Received in the mail today a short letter from the Illinois a State Police. It said that an objection to my CCL gas been lodged against me from a law enforcement agency. There will be a review and I will be notified in 30 days. I am bewildered...I gave had NO contact with ANY law enforcement. Any stories anyone?
What can thus mean? A mistake? Thanks...

Thank you for the info/link

This has been a nightmare for some of our folks...We know of some cases of mistaken identity...We know of some cases where the denied thought previous legal issues had been take care of...We are working through JCAR and ISP to try to get some sort of process between the unexplained board denial and having to lawyer up and go to court just to find the reason for your denial...
There is a lot of information over on IllinoisCarry about what is going on and what to do.  It is a mess...This part of the problem is with the Board of Review...they are separate from ISP.  They haven't posted their rules and I don't think they even have any...they are doing very bad things...It is a slow ship to turn but, we are working at it daily.

Mike
IllinoisCarry.com

The follow-on legislation SB0114 reclassified the Review Board as part of the ISP in order for the review board to be recognized by the FBI for the purpose of background checks, IIRC.

"(430 ILCS 66/20)
Sec. 20. Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board.
(a) There is hereby created within the Department of State
Police a Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board to consider any
objection to an applicant's eligibility to obtain a license
under this Act submitted by a law enforcement agency or the
Department under Section 15 of this Act."

That may not help much, but it may give some leverage as to the ISP's responsibilities.

One thing that I have noticed a lot from dealing with FOIDs in record-keeping is that many FOIDs and D/L's have the middle name spelled out fully, whereas others are just a middle-initial. Might this be a method the ISP uses to properly identify people who have similar names? Or would that make too much sense for IL gov't...

The law as enacted (which is the only thing that actually matters) any LEA can object to any applicant based on almost nothing. The standard is so low as to be almost meaningless. The law allows the review board to make up its own rules and criteria for making its decisions.

Illinois law on judicial review of administrative decisions makes it very hard for a court to overturn an administrative decision as long as it follows its own rules.



The law basically says that if the board decides you are a danger, you a danger and the court can't review that.

It is not quite as simple as that, but it is not far off.

I have said before, and I continue to believe, that there will not be much relief from board denials thru the judicial review process.

I think the criteria the board uses to make the decisions will have to be attacked in some way to get the criteria changed. The basic judicial review process is mostly a waste of time for any individual case, but valuable in itself as an insight into what is going on.

Whether the criteria is constitutional is not part of this review. That would need to be a separate action.

Any identifier would be helpful...I'm going to suggest adding last 3 or 4 digits of social security to the application...I don't know if there are unknown problems with that yet.

We are coming at the board of review through JCAR right now...if we can't get this thing fixed that way, we will have to go back to legislature.  Right now, I think we stand a good chance of getting some of the problems worked out...it is slow and in the mean time, our hearts go out to those that are being caught in the bureaucracy unjustly.

The board was appointed by Quinn, correct?

Yes...and then there is that!!!  
For supposedly "intelligent" people, they are trying to do some bone headed things...I hope it comes back to bite them in the A$$!!!

Therein lies the problem.  

Welcome to my world, if in Cook county, our beloved Sheriff Dart is most likely behind it.
Had to pay $338, not to mention $36 for parking today to file an appeal.
I received the generic threat to myself and every man, woman, child and small mammal letter.
Sort of funny that I renewed both my UT amd FL permits a year ago with absolutely no problems.

If you don't mind me asking, was this court-costs, attorney-fees, etc?

This isn't the whole story. The court has to presume that the ruling, at face-value, is correct, but it does not mean that the court can't find that the ruling was incorrect upon review. Dart is setting himself and the state of IL up for some serious denial-of-civil-rights trouble if the political-winds happen to change.

From HB0183

Section 87. Administrative and judicial review.

(a) Whenever an application for a concealed carry license is denied, whenever the Department fails to act on an application within 90 days of its receipt, or whenever a license is revoked or suspended as provided in this Act, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Director for a hearing upon the denial, revocation, suspension, or failure to act on the application, unless the denial was made by the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, in which case the aggrieved party may petition the circuit court in writing in the county of his or her residence for a hearing upon the denial.

(b) All final administrative decisions of the Department or the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board under this Act shall be subject to judicial review under the provisions of the Administrative Review Law. The term "administrative decision" is defined as in Section 3-101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

And from SB0114:

(430 ILCS 66/20)

(d) The Board shall adopt rules for the review of objections and the conduct of hearings. The Board shall maintain a record of its decisions and all materials considered in making its decisions. All Board decisions and voting records shall be kept confidential and all materials considered by the Board shall be exempt from inspection except upon order of a court.

(e) In considering an objection of a law enforcement agency or the Department, the Board shall review the materials received with the objection from the law enforcement agency or the Department. By a vote of at least 4 commissioners, the Board may request additional information from the law enforcement agency, Department, or the applicant, or the testimony of the law enforcement agency, Department, or the applicant. The Board may require that the applicant submit electronic fingerprints to the Department for an updated background check where the Board determines it lacks sufficient information to determine eligibility. The Board may only consider information submitted by the Department, a law enforcement agency, or the applicant. The Board shall review each objection and determine by a majority of commissioners whether an applicant is eligible for a license.

(g) If the Board determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant poses a danger to himself or herself or others, or is a threat to public safety, then the Board shall affirm the objection of the law enforcement agency or the Department and shall notify the Department that the applicant is ineligible for a license. If the Board does not determine by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant poses a danger to himself or herself or others, or is a threat to public safety, then the Board shall notify the Department that the applicant is eligible for a license.


Also, the Governor does appoint the board, but no more than 4 can be from the same political party. And the IL Senate must approve and consent to the appointments.

I am not sure what your point is. A court can look at it, but it is a long way from overturning a decision the law requires them to consider as being decided correctly unless shown otherwise. That is a much tougher nut to crack than you seem to think.

It is like some of the things being claimed by some people about what the law "really" means where the actual language is unfavorable to us. It is very tough to get a judge to agree with an interpretation of the law that is at odds with what the law actually says in black and white. It is not impossible, and on rare occasions it has happened, but it is not an easy thing to accomplish.

In any case, we have no way to know what the board is seeing and what they are basing their decisions on. It is entirely possible that the decisions are not that far off, and maybe they are dead on. Just because more or less anonymous people on the Internet are screaming foul does not mean there is actually a foul. I will wait until I see a transcript of someone who has been denied before I make a determination on whether the decision of the board in that case was the correct one or not.

I am not so sure the courts would not have some influence over the FCCL.  It may take a while, but at some point I believe that the courts will have the same degree of influence concerning the FCCL as they do the FOID.

Example:  A person who took one of my classes earlier this year offered his personal experience when I was covering the FOID statute.  He is a convicted felon who sought relief from the court and got it.  He holds a valid FOID card to this day.

Time will tell.  The Illinois Concealed Carry Act is new to us and at some point I believe the courts will be able to order the State of Illinois to grant relief under certain circumstances.

the FOID law provides for a procedure to receive such relief. see 430 ILCS 65/10.

it is not something the courts made up out of thin air.

Ok....I have read the above but again...I have had NO contact with ANY law enforcement. I live in Chicago, am 51 years, have not even had a traffic ticket in 20 or more years shir 30 years! I don't get it....thanks all

perhaps the review board will take a look and not deny you. while I have not seen any numbers real recently it appears they are only denying less than half of those referred there.

I know this is easier said than done, but at this time, all you can do is wait and see if the CCLRB affirms or denies the objection.

Ok...you are right. I'll wait and let everyone know...

This is going to have to be hashed out by the courts, but I think it is pretty clear that eventually this is not going to be the standard of review.

Remember we are talking about a binding US Court of Appeals decision regarding a constitutional right.  As this would be applied there is a

clear deprivation of right with ZERO due process (the right to present contrary evidence).  Eventually if the IL AG's office argues, and the circuit courts

decide, that this is the standard of review then ISRA or the NRA is going to have to get their appellate lawyer involved to take this up the chain.

Regardless there is no way that taking away a court determined constitutional right with no ability to present evidence or contrary argument can

be upheld.  That is simply not consistent with even the most lax understanding of the protection of constitutional rights.


Further point, is that the appellate court decisions on this place an "against the manifest weight of the evidence" standard of review on agency

decisions.  That is a far cry from saying the courts can't or won't overturn the agency decision.  Example would be Monsanto Co. vs. IL Pollution

Control Board - 350 NE2nd 289  "Findings of an administrative agency are deemed to be prima facie correct and on review the court cannot disturb

such findings unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence; a reviewing court however will not hesitate to grant relief when the record

does not disclose evidentiary support for the agency's determination, or where the decision was capricious or arbitrary."


The end result may be that the CCL statute is unconstitutional and could get thrown out because of the oversight in failing to allow an adequate

mechanism to challenge the board's evidence.  Or the court may simply find that the CCL act requires a de novo review of the board's findings in

which case the section you cited will simply be irrelevant to CCL board review challenges before the Circuit Courts.


[ETA:  see also Hankenson v. Board of Educ. 134 NE2d 356 -  If necessary to keep administrative agency within jurisdictional and judicial bounds,

or to guard the rights of parties guaranteed by the Constitution or statutes, court must re-examine facts and law and set aside an order of an

administrative agency when the record shows it to be without substantial foundation]

There is not a lot of chance that a court doing a review of an administrative decision is going to declare any part of the FCCA as unconstitutional, including the review process.

Its not impossible that it could happen, but it is not especially likely.

I don't think that any court is going to say that the standard for granting a carry license has to be the same as the standard for purchasing and/or possession of a handgun. Those of you hanging your hats on the courts saying that the two standards have to be the same are probably going to be disappointed.

ultimately, it is possible that one could bring an action claiming the standard of review the board is using does not meet the requirements of the 2A, but I suspect that is not going to be something a judge is going to be willing to look at as part of a review of an administrative decision.



perhaps. I do not think that such a case can be made as part of a court review of an administrative decision.

Obviously, there are flaws in the Review Board's processes.  We are working with ISP and JCAR to get the much needed avenue added for the denied folks to have a more direct process for getting information and addressing their objections....
This may necessitate some judicial intervention to get the clock stopped  on the limited appeal times and bring urgency to this need.

Well as an attorney I say otherwise.  What other venue do you propose for asserting denial of a right by the board
if not in the appeal to the Circuit Court?

This is really a pretty straightforward procedural due process issue.  State decision makers are absolutely required
to provide procedural fairness, such as:

-Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
-The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
-The right to know opposing evidence.
-The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
-A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
-Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
-Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

Most of these procedural due process rights are simply not found at all in the board review process.  Therefore it is
a pretty straightforward proposition that either the Circuit Court has to provide a real review of the decision (as opposed
to the normal review process cited by you as set forth in the Administrative Review statute), or it has
to find the statute unconstitutional.  As with most things that go through the court system nothing is easy, but to me
this one appears to be close to a slam dunk that one of those two must happen.  

I think there is a good chance you can make an argument at some point that the process is unconstitutional, either as a procedural thing or because it violates the 2A.

whether you can get the judge at the review level to decide that is something else.

even if the judge says the process has problems, that does not mean that the review board gets tossed, nor does it mean the criteria by which they are deciding things gets tossed.

suppose you argue the review board is operating in an unfair way, and the judge agrees. where does that get you? it does not get you a license just yet. maybe the judge says he will decide if the criteria the board is using is appropriate. there is no guarantee the judge makes a more favorable decision. I just don't see the review board being dumb enough to deny licenses in a way that is readily challenged.

The main problem is that the review board (as far as we can tell) hasn't been handed a set of rules to operate under.  They may  be writing them as they go and doing a terrible job of it.  I am amazed at the incompetence of the process they have chosen.  There were privacy protections put in the law so the information would remain private but no one every considered that the board would not share the reasons for denial with the applicant!  

In due time, those rules will be revamped and it will be a new ball game.  (this may also require a legislative fix too) In the mean time, some innocent folks are getting crushed under their poorly run rulings.  We are certain there have been some denials on mistaken identity...There is no excuse for that!

We are working with ISP and JCAR to define their rules and get them approved by JCAR.  

As far as the courts undoing the board's decision...that part is spelled out in the law...it is the current process...there just needs to be a process in between the denial and having to lawyer up just to find out why you were denied.

Court/filing costs, my attorney is doing it for free so far as it is new to him and all others involved.

Do you have a court date?  What County?

Good question.  It would be worth the drive to watch the proceedings.

I have a question. Say the review board uses this;

If the Board determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant poses a danger to himself or herself or others, or is a threat to public safety, then the Board shall affirm the objection of the law enforcement agency or the Department and shall notify the Department that the applicant is ineligible for a license.

Because someone, LEO, whatever, objected. And the board denied you a CCL, because of that reasoning.
What's to stop the ISP from suspending your FOID card. Then saying now get rid of all of your guns?
Because of the above objection, and denial?

I think you would be pretty disappointed. My guess is the first appearance will be to pick up whatever the review board sent them and get a future date for the judge to actually consider the case. Might not even actually come before a judge. some places this kind of thing is handled mostly by the clerk.

If he paid $36 to park it was Cook.