IL CC Permit applications approved - it's starting

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's that or let the people who want to make it "difficult" to discourage as many as possible (it's Illinois - we are surrounded by folks who want to "make" us do what they think is best for us...) have their way. :)

Personally? I'm gonna have my CCW in Illinois if it costs me $10,000 and I have to take 2 weeks off work and stand in line in sub zero temps. ;)

I'll will have it. No matter how many hoops....and the folks that want to make it harder? They will be out of office the next pass at the polls. :evil:

VooDoo
 
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.
IMO, once I get a FCCL it won't be a violation of 21-6 for me to carry a concealed handgun anywhere in the state. It will be a violation of the FCCA in parks that are still prohibited by the FCCA.

The challenge is still open WB. Where do I send the ziplok bag?

Is there any place in the entire state where you are willing to follow your own legal advice?
 
Last edited:
As you descend back down into the juvenile "dare" BS, Please stop putting your own nuances on the law.
And I am, apparently in violation of the law (according to you) every time I go fishing or hunting on any government owned or supported land. Every time I drive down the street, every time I pull off the highway into a rest area, etc. And apparently so is anyone from out of state, if they are in possession of just about anything that could be described as a weapon IAW the 33A-1 descriptions of Class 1, 2 and 3 weapons.
 
Last edited:
As you descend back down into the juvenile "dare" BS, Please stop putting your own nuances on the law.
21-6 does not need an exemption for a FCCL holder. The FCCA says it is "valid throughout the state".

Where shall I send the ziplok bag for you to take the challenge? You either believe the legal advice you are giving is valid or you don't. Take the challenge and prove me wrong. I am willing to come and take video so all can see when you prove me wrong.

I am even willing to print out the IllinoisCarry FAQ at my own expense and carry it with me to show the authorities. I will wait until they re-holster though before showing it to them.
 
Last edited:
You have continually preached how even though the FOID exemption doesn't exempt someone from 21-6. Nobody disagreed with that.
You said that you can be arrested for violating this law. Nobody disagreed with that.
When someone comes along and tries to point out that the law is seriously flawed and can't be enforced because it lacks a legal definition of who this chief security officer is, you disagree. I asked you to provide some case law that supports what you say. You zero in on the Joan Bruner case.
In Bruner, you claimed that she was convicted. You even quoted part of the appellate court ruling that said she was not raising the issue of 21-6. You used that as the determining factor that she was convicted. But you were wrong in the way you made your conclusion. You "assumed facts not in evidence"
You skipped the part where it said that count "remains pending".
You made an assumption. I even asked you to explain why, in Chicago, we see plenty of 720 ILCS 5/24-1 and 24-1.6 UUW/AUUW charges but we can't find any 720 ILCS 5/21-6 charges.
So what is the number of actual cases in the State of IL that you have been able to cite where someone, charged with a 21-6 violation and convicted, where this law has been in effect since about 1997?

Zero.
And look, I don't doubt that there is someone, somewhere that got charged, plead guilty as part of a much larger case. But you haven't found it. I haven't found it.

I replied with the case of Vana Haggerty. She was charged with 21-6. She was found not guilty by a jury of her peers, for the very reasons I have stated the law is problematic to the prosecution.
You miss the concept that the 21-6 law, if enforceable effectively bans possessors of weapons of all types from being able to move away from their own property without becoming a criminal. I have not read the headline "Illinois has defacto ban on movement of weapons in entire state"
Now you point out the new part in the FCCA about how that will allow you to no longer worry about it. But we were talking about the general validity of the law until you pulled the ripcord and bailed out of that and sought safe harbor from the law with your pending FCCL.

These are my opinions. I am entitled to them. You have your opinions and you are entitled to them. The difference between your opinions and mine are that I have pointed out case law, I have pointed out the illogic flaws in the law.

Then you come along and say that I am giving legal advice.
And you are not? I suppose you feel that there is a difference because you use a long winded disclaimer as your signature line.
I don't give legal advice. This is an internet forum. I don't need a disclaimer.
Finally, you descended down into juvenile tactics to try and defend your position. How many times more will you mention a Ziploc bag?
That really advances the debate. Congratulations.
 
I think you need to go back and read what I actually wrote and not misrepresent what I actually wrote.

The mere fact that in a specific case someone was not charged or was not convicted does not mean a law is invalid in all cases, despite what your handlers may be telling you.

There are some downstate states attorneys that are not enforcing the UUW act provisions disputed in Moore. Does that mean no one can be charged under those provisions now in the rest of the state?

If you are so sure about your belief that 21-6 is not a valid law, then why are you unwilling to prove it with a simple experiment? I am still willing to contribute the first $20 to your legal defense fund, to print out the IllinoisCarry FAQ at my own expense to show the authorities (after they re-holster of course) and to video the entire episode so the whole world can be proven I am wrong and you are correct. I do not know how much more I can do to help you prove I am wrong.
 
With regard to going back and reading, who said someone can't be charged?
Anyway,
I will be there in the lobby of the City hall Monday morning. We will go up to Rahm's office.
Be there or be square. Woof.:)

Internet_dog-300.jpg
 
It is too late for me to ask for Monday off of work.

I have meetings scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday.

I would prefer not to have to take a day off of work but if you are only available on normal work days I can request a vacation day, but I have to give them some notice.
 
Illinois CCL and container transport versus licensed carry go together like a horse and carriage.

This I tell ya, brother, you can't have one without the other.

Try, try, try to separate them, it's an illusion.
Try, try, try and you only come to this conclusion.
 
Thanks Jeff, I got lost among all those repeated left hand turns.

Now,

As we have been made aware, the ISP has rescinded all the instructors "Approved" notices, (you did get yours didn't you?) and has served us notice that it's because they are not sure all IL PDs have notified their officers that we will soon have CC and how to deal with us as we exercise our rights.

OK.

I'm not too sure where some LEO would have been hiding for the past year if they really don't know about it, but let me go on the record of saying that IF one truly does not know about it, they need to be retired real quick because they are deaf and blind and have no business behind the wheel of a squad car. Every LEO I have met and who know me are all talking about it, know what the law is and further more know how they are going to deal with us as a gun carrying, but law abiding citizenry.

The only ones I even heard about who are concerned that they will be in more danger are from a certain northeast corner of the state - I'll not say I'm referring to Chicago, but you might figure it out with a map, unless you are the sheriff of Cook County, somebody read it to him already.

Most of those LEOs who felt it would make no difference to them also felt that they might even see a reduction in some crimes since even criminals will now know that there a chance that anybody they might attack may be armed and prepared to defend themselves. It's going to be an interesting year here folks.
 
It's going to be an interesting year here folks.

Exactly. And I agree with your assessment and hope to see the instructors getting their CC licenses soon. It would have to be tough to be teaching classes on getting people certified and knowing you don't/can't actually carry and maybe won't be able to until your students get licensed at the same time.

As a former Martial Arts teacher who was licensed by my style to teach it would have been really weird to be testing someone for a certificate/license and not have the license or certification myself while I was teaching.

Very weird...good luck to all Illinois Instructors in getting their CC soon.

VooDoo
 
Richard Pearson's ISRA Alert from last Friday:

Recently I have received calls and emails from members regarding the progress on concealed carry by the Illinois State Police (ISP). Instructors who were the first to apply for their Concealed Carry Licenses (CCL) visited the ISP website to check on their status found the their status had gone from approved to "Pending Review". The question was what does that mean?

As the ISP puts it, they are doing some housekeeping. What that means is they are testing their systems. For example:

1. The LEADS system needs to be tested so if you are stopped by a police officer and he or she calls in, you are correctly identified as carrying legally.

2. The ISP is testing their printer and software which prints the CCL cards to be sure it is working properly.

3. The ISP has many new employees doing background checks and other tasks and they are being reviewed to be sure they are doing everything correctly.

4. The Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board (ILETSB) has produced a video which being circulated to police departments on how to interact with CCL holders. They are making sure there is enough time for every Police department to see.

The ISP is dealing with many new details and systems. They do not want to make any mistakes and we need to credit them for their efforts. As CCL holders, we certainly need to realize that it is in everyone's best interest to be sure these new systems are working properly. The last thing anyone wants is a CCL holder getting arrested because of some glitch somewhere.

The ISP has 90 days to issue the first licenses. The will be at the end of the first week in March. I'm sure the ISP will be on time. This is all we know at this time.
 
About ten days ago I started this thread celebrating instructors permit apps moving from "Under Review" to "Approved". Then a couple days later we were all told it was a mistake and status reverted back to "under review" again.

Starting at 4:46AM Wed. Emails began to be sent to instructors, congratulating them on the "Approval" of their permit application. When checking the online application instructors found that those still reflected the "under review" status. Calls to the ISP confirmed that the emails were accurate and that the next step is to just allow sufficient time for the permit to be printed and sent to the applicant.

That's where we are right now folks. If you are an instructor who filled on the 18th of Dec. Keep a eye on your email. If you don't see it soon, check your spam box or trash as some have found it there.

Hold on, the games afoot!
 
Thanks for updating those of us watching - I'll be scheduling my CCL classes here next week and I'm really appreciating the "blow by blow" action of those at the head of the class. :D

VooDoo
 
Don't even get me started on the e-mail alert from the ISRA about scoring the B-27 targets.

I haven't seen a retraction on that, but putting an e-mail out that says hits must be in the scoring area - meaning the 7 ring or in, just caused massive amounts of confusion.

Unless the ISP has spelled it out in their rules - the ISRA shouldn't be trying to clarify or otherwise define anything.

Let the ISP say what their rules mean.
 
Yeah no kidding Count.

That e-mail yesterday.. just grimaced and said "whatever".

I've ready the ISP rules, and it says "scoring area".. not "7 ring", "scoring ring", etc.
 
That is a pretty big target. If you can't get 21 to hit inside the outer ring, something is really wrong.
 
Ya but that's not the issue.

The law simply says

(c) An applicant for a new license shall provide proof of
certification by a certified instructor that the applicant
passed a live fire exercise with a concealable firearm
consisting of:

(1) a minimum of 30 rounds; and

(2) 10 rounds from a distance of 5 yards;
10 rounds from a distance of 7 yards; and
10 rounds from a distance of 10 yards at a B-27 silhouette target approved by the Department.


A certificate of completion for an applicant's firearm training course shall not be issued to a student who:

during the range firing portion of testing fails to hit the target with 70% of the rounds fired.


The law doesn't say anything about scoring. The issue is that the ISP is supposed to create the rules, and not the ISRA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top