shut up now before I get that infraction....

:)

Have a good night brother.
 
You seem like a great guy, very active in the shooting and 2-A rights movement, always posting up knowledge and opinions on handguns / etc. I really hope we didn't get off on the wrong foot here, because ultimately we are on the same side.

Bottom line is if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. And this law we got stuck with, given that the 7th handed the world to us on a silver platter... man, she's a really ugly pig.

Anyway keep up the good fight man. I'm glad to have people like you on "our" side, who is not afraid to speak their mind, have a rational "big boy" discussion, and not get drawn down in to imaginary pretend-power muck cesspool that some boards on the internet have eroded in to. Not naming names or anything {COUGH}ARFCOM{COUGH}INFOWARS{COUGH} ... yeah I'll shut up now before I get that infraction....

:)

Have a good night brother.



We are good Trent, I have lots of respect for you, and all of the things you have done! I wish I could do more, if more of us did even half of what you have done we would all be better off.


Weren't you the admin of Northern Illinois Gun Owners page on Facebook? For some reason I was thinking so, but I may be confusing you with someone else.
 
We are good Trent, I have lots of respect for you, and all of the things you have done! I wish I could do more, if more of us did even half of what you have done we would all be better off.


Weren't you the admin of Northern Illinois Gun Owners page on Facebook? For some reason I was thinking so, but I may be confusing you with someone else.

Bah. It's not about what we've done in the past, it's about what we do TODAY that matters. :)


To answer the question; not on that group. I am an admin on Peoria IL Guns & Ammo (buy sell trade)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462848430452699/

Also the admin of the Tremont rifle facebook group, where I post scores, rules, and notifications for our Highpower and Smallbore shoots (Soon will be redoing their whole website; the previous admin moved to Florida and I just got tapped for the job...)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/159637827569055/

I can be found here; https://www.facebook.com/trent.lawrence.98

If anyone sends a friend request shoot me a message so I know you are from THR, as I generally don't approve people I don't know or recognize.

I also hang out here frequently; https://www.facebook.com/groups/thereloadingroom/
 
I agree completely with both Trent and ljnowels. I have voiced similar objections on ilcarry and been criticized for it.
The law sucks and it has been poorly implemented. It has been and is being abused by antigun bureaucrats within ISP and other agencies. Any remedy that moves this crappy law in the right direction is welcome but if "our side" had not caved in and accepted it as written we would be in a better position.
 
Unfortunately it's not really a problem that media exposure is going to remedy.. nor will throwing money at the problem to lobby fix it while Madigan and Cullerton are in charge of house and senate. No "good" gun bill will see the light of day on the floor for the foreseeable future. Dozens upon dozens were submitted this year - IL was in the top 3 on the sheer number of newly submitted gun legislation this year - but zero movement on anything.

NO, unfortunately for all of us, this is a matter that now MUST be decided in court. This means people getting arrested for carrying in public, to challenge the ban on carrying in public. Some folks with means, are simply going to have to take the Class B misdemeanor first offense and work it up through the system, to get case law going for removing some of the prohibited places.

It's not a palatable thing, by any means, but at least folks don't have to risk Felony charges to get the ball rolling.

(Yes, I am encouraging civil disobedience here for folks who would make good candidates - having a spotless criminal history - who want to protect themselves and family in public, but currently cannot.)

The location of these is also important. E.g. wouldn't do a person much good to try to get arrested in Tazewell county, far too pro-gun. Needs to happen somewhere where the circuit court would uphold the charges, so it can be pushed up to appeals. Otherwise it would only serve to create a patchwork of case law - OK to carry in a park in this area, but not this other area....

Anyway. Figured I'd give the legislature a year to prove me right before starting a little mini-rebellion of little old ladies with handguns taking strolls in the park, with cops standing by to slap on handcuffs in front of the rolling camera.... ;)
 
"May issue" CCW law is hardly narrowly tailored nor the least obtrusive method for permitting. Consequently, Illinois law will most likely fail a constitutional strict scrutiny test in court.

Interesting to note the serviceman who shot down the shooter firing into a crowd last week in Chicago could not have gotten a CCW permit a little over a year ago before Illinois became the last state in the nation to adopt a permitting procedure, flawed as it may be by "may issue".
 
Update. Illinois State Police issue emergency rules to help stem some of the bad denials.

Color me shocked that they'd do anything... but my opinion is really starting to change about the Illinois State Police. (Who would have thought...?)

http://illinoisstatehousereview.blogspot.com/2014/07/state-police-issue-emergency-concealed.html

Citing a flood of lawsuits from applicants who were denied concealed carry permits because of objections from local law enforcement that were shrouded in secrecy, the Illinois State Police announced Monday that it will require a state review board to give more information about why applications are rejected.

... snip

These new rules are an acknowledgement that the current system is fundamentally, broken, unfair and illegal.” said Thompson, but the rule don’t specify if they will apply to currently denied applicants.

Additional material here;

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ejected-applications-20140714,0,5933714.story
 
We have the opposite problem here in Oregon. Folks with Oregon Concealed Handgun Licenses, which require an FBI background check and two references checked by your local Sheriff, have been denied (or delayed for months) purchases by the Oregon State Police who process the 4473 background check forms. The OSP is requiring people who have convictions or plead guilty to misdemeanor stuff 15-20 years ago to prove to them that it couldn't have been a felony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top