Quantcast

IL CC Permit applications approved - it's starting

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by stargeezer, Jan 20, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stargeezer

    stargeezer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    94
    Location:
    Illinois
    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
     
  2. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,624
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  3. wildbilll

    wildbilll Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    L5
    That was good.
     
  4. stargeezer

    stargeezer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    94
    Location:
    Illinois
    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
     
  5. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,764
    Location:
    Illinois
    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: Jan 24, 2014
  6. C0untZer0

    C0untZer0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,889
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  7. il.bill

    il.bill Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,398
    Location:
    FOID Land (Illinois)
    Well sure - Rod knows that those licenses are "(expletive deleted) golden". Someone will have to pay (some more) before he gets them finished.
     
  8. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,764
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  9. C0untZer0

    C0untZer0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,889
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  10. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,764
    Location:
    Illinois
    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: Jan 24, 2014
  11. wildbilll

    wildbilll Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    L5
    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: Jan 24, 2014
  12. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,764
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  13. wildbilll

    wildbilll Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    L5
    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.
     
  14. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,624
    Location:
    Illinois
    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. :)
     
  15. wildbilll

    wildbilll Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    L5
    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: Jan 24, 2014
  16. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,624
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.

     
  17. PuskRat

    PuskRat Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Canton, IL (Peoria-Galesburg-Quad Cities area)
    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.
     
  18. 788Ham

    788Ham Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,206
    Location:
    Hills west of Denver
    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 !!
     
  19. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,764
    Location:
    Illinois
    fingerprints are not required so there is no reason to submit them and pay the extra cost.
     
  20. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,764
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  21. 788Ham

    788Ham Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,206
    Location:
    Hills west of Denver
    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.
     
  22. stargeezer

    stargeezer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    94
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.

    .
     
  23. wildbilll

    wildbilll Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    L5
    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.
     
  24. wildbilll

    wildbilll Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    L5
    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.
     
  25. stargeezer

    stargeezer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    94
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice